Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
Dear Colleagues, In recent years, there has been much discussion about the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme. The RIPE NCC Executive Board welcomes this feedback and has followed the discussion on the members-discuss mailing list and at RIPE NCC General Meetings. A Charging Scheme Task Force was established with representatives from different membership categories, as well as members of the RIPE NCC Executive Board and RIPE NCC staff, in order to provide recommendations for updating the Charging Scheme model. In response to the feedback from members and the Charging Scheme Task Force, the RIPE NCC Executive Board has developed a proposal for a new Charging Scheme model. In very broad terms, this model creates a simplified fee structure where the majority of members pay the same fee. The income derived from these membership fees covers the majority of the RIPE NCC’s operational costs. The proposal is available at: www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/september-2012/ We have produced this proposal in answer to members’ discussion of the current Charging Scheme model and by following, as closely as possible, the recommendations of the Charging Scheme Task Force. The purpose of publishing this proposal now is to encourage RIPE NCC members to look at the proposed new model and to give their feedback. The Executive Board will be meeting again in early August 2012 to finalise the proposal that will be presented for a formal vote at the RIPE NCC General Meeting 2012. We urge you to send us any comments or concerns you have about the proposed model by the end of July. Please send your feedback on this proposal to the members-discuss mailing list (members-discuss@ripe.net). As ever, if you have any questions or concerns, you can also contact the RIPE NCC Executive Board directly at: exec-board@ripe.net Regards, Nigel Titley RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman
Hi Nigel, RIPE members, I for one welcome the proposals put forth below. I've never been happy about resource-age being a factor as I feel it plays unfairly against new entrants. Removing non inet(6)num resources from category charging is also to be welcomed. I guess some more meat with regards to the "self-declaration" will come in time from the RIPE membership. In particular, how will additional resources from allocations, or mergers & acquisitions, be admitted if these could affect the "fair" membership category, during the charging year? Kind regards Jamie Stallwood Jamie Stallwood Security Specialist Imerja Limited Tel: 0844 225 2888 Mob: 07795 840385 Jamie.Stallwood@imerja.com NIC Handle: uk.imerja.JS7259-RIPE -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nigel Titley Sent: 09 July 2012 14:23 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Cc: exec-board@ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model Dear Colleagues, In recent years, there has been much discussion about the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme. The RIPE NCC Executive Board welcomes this feedback and has followed the discussion on the members-discuss mailing list and at RIPE NCC General Meetings. A Charging Scheme Task Force was established with representatives from different membership categories, as well as members of the RIPE NCC Executive Board and RIPE NCC staff, in order to provide recommendations for updating the Charging Scheme model. In response to the feedback from members and the Charging Scheme Task Force, the RIPE NCC Executive Board has developed a proposal for a new Charging Scheme model. In very broad terms, this model creates a simplified fee structure where the majority of members pay the same fee. The income derived from these membership fees covers the majority of the RIPE NCC's operational costs. -- Imerja Limited Tel: 0870 8611488 | Fax: 0870 8611489 | 24x7 ISOC: 0870 8611490 | Web: www.imerja.com Registered Office: Paragon House, Paragon Business Park, Chorley New Road, Horwich, Bolton BL6 6HG Registered in England and Wales No. 5180119 VAT Registered No. 845 0647 22 ISO Registered Firm No. GB2001527 This email is confidential and intended solely for the person or organisation to which it is addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient(s) you should not use, copy, distribute or take any action or reliance on it, since to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately by email reply and delete it from your system. E-mail messages are not secure and attachments could contain software viruses which may damage your system. Whilst every reasonable precaution has been taken to minimise this risk, Imerja Limited cannot accept any liability for any damage sustained as a result of these factors. You are advised to carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not represent those of Imerja Limited unless otherwise stated.
