On Sun Jul 24, 2016 at 10:18:19AM +0200, Prager-IT e.U. wrote:
With membership fee based on number of /24 then members may decide to also get one vote per /24. Would they vote for this scheme (do they get their N*/24 votes before or after this vote...)
I don't understand what you are trying to say
I'm saying that if fees are proportional to resource then the members with more resource (/24's or whatever the measure) may wish to have a quantity of votes proportional to the resource they pay for
each entity has one vote even if they have multiple LIR accounts under the same entity.
In the current scheme, if you change the scheme that may change too
We are not shifting any costs, we are just asking each member to pay their fair share for the amount of resources they are using
Yes it is, it is shifting the cost to larger members, hugely
8,23 Euros per year per 256 IPv4 addresses is hardly a business case breaking amount of money.
I referred to the current scheme which is also hardly a business case breaking amount of money. So cost is not a good reason to change it especially when changing it will drive the sort of behaviour that RIPE are trying to prevent
These changes will also bring a very real cost to super large LIRs that hold a ton of resources and may finally spark some meaningful IPv6 adoption.
It may but the access networks with large amounts of IPv4 are adopting IPv6 already, it takes a long time and it's only been started in the last few years but it's happening in large chunks, like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoqGvZr4Uto The hard bit is content hosters who mostly have enough space and don't have enough IPv4 that charging more for it will be a large incentive brandon