<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/></head><body style="font-family:Geneva,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">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): <o:p></o:p> 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. <o:p> </o:p> 1. IP addresses is not goods. Nobody has transfered the rights to sell IPs to any RIR and nobody is able to do this. <o:p></o:p>2. From the point 1-> RIPE NCC earn money only for services.<o:p></o:p> 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". <o:p></o:p> 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. <o:p></o:p> 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. <o:p> </o:p> 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..). <div> -- Alexey Ivanov General Director LeaderTelecom Ltd. </div> <div> </div> 15.07.2012 16:17 - написал(а): <div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt" type="cite"> <div class="WordSection1"> <div> Hello all,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 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):<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 1. IP addresses is not goods. Nobody has transfered the rights to sell IPs to any RIR and nobody is able to do this.<o:p></o:p> 2. From the point 1-> RIPE NCC earn money only for services.<o:p></o:p> 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".<o:p></o:p> 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.<o:p></o:p> 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.<o:p></o:p> 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.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 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.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Regards,<o:p></o:p> Vladidlav Potapov<o:p></o:p> ru.iiat<o:p></o:p></div> </div> </div> </body></html>