[members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016, at 14:41, Daniel Pearson wrote:

> Business is not fair, it is a competitive market place. Hell, life isn't 

That doesn't stop plenty of people to try bringing in some fairness in
the life and/or business scene. Regarding their success, there's a whole
other discussion, and here it's not the place for it.

> RIPE cannot and will not do this, let me explain why. According to RIPE, 
> and most RIR's, their stance is that you do not "own" the IP addresses 
> that are given to you, and that they can technically take them back at 

... and then you have the transfer market, where people got IP addresses
for free some years ago and now they sell them for profit. This the
starting point of all this. Some LIRs do agree and support the "one does
NOT own IPs" stance, other don't or no longer do. Generally those that
need IP space tend to agree, those that have excess not. Of course there
are exceptions....

The reason for which RIPE NCC does not want to instate a charging scheme
strictly proportional/dependent on the IPv4 count it's its
non-commercial status.

If a progressive charging scheme is to be instated (as it has been the
case for 20 years), it must have a limited number of steps in order to
have any hope of being accepted.

-- 
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN