[members-discuss] Questions about the published Draft Agenda and Supporting Documents

In my opinion, the discussion becomes a little bit off-topic. 

The discussion about fairness of holding many IPs or even a few and how unused address space can be returned
is rather object of policies.

The task of the charging scheme is to cover the expenses of the RIPE NCC for "doing it's Job". 

Some of the expenses are completely independant from the allocated ressources, 
some depend on number, dynamic and complexitivity of service requests (tickets) 
and at least some consume infrastructure ressources dependant of the kind of usage of Address Space.

Maintaining allocations for long time generates far less costs than transfers. 

I assume that Assignements won't consume considerable more Database ressources, but related route-Objects
(don't remember the good idea of Provider aggregatet routes in todays world with distributed 
scrubbing services against DDoS attacks) might affect far more services than only the RIPE Database. 


My Conclusion: The new scheme should representate the costs caused by the members 
(big members cause absolutely  more costs but in relation much less costs) , 
but should even be easy to handle at the same time.


Regards,

    Andreas Schmieja