On 9 Jul 2012, at 15:23, Nigel Titley wrote: Dear Nigel, What would prevent a large LIR from picking "small" each year? Are you counting on shame and blame? How much % of the members is (currently) Small? As I have the impression it does get more expensive for them! Regards, Frank
Dear Colleagues,
In recent years, there has been much discussion about the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme. The RIPE NCC Executive Board welcomes this feedback and has followed the discussion on the members-discuss mailing list and at RIPE NCC General Meetings. A Charging Scheme Task Force was established with representatives from different membership categories, as well as members of the RIPE NCC Executive Board and RIPE NCC staff, in order to provide recommendations for updating the Charging Scheme model.
In response to the feedback from members and the Charging Scheme Task Force, the RIPE NCC Executive Board has developed a proposal for a new Charging Scheme model. In very broad terms, this model creates a simplified fee structure where the majority of members pay the same fee. The income derived from these membership fees covers the majority of the RIPE NCC’s operational costs.
The proposal is available at: www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/september-2012/
We have produced this proposal in answer to members’ discussion of the current Charging Scheme model and by following, as closely as possible, the recommendations of the Charging Scheme Task Force. The purpose of publishing this proposal now is to encourage RIPE NCC members to look at the proposed new model and to give their feedback.
The Executive Board will be meeting again in early August 2012 to finalise the proposal that will be presented for a formal vote at the RIPE NCC General Meeting 2012. We urge you to send us any comments or concerns you have about the proposed model by the end of July. Please send your feedback on this proposal to the members-discuss mailing list (members-discuss@ripe.net).
As ever, if you have any questions or concerns, you can also contact the RIPE NCC Executive Board directly at: exec-board@ripe.net
Regards,
Nigel Titley RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
On 09/07/2012 15:00, Frank Louwers wrote:
On 9 Jul 2012, at 15:23, Nigel Titley wrote:
Dear Nigel,
What would prevent a large LIR from picking "small" each year? Are you counting on shame and blame?
Yes indeed. Membership categories will be published.
How much % of the members is (currently) Small? As I have the impression it does get more expensive for them!
Jochem can produce the actual figures and I'm sure he will. All the best Nigel
On Jul 9, 2012, at 4:24 PM, Nigel Titley wrote:
On 09/07/2012 15:00, Frank Louwers wrote:
On 9 Jul 2012, at 15:23, Nigel Titley wrote:
Dear Nigel,
What would prevent a large LIR from picking "small" each year? Are you counting on shame and blame?
Yes indeed. Membership categories will be published.
How much % of the members is (currently) Small? As I have the impression it does get more expensive for them!
Jochem can produce the actual figures and I'm sure he will.
Currently about 50% of the members is in the Small category. These are the membership figures per 30 June 2012: Extra Small: 2,241 Small: 4,071 Medium: 1,461 Large: 290 Extra Large: 72 Total: 8,135 Regards, Jochem
All the best
Nigel
On 09/07/2012 14:23, Nigel Titley wrote:
The Executive Board will be meeting again in early August 2012 to finalise the proposal that will be presented for a formal vote at the RIPE NCC General Meeting 2012. We urge you to send us any comments or concerns you have about the proposed model by the end of July. Please send your feedback on this proposal to the members-discuss mailing list (members-discuss@ripe.net).
1. you haven't included any sort of charging levels for any of the categories. I don't really think it's possible to give much feedback without at least some idea of where the knife will fall. 2. The document notes the following:
For the initial year of the proposed Charging Scheme, the Executive Board proposes to set the membership categories based on the 2012 size categories. [Extra Small becomes “Small”; Small and Medium become “Regular”; and Large and Extra Large become “Large”].
As it stands, if a new LIR requests ipv4 x /21 and ipv6 x /32 (i.e. the minimum you can really get away with for a LIR internet presence), then they are categorised as "small" rather than "extra small". The current calculation model is here:
http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/member-support/info/billing/how-to-calculat...
