[address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)

Hi Gert

On Fri, 2019-02-08 at 16:34 +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 04:28:42PM +0100, Corin Langosch wrote:
> > further why this should be a problem? Usage based billing is very
> > much
> 
> "usage based" is "you pay for the amount of work and other costs you
> create at the NCC", which is about what we have now.
> 
What's the difference between receiving an allocation from RIPE (=
renting IPs from RIPE) and getting an allocation of storage space from
some provider (= renting storage space)?

> What you are describing is "sale of goods" - and that is a problem
> because it would make the addresses the NCC has in stock a taxable
> asset.

10.2 of ripe-673 states that allocations are not granting any
ownership, thus RIPE is not selling anything but only granting usage.
Just like a hosting provider can lend storage space. Imo IPs are
already a taxable asset (as are the disks of the hosting provider) just
because of the IP market created by RIPE. So closing the IP market and
replacing it with a financial model which more or less forces companies
to return unused (or otherwise wasted) IPs would be the way to go.

Corin