<HTML><HEAD><META content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type"></HEAD><BODY style="font-family: Geneva;"><div style="font-family: Geneva;"><blockquote type="cite"> Designing a system that not only continues to make the vast majority of LIRs pay far more per IP address than the big LIRs do, but on top of that also makes your fee subject to some sort of "insider" knowledge? As an employee of a smaller LIR I cannot see how this makes this new charge scheme worth having over the current one. As for the simplicity of this approach, simply charging everyone the same amount or using a proportional system like APNIC seems far simpler and more transparent from my point of view, and doesn't add the incalculable factor of self-assessment changes to the mix of the thing. </blockquote> Exactly my feelings as well. I see only three options: Option 1: Charge by amount of resources. Larger LIRs (in 99.9% of the cases the larger telco's) pay more than smaller LIRs. Some people claim this is unfair to the large ones, as support-load is not proportional to LIR size. Option 2 to overcome Option 1-problem: Charge by amount of tickets each year. Those that have resources, but require no RIPE support, pay less that those that cost much support Option 3: Everybody pays the same The option that everyone is allowed to choose how much they pay can't be taken seriously! If I wouls be a large LIR, and I am fair and choose the "Large" amount, but my direct competitor only pays the "Small" fee, even if he is about the same size as me, is unfair competition, so I as well would choose the "Small" fee. Frank</div></BODY></HTML>