Renting addresses is at least as old as dialup - so quite old - you could get static addresses in the early 1990s and had to pay some extra monthly. Renting addresses preceded the "scarcity phase" by at least a generous 30 years. Renting/leasing larger blocks
is thus an evolution, not something new. In the past RIPE has had policies to be fairly hands off.
FWIW, a "membership association" should not tell others how they use their assigned addresses nor meddle in other people's business models. I don't think that is their core competency, either.
So, what is their core competency? It is worth to remember that the reason this whole discussion takes place is because there is one organization in Europe who has the magic bit enabled to [in the past] assign IPv4 addresses onwards to others. Now that
the addresses are gone, and everyone seems to tacitly understand there won't be a similar issue with IPv6 addressing, it needs to figure out where to go from there.
So, here we are.
From: Sander Klein via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2026 12:46
To: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net>
Subject: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Proposals Announced
If the rental and selling of IP Space should not be taken into account, then it should not be allowed in the first place.
Because we are able to rent out or sell them, they have a value thus making the flat ripe fees 'feel' unfair
From: Simon Lockhart <simon@slimey.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2026 10:24
To: sdy@a-n-t.ru <sdy@a-n-t.ru>
Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net>
Subject: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Proposals Announced