[members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nigel Titley
nigel at titley.com
Fri Jul 13 21:40:19 CEST 2012
On 10/07/2012 11:06, Andrea Cocito wrote: > On Jul 9, 2012, at 3:23 PM, Nigel Titley wrote: >> ..... The purpose of >> publishing this proposal now is to encourage RIPE NCC members to look at >> the proposed new model and to give their feedback. > Hello, > > My feedback is: the proposal raises the cost for small LIR, reduces it the for extra large ones, does not simplify anything and does not promote resource conservation. > > The "limited resource" to conserve nowadays is IPv4 address space: make the fee EUR 0.1 per allocated IPv4 address, that would be fair and simple. > Andrea, in the previous round of discussions we said why we can't use an "n euros per address model". To re-iterate the argument, if we are seen to be "selling" IP addresses by the Dutch tax authorities then we lose our special tax status. This will immediately cause a rise in the cost of running the RIPE as we will be liable for Dutch corporation tax. Up until now the membership hasn't wanted this. Nigel
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]