Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)
Hi, On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 04:28:42PM +0100, Corin Langosch wrote:
further why this should be a problem? Usage based billing is very much
"usage based" is "you pay for the amount of work and other costs you create at the NCC", which is about what we have now. What you are describing is "sale of goods" - and that is a problem because it would make the addresses the NCC has in stock a taxable asset. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
On 8 Feb 2019, at 15:34, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
"usage based" is "you pay for the amount of work and other costs you create at the NCC", which is about what we have now.
I think we need a new thread or two. What’s now being discussed is far removed from 2019-02.
Hi Gert On Fri, 2019-02-08 at 16:34 +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 04:28:42PM +0100, Corin Langosch wrote:
further why this should be a problem? Usage based billing is very much
"usage based" is "you pay for the amount of work and other costs you create at the NCC", which is about what we have now.
What's the difference between receiving an allocation from RIPE (= renting IPs from RIPE) and getting an allocation of storage space from some provider (= renting storage space)?
What you are describing is "sale of goods" - and that is a problem because it would make the addresses the NCC has in stock a taxable asset.
10.2 of ripe-673 states that allocations are not granting any ownership, thus RIPE is not selling anything but only granting usage. Just like a hosting provider can lend storage space. Imo IPs are already a taxable asset (as are the disks of the hosting provider) just because of the IP market created by RIPE. So closing the IP market and replacing it with a financial model which more or less forces companies to return unused (or otherwise wasted) IPs would be the way to go. Corin
On 2/8/19 5:34 PM, Corin Langosch wrote:
What's the difference between receiving an allocation from RIPE (= renting IPs from RIPE) and getting an allocation of storage space from some provider (= renting storage space)?
The main difference is in responsibility of tax payment. Once RIPE will "sell services" with payment diferenciation based od ammount of assets held by each member, taxation will be based od laws valid in one specific country based on HQ location. This is my simplification (I'm not a lawyer), but this was discussed in deep in past - and all relevant mailing-list archives are public.... so if you're interested, you can deep dive into these past discussions - there's no reason to raise them again... I don't see reason to repeat such discussion.
What you are describing is "sale of goods" - and that is a problem because it would make the addresses the NCC has in stock a taxable asset.
10.2 of ripe-673 states that allocations are not granting any ownership, thus RIPE is not selling anything but only granting usage. Just like a hosting provider can lend storage space. Imo IPs are already a taxable asset (as are the disks of the hosting provider) just because of the IP market created by RIPE. So closing the IP market and replacing it with a financial model which more or less forces companies to return unused (or otherwise wasted) IPs would be the way to go.
IP market is not created *only* by RIPE. There're other RIRs, with their own policies.. and also legacy resource holders having their allocations before RIRs scheme were introduced. And of course, legacy resource holders (holding "class A / class B") ranges can sell their assets independently on some RIR policy... this market is more complicated. And also current RIPE policies doesn't break ability to earn more than one allocation (currently limited to /22) to single real entity (represented by multiple legal persons). It's happening already in large scale. In this perspective, limiting new allocations only to /24 (as proposed by 2019-02) introduces additional complication to these "speculative" members violating current policy spirit... simply by making their approach harder to implement. - Daniel
participants (4)
-
Corin Langosch -
Daniel Suchy -
Gert Doering -
Jim Reid