[members-discuss] [Ticket#2012071501000382] A summary for Proposal for New RIPENCC Charging Scheme Model

Dear Vladislav,

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):

Read and agree with all point of Report - different things. It is very useful
and TF made a hudge work. I sure that many concepts from this report will be
in next charging scheme. 
 
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.

IPs not "good". Why not sell IPs as 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".

If RIPE will sale IPs as services - may be we will have the same problem. So
question of moving from "non profit" to "corporate" should be very good
calculated. While it will be very difficult to switch back from "corporate" to
"non profit".

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.

When I wrote about IP-adresses - I wrote about PI too (not only PA).
For ASN we can charge some small money too. 
Reverse DNS are not limited and depends from IPs. So we don't need to charge
for this service additionaly.
 
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.

I read. Most of ideas I find very useful. You made a huge work and I hope that
togeather we can find solution. 

Current pricing not stimulate companies which have too many IP resources
return they back. So for now some LIRs can have /8 and pay only in 2 times
more than your LIR which uses only half of allocated space. 

The same problem with PI resources. End users pay for /24 the same money as
for /23, /22 etc. And this is a result of current charging scheme. 

When each IP will cost some money - companies which don't need this IPs will
transfer it to companies which need IP addresses (I hope..). 

 -- 
Alexey Ivanov
General Director
LeaderTelecom Ltd.
 

15.07.2012 16:17 - написал(а):
   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/20120715/5a90b607/attachment.html>