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/[email protected]/
[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 ]
Sascha Luck
lists-ripe at c4inet.net
Sat Jul 14 16:43:37 CEST 2012
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 01:03:22AM +0100, Rob Evans wrote: >Are you sure the tax is only on profits? Usually, corporation tax is charged on retained profits, but IANAAccountant. > The RIPE NCC allocates Internet number resources to its members > as needed ("need" being based on community-derived policy). We > pay membership fees to allow this to happen. One of those > resources is running low, but isn't it a short-term view to base > membership fees on that one resource? Certainly is. I do wonder what the plan for the inevitable ipv6-only members is? Will membership for those be free? What I do not like about this new charging scheme is, inter alia, that it is apparently intended to be a barrier to new members. Specifically, together with the (IMO completely unjustifiable) "administration fee", a new member will have an upfront cost of ~EUR4000 before the first prefix is allocated. That is not a marginal cost for most start-up companies. rgds, Sascha Luck
- 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 ]