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] 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 ]
Thomas Mangin
thomas.mangin at exa-networks.co.uk
Tue Jul 24 20:22:51 CEST 2012
> 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. Could RIPE look change its jurisdiction ? was it ever considered ? Large organisation (and RIPE could be seen in that way) tend to move to the country providing them the best operational advantages, including taxes. Thomas
- 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 ]