[members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016, at 21:50, Tim Armstrong wrote:

> If you want to free up more IPv4 space for "the greater good" perhaps try
> looking at ways to reclaim space from the real bad guys, people who abused
> the loopholes in the last /8 policy to claim way more than a single /22.
> Which frankly should be treated with much more animosity than the legacy
> resource holders who actually brought the internet to the RIPE area before

This exactly the reason which pushes me to support the differentiated
fees model.
"greater good" is very relative. 
Who is an old player to explain a new one that "a /22 is enough for you,
if you want more of them you are a [choose your favourite insult]".
Who is an old player to explain me "all you have to do is deploy IPv6"
and at the same time say "we need to keep IPv4 for new players 5-10
years in the future" ?

Probably a competitor that can differentiate on the "ipv6-resistant"
market by their ability to provide "IPv4 as needed". Contrary to a new
one that is supposed to serve customers from behind CGN (and loose lots
of contracts because of that).