Hello again! First I think that the idea to regulate resource consumption by taxing it or putting price tags on each and every IP address is not a matter of charging scheme but it has to eventually become an address policy first. I do not know, but it seems to me that it is same thing as 2007-01. When it comes to numbers, how many companies do you think would return some resources? And how many resources in total? Who knows... But I know one thing: If you want your "taxes" to be effective, to really make people returning resources, you have to set them really high. It has to be cheaper to purchase large CGNs (~ 100k EUR+), employ more people (~ 100k EUR) and break own network (inestimable) than paying the fee. Such fee (say ~250k EUR) for a mid-size company running MAN or few datacenters might (and should) be a huge problem. And it is of course disadvantage in comparison to other service regions that does not force LIRs to pay such a tax. Would you be happy to pay the tax while I do not need to? I do not think so. Just taking 20M EUR of RIPE NCC expenses and mapping that money to be paid to ISPs using simple formula for fixed amount per resource would not do the job. It would just annoy the largest but you are not going to get any IP addresses back. Therefore this argument is irrelevant. I personally prefer RIPE NCC to be paid for administrative work and support for the community. And because in near future there are going to be no IPv4 addresses to hand out and no IPv4 requests to evaluate I think that a reasonable way would be to have either flat fee or to have few tiers of LIRs. In that case I would base a scoring mechanism on metric of workload generated to RIPE NCC measured either by man-hours spent supporting that LIR last year or on number of allocated resource object regardless of their size or on number of changes in allocated resources last year. It can easily happen that small LIR which has messy addressing plan and sends incomplete or nonsensical requests to RIPE NCC would have to pay more than a multinational ISP. But it is fair: When they consume more services they should pay more as well. Tomas On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 12:33 PM, LeaderTelecom Ltd. <info@leadertelecom.ru>wrote:
Who and why will waste money? Big companies use more IPs and will pay more. This is very logical. They can reduce payments through optimisation infrastructure, moving to IPv6, etc. Small palyers will pay low. Medium will pay the same money.
Why you think that it will be huge disadvantage for European IT industry?
Could you tell not general words, but numbers?
The same I can say the same words about current charging scheme, while small LIRs pay too much.
Please do not try to transform RIPE NCC to a government-like entity equipped with rights to tax and regulate our lives.
The regulation in genereal the same - Dutch law. In case if RIPE will transfrom to Corporate body - it will pay small corporate tax. In general nothing bad will happend. Could you write what do you afraid?
-- Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom
-- S pozdravem, Tomáš Hlaváček ------------------------------------------------- IGNUM s.r.o. | Vinohradská 190 | Praha 3 | 130 61 Tel: +420 296 332 211 | Fax: +420 296 332 222 Tel: +420 604 111 111 | Mobil: +420 603 111 111 Web: http://www.ignum.cz | http://www.domena.cz