On 06.10.2011 12:34 , Michiel Klaver wrote:
So, you first suggest a basic member fee to avoid billing per IP, but then you move to a scheme where you actually suggest fees per block of IP addresses. Tell me, how is this not billing per ip? It still looks like RIPE will be 'selling' amounts of IP addresses, grouped in blocks. And selling 'products' has to be taxed. As Nigel wrote, the issues is that the RIPE NCC need to have *Members* to keep its status within the tax authorities.
It's the *exact* same model as we have already with IPv4-PI. You pay your category fee and additional per each IPv4-PI resource. With my proposal we would have all the same category and also get billed for each PA resource. Cheers, Sven -- Sven Wiese CEO I.C.S. "Trabia-Network" S.R.L. [t] +373 (22) 844-844 [e] s.wiese@trabia.net <mailto:s.wiese@trabia.net> [i] www.trabia.net <http://www.trabia.net> Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not in the addresses indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such a case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail.