<html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-15" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> Hello from ch.ksz (small), we would oppose any of the current models, because we consider them unfair. To be fair - in our opinion - a billing scheme should fulfil the following requirements: - continuous: No steep jumps. A LIR having allocation equivalent to /18 should pay a bit more than a LIR having a /17. - linear: An IP address should have a price. An LIR with a /12 allocation uses 256 times the resources of an LIR with a /20. This should be reflected in the fee. - cover the costs: I think the effort of RIPE is closely related to the number of allocation requests. So each allocation should have a (on time) fee. But this might prove impractical due to increased billing effort. To consider: - Most LIRs (75%) are small or extra-small in the current billing scheme, so most members pay less than EUR 1800 now. - Major players pay EUR 5500 at most, which will be less than "peanuts" for them. So a first draft of a fair scheme - in our opinion - could look like this: Every LIR pays EUR 500 base fee, for each IP you will be charged EUR 0.002. It's assumed that RIPE's effort is roughly correlating with the logarithmic size of the allocation. So let's set the costs at EUR 400 for each step after /22 (EUR 400 for /21, EUR 800 for /20, ...). This will lead to this billing scheme: /22 EUR 502 /21 EUR 904 /20 EUR 1308 /19 EUR 1716 /18 EUR 2132 /17 EUR 2565 /16 EUR 3031 /15 EUR 3562 /14 EUR 4224 /13 EUR 5148 /12 EUR 6597 /11 EUR 9094 /10 EUR 13688 /9 EUR 22477 /8 EUR 39654 What to YOU about this idea? Best regards, wiwi (Christian Wittenhorst) </body> </html>