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] A summary for Proposal for New RIPENCC Charging Scheme Model
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012071401000759] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPENCC Charging Scheme Model
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
poty at iiat.ru
poty at iiat.ru
Sun Jul 15 13:51:44 CEST 2012
Hello all, I think the members forgot several things about RIPE NCC, which has been pointed out in the Charging Scheme Task Force Report (it seems nobody read it): 1. IP addresses is not goods. Nobody has transfered the rights to sell IPs to any RIR and nobody is able to do this. 2. From the point 1-> RIPE NCC earn money only for services. 3. Taxation of services could be rather difficult, as soon as the expenses is not really easily confirmed. In case of reselling (IPs) RIPE NCC will have to pay taxes for the "goods" (IPs) which the RIR "owns". 4. IPs are for the Internet, not for the companies. Nobody prevents any company to develop to any size (in IPs count), so thee is not any monopoly on them. 5. There are many other resources (ASN, PI, reverse DNS...) which RIRs give. It's not possible to name one of them as main, the others - as not important. 6. RIPE NCC exist many years. There are many historical principles of distribution of IPs. Some of them are "legacy space", "minimal size", "2-year planning"... Many honest companies will be trapped with such big changes in the policy (for example, when our LIR got our first block the "minimal size" was /19, we use about 50% in assignments from the block now). Most tough question is the legacy space which is very unstructured and companies used the blocks not paying anything for them. So the counting of RIPE NCC IPs is not very accurate. There are several other reasons covered in the abovementioned report. I'm surprised that in spite of Leader Telecom representative took part in the TF, in the list there are thoughts like the company speaker has not read the document. Regards, Vladidlav Potapov ru.iiat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20120715/486ef378/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012071401000759] A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPENCC Charging Scheme Model
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]