Dear Tomas,
I do not understand why you want to tax IP address consumption through charging scheme. It should be two different things.
They depend on each other. If we change charging scheme and payment will depend from count of IPs then RIPE can't be non profit organisation. On the other hand, I can't understund why RIPE charges per PI/AS right now? In my opinion this is risky way for non profit organisation too. -- Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom Ltd. 17.07.2012 12:38 - Tomas Hlavacek написал(а): Hello! Well RIPE NCC is managing IP address pool because community submits to the authority RIPE NCC has. And the authority has been voluntarily transferred to the NCC by the community itself and it is executed by the community in fact. But if there is a considerable amount of people that disagree with actions taken by RIPE NCC or RIPE as whole what prevents them to pick a random resource and announce it to DFZ? This is the point where all the analogies with water or air fails. Only governments are crazy enough and have enough power to tax air for breathing and rain water. They can eventually tax IP addresses as well. But RIPE NCC can not do that. I do not understand why you want to tax IP address consumption through charging scheme. It should be two different things. Tomas On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 10:45 PM, LIR <[1]lir@lanto.it> wrote: RIPE is managing a public resource, and usage should be fair and available to all. Who is using a lot of a resources which are rare and exausted should pay accordingly, as he/she is using a public resource and others are denied this usage because of him. So the community should have a gain from this concession. So, very simply, IPs are like water, air: a PUBLIC resource!!!!! -- Tomáš Hlaváček ------------------------------------------------- IGNUM s.r.o. | Vinohradská 190 | Praha 3 | 130 61 [1] mailto:lir@lanto.it