You're saying strange things. Did I understand correctly? The problem with taxes is not that some of the members will pay more and some less, but that the budget of the NCC will become a surplus, and we won't be able to spend that money, is that why the fees will rise in the future? Ok! Who will it grow up for? For large resource holders? Wonderful! Let them take out unnecessary IPv4! This IPv4 will be taken by those who need them and who are willing to pay a reasonable fee, not the current speculative price! Serbulov Dmitry.
Matthias Brumm wrote on 31/05/2025 10:35:
This is not a new argument. Please study the discussions and it was said time and time again, that this would conflict the dutch tax law.
The issue is not that it conflicts with dutch tax law, but that if the RIPE NCC were seen to provide pro-rata services, e.g. pay-per-ipv4 address, then any surplus would be taxed and the Clearing House arrangement (RIPE-625) would likely be voided.
So, anyone proposing a pay-per-ip model needs to accept that this model will bring the RIPE NCC into scope for taxation, i.e. higher overall fees, and while it would be easy to abandon the current Clearing House arrangement, it would be extremely difficult to attempt to regain it, if at any stage in the future, the RIPE NCC wanted to revert back.
Nick ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/members-discuss.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/