This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/members-discuss@ripe.net/
[members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012071301002615] 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 ]
Andrea Cocito
andrea.cocito at ifom.eu
Sat Jul 14 14:32:27 CEST 2012
On Jul 13, 2012, at 9:40 PM, Nigel Titley wrote: > 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. I am sorry I was not here in the previous discussions. I understand your point, but I personally see RIPE and its role as something that goes beyond a "company", as a matter of fact RIPE is something whose policies go far beyond the Dutch laws … and even though I do not have to propose a "technical" solution I am still convinced that the technicalities of the dutch tax system should not impact something so important (I understand that this is easy to state as a principle, but hard to apply as a matter of fact). The principle in my mind is quite simple: IPv4 is a limited resource, everyone would love to have a /8 allocated tomorrow morning, but that is simply not possible. With all limited (shared) resources in the world the only way to limit their misuse is a magic and hated word: taxes. This is what happens to use of water, to pollution, to a lot of other things: the more you use/pollute/occupy the more taxes you pay. Now I understand that it is probably impossible for legal reasons to put it in the form "pay 0.1 euro per IP", but still I think it would make sense to push toward a "the more you use the more you pay" model, and not toward "everyone pays the same" scheme. I see that this proposal goes toward the "everyone pays the same" schema. My opinion is that RIPE should go in the opposite direction. Since I represent a "medium" LIR (we have about 16K addresses allocated) the two models do not change much on our side. By the way I can say that the RIPE fee is a marginal cost in our budget (you bet a few gigabits of transit on Tier1 networks costs a couple of orders of magnitude more). So there is no personal/institutional bias on this. I would say that a model like "up to a /21 total allocation you are small and pay 1; up to a /18 you are medium and pay 8; up to a /15 you are large and pay 64; up to /12 you are fat and pay 512…" would be a fair approach, technically not different from the preexisting one and pushing toward resource saving and evolution (knock knock… time to shift to IPv6??? or want to pay 500k euros??). Really, I suppose these are known and already discussed arguments, I apologize if being the last coming here I reiterate them… but still, that's what my opinion is. Regards, A.
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012071301002615] 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 ]