If this proposal goes through as-is, it means that all LIRs with minimum resource allocation will jolted up a second level to medium for the first year of this new scheme. So any tiny LIR which started out in the early 2000s and got themselves a single v4 + v6 allocation has been categorised as "small" rather than "extra small" since then, and will be categorised as medium for the first year when the new charging scheme comes in. This is regardless of the number of assignments made from this address space. I.e. it is regardless of the amount of resourcing it requires from the RIPE NCC's point of view. I find this to be bizarre. 3. I'm not getting why members will be able to select their own billing category. This will cause almost everyone to select "small", which will end up skewing the billing model to overcharge for genuinely small members. I'm thinking "bizarre" on this one too. Nick
On 09/07/2012 15:52, Nick Hilliard wrote:
1. you haven't included any sort of charging levels for any of the categories. I don't really think it's possible to give much feedback without at least some idea of where the knife will fall.
n/m this bit. Missed it when skimming over. sigh. -n
Hi Nigel, E-board & TF, Thanks for the update. I'm real happy to see some kind of normalization in the fees and agree that most of the LIR's would probably normalize into the Regular category. Question that I have is what would be the criteria between changing from / to Small, Regular or Large. Is it only based on self-selection and peer review or could someone be somewhat pushed into the right bucket? What would happen for instance if everyone (apart from a few) would select Small for instance? I understand that it is noble to think that everyone would select their own correct bucket ... but what if they don't? Regards, Erik Bais
Hi Nigel, E-board& TF,
Thanks for the update.
I'm real happy to see some kind of normalization in the fees and agree that most of the LIR's would probably normalize into the Regular category.
Question that I have is what would be the criteria between changing from / to Small, Regular or Large. Is it only based on self-selection and peer review or could someone be somewhat pushed into the right bucket? For the first year it will be derived from your existing category, after
On 09/07/2012 15:52, Erik Bais wrote: that it is self selection.
What would happen for instance if everyone (apart from a few) would select Small for instance? I understand that it is noble to think that everyone would select their own correct bucket ... but what if they don't?
If they don't (and if everyone chooses Small for example) then the charge is equal for everyone. "Real" Small members will end up paying more than they should, "Real" Large members will end up paying less and the majority of regular members will end up paying roughly what they would be anyway. Nigel
Hi Thanks for reply. On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Nigel Titley <nigel@titley.com> wrote:
Hi Nigel, E-board& TF,
Thanks for the update.
I'm real happy to see some kind of normalization in the fees and agree that most of the LIR's would probably normalize into the Regular category.
Question that I have is what would be the criteria between changing from / to Small, Regular or Large. Is it only based on self-selection and peer review or could someone be somewhat pushed into the right bucket? For the first year it will be derived from your existing category, after
On 09/07/2012 15:52, Erik Bais wrote: that it is self selection.
What would happen for instance if everyone (apart from a few) would select Small for instance? I understand that it is noble to think that everyone would select their own correct bucket ... but what if they don't?
If they don't (and if everyone chooses Small for example) then the charge is equal for everyone. "Real" Small members will end up paying more than they should, "Real" Large members will end up paying less and the majority of regular members will end up paying roughly what they would be anyway.
Sounds to me it will end up that way, Moral hazard will come into play. But if it ends up this way, why would we need this long paper anyway, because we can replace it by one line. equally divided by member numbers. If in term of pure cost assumption, this proposal with single line should get passed.(people paying average fee will not object, and the large guys will support it, and only small guys will object it in which they will become minority in this case). If the entire charging proposal end up simply with this single line...I don't know if this will be good for all.
Nigel
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
-- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 17:36 +0200, Lu Heng wrote: [... what's to stop members from simply choosing the lowest category ...]
Sounds to me it will end up that way, Moral hazard will come into play.
