[members-discuss] is the self-assessment model really a good idea?

On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 14:12 +0100, Jamie Stallwood wrote:
> Maybe we need to prevent LIR's from moving more than one band per
> year, and then maybe permit changes only subject to a majority member
> vote? Reasons for changing would have to be submitted and published in
> the directory. LIR's who may be a bit "economical", shall we say,
> would do damage to their reputation if their vote was rejected.
> whatever we do, the NCC is going to have to act as final arbiter

Quite frankly, that sounds like a bureaucratic mess to me, I can't
see this as a simplification compared to the current fee system.

> But first of course we have to agree that banding is acceptable before
> we can discuss the mechanisms, and as you've seen, the familiar
> arguments are back out. The 3(or 4? 5?)-band system broken by
> allocation size alone, will hopefully win that argument.
> 
Which is more less exactly what we already have today, isn't it?