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