Yes that's really the question. I'd rather doubt that this "pay as much as you think you want to afford" concept is something that is likely to work well with an essential technical service that few people outside the technical realm are even aware off. Especially since these fees are not paid by the technical people themselves but by their companies. Just consider how few of the 7000 something RIPE ever take an active interest in RIPE meetings, why should they see a problem in lowering their fees by self-assessment, if almost no one that matters to them will ever become aware of this? And if indeed large swathes of members will asses themselves to be of "category" small, wouldn't we really just be created an increase for the smalls by stealth (or a massive downward pressure on the RIPE NCC budget, depending how the real smalls will react). IMO, if the aim is to keep different fee categories alive in the long term for members with resource allocation levels (which on balance should be proportional a member's financials), why not simply tweak the current charging scheme a bit, and still have bands based on actual resource usage. If you really want to make a revolutionary change to the charging system, instead of keeping the essentially arbitrary bands we have today, we should either go for a system where everyone pays the same (and thus annoy the smalls but be honest about it right away) or a system that is truly proportional to resource allocation levels (and thus annoy the larges but also create some pressure to not sit on unused allocations). Otherwise why no not simply keep the existing system essentially as it is, which at least ensures that new entrance don't have to pay all that much and that the influence of larges is kept at bay (which BTW is big enough as it is as they can actually afford the people to meddle in RIPE affairs a lot more aggressively ;-). But maybe I am simply missing several years of debate on the topic here....
On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 17:36 +0200, Lu Heng wrote: [... what's to stop members from simply choosing the lowest category ...]
Sounds to me it will end up that way, Moral hazard will come into play.
Yes that's really the question. I'd rather doubt that this "pay as much as you think you want to afford" concept is something that is likely to work well with an essential technical service that few people outside the technical realm are even aware off. Especially since these fees are not paid by the technical people themselves but by their companies. Just consider how few of the 7000 something RIPE ever take an active interest in RIPE meetings, why should they see a problem in lowering their fees by self-assessment, if almost no one that matters to them will ever become aware of this? And if indeed large swathes of members will asses themselves to be of "category" small, wouldn't we really just be created an increase for the smalls by stealth (or a massive downward pressure on the RIPE NCC budget, depending how the real smalls will react). IMO, if the aim is to keep different fee categories alive in the long term for members with resource allocation levels (which on balance should be proportional a member's financials), why not simply tweak the current charging scheme a bit, and still have bands based on actual resource usage. If you really want to make a revolutionary change to the charging system, instead of keeping the essentially arbitrary bands we have today, we should either go for a system where everyone pays the same (and thus annoy the smalls but be honest about it right away) or a system that is truly proportional to resource allocation levels (and thus annoy the larges but also create some pressure to not sit on unused allocations). Otherwise why no not simply keep the existing system essentially as it is, which at least ensures that new entrance don't have to pay all that much and that the influence of larges is kept at bay (which BTW is big enough as it is as they can actually afford the people to meddle in RIPE affairs a lot more aggressively ;-). But maybe I am simply missing several years of debate on the topic here....
Hi On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Thomas Jacob <ripe-ncc-members-list@internet24.de> wrote:
On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 17:36 +0200, Lu Heng wrote: [... what's to stop members from simply choosing the lowest category ...]
Sounds to me it will end up that way, Moral hazard will come into play.
Yes that's really the question. I'd rather doubt that this "pay as much as you think you want to afford" concept is something that is likely to work well with an essential technical service that few people outside the technical realm are even aware off. Especially since these fees are not paid by the technical people themselves but by their companies. Just consider how few of the 7000 something RIPE ever take an active interest in RIPE meetings, why should they see a problem in lowering their fees by self-assessment, if almost no one that matters to them will ever become aware of this?
And if indeed large swathes of members will asses themselves to be of "category" small, wouldn't we really just be created an increase for the smalls by stealth (or a massive downward pressure on the RIPE NCC budget, depending how the real smalls will react).
IMO, if the aim is to keep different fee categories alive in the long term for members with resource allocation levels (which on balance should be proportional a member's financials), why not simply tweak the current charging scheme a bit, and still have bands based on actual resource usage.
