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] [RFC] Two board challenges (was: RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Board Reasoning)
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Board Reasoning
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Board Reasoning
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nico Schottelius
nico.schottelius at ungleich.ch
Fri Apr 19 17:53:18 CEST 2019
Hello everyone, I would like to challenge two claims from the board: "The board also does not want a price per IP model because this would have tax implications (the RIPE NCC does not sell IP addresses and the charging scheme should reflect this) and we feel it is not in keeping with the idea of a membership association." In my opinion RIPE is renting out IP addresses. Whether that was not the original spirit, it is the de facto status. Whether renting out resources does have a tax impact should in my opinion by secondary question. Which brings me to the second claim that is even more important: "The reason we suggest to charge IPv4 and IPv6 in the same way follows the same logic - there is no tax designed to move people to IPv6. We did not want to have a political, policy-driven charging scheme because the board believes this is the work of community rather than for the board or membership to decide on." I think as a RIR, RIPE does carry the responsibility to help all of its members. I also understand that early adaptors do have a huge advantage by "owning"/"renting" huge IPv4 blocks for a rather small price. While one can argue against or for keeping this advantage, I think it is also not fair to penalise early adaptors, who have been doing business for long. However, treating IPv6 the same as IPv4 clearly gives the wrong message. I think RIPE carries responsibility to support the growth and support of IPv6. Not only by organising workshops, but also politically. For this reason I propose that in ANY upcoming charging scheme, IPv6 resources will be either for free or at a significant lower price. Two summarise: - challenge 1: Clarify whether RIPE does (not) rent out IP addresses officially and any implications that come with the decisions? - challenge 2: Clarify whether RIPE should or should not take clear political standpoint for IPv6 adaption including actions based in the charging scheme? Best, Nico p.s.: If this is the wrong plattform for discussing those items, please point me to the right place. -- Your Swiss, Open Source and IPv6 Virtual Machine. Now on www.datacenterlight.ch.
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Board Reasoning
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2020 - Board Reasoning
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]