If you really want to make a revolutionary change to the charging system, instead of keeping the essentially arbitrary bands we have today, we should either go for a system where everyone pays the same (and thus annoy the smalls but be honest about it right away) or a system that is truly proportional to resource allocation levels (and thus annoy the larges but also create some pressure to not sit on unused allocations).
Just want to make a quick common..."create some pressure on unused allocation" is largely untrue if you consider the IP price is at least 10USD and up. or you consider these large LIR's business size. I believe all of them have no problem paying 10K euro a year.
Otherwise why no not simply keep the existing system essentially as it is, which at least ensures that new entrance don't have to pay all that much and that the influence of larges is kept at bay (which BTW is big enough as it is as they can actually afford the people to meddle in RIPE affairs a lot more aggressively ;-).
But maybe I am simply missing several years of debate on the topic here....
-- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 20:43 +0200, Lu Heng wrote:
Just want to make a quick common..."create some pressure on unused allocation" is largely untrue if you consider the IP price is at least 10USD and up. or you consider these large LIR's business size.
I believe all of them have no problem paying 10K euro a year.
Not so sure about this, just going by IPv4, if we assume something RIPE like 600m IPv4 addresses for the total RIPE area, and assume that a large multi-national LIR maybe has an allocation of 30m, give a 20m RIPE budget makes about EUR 1m. Now this LIR would probably still have no problem paying that, but I guess the relevant department will have some explaining to do for this budget item ;) Still you are probably right, the financial pressure wouldn't be big enough to return unused allocations. Of course, the real trick is to factor in every increasing IPv6 allocations, so a continuous reduction of costs per IP should probably be in order, but I guess people wouldn't mind if their projected costs are lower than expected in some years.
On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 20:43 +0200, Lu Heng wrote:
Just want to make a quick common..."create some pressure on unused allocation" is largely untrue if you consider the IP price is at least 10USD and up. or you consider these large LIR's business size.
I believe all of them have no problem paying 10K euro a year.
Not so sure about this, just going by IPv4 allocations, if we assume something like 600m IPv4 addresses for the total RIPE area, and assume that a large multi-national LIR maybe has an allocation of 30m, given a 20m RIPE budget makes about EUR 1m anually. Now this LIR would probably still have no problem paying that, but I guess the relevant department will have some explaining to do for this budget item ;) Still you are probably right, the financial pressure wouldn't be big enough to return unused allocations. Of course, the real trick is to factor in ever increasing IPv6 allocations, so a continuous reduction of the costs per IP should probably be in order, but I guess people wouldn't mind if their projected costs are lower than expected in some years.
Especially since these fees are not paid by the technical people themselves but by their companies. Just consider how few of the 7000 something RIPE ever take an active interest in RIPE meetings, why should they see a problem in lowering their fees by self-assessment, if almost no one that matters to them will ever become aware of this?
This, I suppose, comes down to communication. These are probably the same companies that, when presented with a bill that says "we've assessed you into the 'regular' category, please feel free to let us know if you feel that is inappropriate," will just sort out the bank transfer without further question (give or take whatever level of 'sending round the heavies' the NCC must usually do). I am very curious to see how this would work out, and I am also intrigued by the earlier suggestion of a 'contribution level' scheme. I have a few concerns about year-on-year classification, and whether this will end up being used as another method for a vote on what the NCC is doing. I also wonder if there will be an annual round of finger-pointing over membership levels, and I have some concerns about the wording of the phrases around legacy resource holders. Notwithstanding those, I like simple things, and pending some more discussion with my colleagues, I think I'd support this scheme. Rob
On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 21:45 +0100, Rob Evans wrote:
This, I suppose, comes down to communication. These are probably the same companies that, when presented with a bill that says "we've assessed you into the 'regular' category, please feel free to let us know if you feel that is inappropriate," will just sort out the bank transfer without further question (give or take whatever level of 'sending round the heavies' the NCC must usually do).
Designing a system that not only continues to make the vast majority of LIRs pay far more per IP address than the big LIRs do, but on top of that also makes your fee subject to some sort of "insider" knowledge? As an employee of a smaller LIR I cannot see how this makes this new charge scheme worth having over the current one. As for the simplicity of this approach, simply charging everyone the same amount or using a proportional system like APNIC seems far simpler and more transparent from my point of view, and doesn't add the incalculable factor of self-assessment changes to the mix of the thing.
Designing a system that not only continues to make the vast majority of LIRs pay far more per IP address than the big LIRs do, but on top of that also makes your fee subject to some sort of "insider" knowledge?
As an employee of a smaller LIR I cannot see how this makes this new charge scheme worth having over the current one.
As for the simplicity of this approach, simply charging everyone the same amount or using a proportional system like APNIC seems far simpler and more transparent from my point of view, and doesn't add the incalculable factor of self-assessment changes to the mix of the thing.
Exactly my feelings as well. I see only three options: Option 1: Charge by amount of resources. Larger LIRs (in 99.9% of the cases the larger telco's) pay more than smaller LIRs. Some people claim this is unfair to the large ones, as support-load is not proportional to LIR size. Option 2 to overcome Option 1-problem: Charge by amount of tickets each year. Those that have resources, but require no RIPE support, pay less that those that cost much support Option 3: Everybody pays the same The option that everyone is allowed to choose how much they pay can't be taken seriously! If I wouls be a large LIR, and I am fair and choose the "Large" amount, but my direct competitor only pays the "Small" fee, even if he is about the same size as me, is unfair competition, so I as well would choose the "Small" fee. Frank
Option 1: Charge by amount of resources. Larger LIRs (in 99.9% of the cases the larger telco's) pay more than smaller LIRs. Some people claim this is unfair to the large ones, as support-load is not proportional to LIR size.
All depends on defining the measurement technique... Number of IPs is _largely_ irrelevant, there's no additional work involved at RIPE to approve the application, no additional database overhead in having a larger inetnum etc. If you charged by DB entries, then (as seems to be the case for most LIRs anyway) people will stop creating the inetnums, maintainers, persons etc and the DB will become even more irrelevant than it already has The current system marginally favours the longer established RIPE members - afterall we're the ones who have funded the developments, the numerous projects (whether wanted or not), who've paid out for years and years to get RIPE to what it is now, read/commented/implemented the thousands of policies, attended the meetings etc All so the "newbies" can benefit from all of that investment. You might think it's perfectly "fair" to suggest/offer a system where everyone pays the same - I'm not going to disagree. How about a system where all the new entrants have to catchup on 10 years of fees they've missed, which gets shared amongst the existing members ? No one method of charging is going to appeal to everyone, no business _wants_ to pay more for something. Perhaps a better approach would be to push for the overall budget to be reduced by 10% per year _every-year_, helping the RIR focus on what it's there for, and all the extraneous items that we fund as RIPE members can start to die off ? Rob
Hi Erik The problem with defining criteria is what they are going to be based on. Do we fall back to resource usage ? What other metrics are suited as criteria ? Maybe we should add "contributor" behind the categories and explain them as follows: Small contributor-> We're forced to use the services of RIPE NCC. We don't use them much and don't have means to support them. Regular contributor-> We're happy to use the services of RIPE NCC. We regularly use them and are OK to do our part to support them. Large contributor-> We support RIPE NCC as much as we can because they deliver invaluable services to us that we frequently use. And have the LIRs explain their choice in one or two sentences which will be published, at least to other LIRs. Regards, Michiel -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] Namens Erik Bais Verzonden: maandag 9 juli 2012 16:53 Aan: Nigel Titley; members-discuss@ripe.net CC: exec-board@ripe.net Onderwerp: Re: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model Hi Nigel, E-board & TF, Thanks for the update. I'm real happy to see some kind of normalization in the fees and agree that most of the LIR's would probably normalize into the Regular category. Question that I have is what would be the criteria between changing from / to Small, Regular or Large. Is it only based on self-selection and peer review or could someone be somewhat pushed into the right bucket? What would happen for instance if everyone (apart from a few) would select Small for instance? I understand that it is noble to think that everyone would select their own correct bucket ... but what if they don't? Regards, Erik Bais ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. ================================================================== ================================================================== Disclaimer Gemeente Alkmaar: Aan dit mailbericht kunnen geen rechten ontleend worden. No rights can be derived from the contents of this E-mail message. ==================================================================
On 09/07/2012 17:47, Michiel Ettema wrote:
The problem with defining criteria is what they are going to be based on. Do we fall back to resource usage ? What other metrics are suited as criteria ?
Hi all, Lots of criteria have been suggested so far. Except that of ressource misuse and policy transgression. Making some exploration in the database I often meet so obvious cases of abusive /16 or some big LIRs that can waste thousands of IPs since these have a zero cost for them. I'm not sure this could (or even should) have an effect of members fees in normal conditions, but it defenitely shoud have a consequence on the fees of LIRs that waste the public ressources. It does not take long to find some of these abuse cases, since there are very obviously suspect situations like tertiary companies having huge public networks... what for !? Therefore I suggest a campaign for revisiting big assignments and having LIRs to make a little bit of introspection. All less specific than /24 assigned to non ISPs or IP service providers could be looked a as suspect as a rule of thumb. After a "make you own cleanup" period there could some regulation about the last requested allocations regarding to what had been done previously, and eventually some financial adjustment. Regards, Sylvain
Dear Nigel If I understand with the scheme proposed: Extra Small: 2,241 ---> become Small (EUR 1000-1250 for year) Small: 4,071 Medium: 1,461 ---> become Regular (EUR 2000-2500 for year) Large: 290 Extra Large: 72 ---> become Large (EUR 4000-5000 for year) My interpretation is correct? Thank Roberto Stievano SrNet srl Via U. Foscolo, 12 35131 Padova Tel. 0497388283-0493007945 Cell. 3484135203 E-mail: stievano@windnet.it Il 09/07/2012 15:23, Nigel Titley ha scritto:
Dear Colleagues,
In recent years, there has been much discussion about the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme. The RIPE NCC Executive Board welcomes this feedback and has followed the discussion on the members-discuss mailing list and at RIPE NCC General Meetings. A Charging Scheme Task Force was established with representatives from different membership categories, as well as members of the RIPE NCC Executive Board and RIPE NCC staff, in order to provide recommendations for updating the Charging Scheme model.
In response to the feedback from members and the Charging Scheme Task Force, the RIPE NCC Executive Board has developed a proposal for a new Charging Scheme model. In very broad terms, this model creates a simplified fee structure where the majority of members pay the same fee. The income derived from these membership fees covers the majority of the RIPE NCC’s operational costs.
The proposal is available at: www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/september-2012/
We have produced this proposal in answer to members’ discussion of the current Charging Scheme model and by following, as closely as possible, the recommendations of the Charging Scheme Task Force. The purpose of publishing this proposal now is to encourage RIPE NCC members to look at the proposed new model and to give their feedback.
The Executive Board will be meeting again in early August 2012 to finalise the proposal that will be presented for a formal vote at the RIPE NCC General Meeting 2012. We urge you to send us any comments or concerns you have about the proposed model by the end of July. Please send your feedback on this proposal to the members-discuss mailing list (members-discuss@ripe.net).
As ever, if you have any questions or concerns, you can also contact the RIPE NCC Executive Board directly at: exec-board@ripe.net
Regards,
Nigel Titley RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
On Jul 9, 2012, at 3:23 PM, Nigel Titley wrote:
..... The purpose of publishing this proposal now is to encourage RIPE NCC members to look at the proposed new model and to give their feedback.
Hello, My feedback is: the proposal raises the cost for small LIR, reduces it the for extra large ones, does not simplify anything and does not promote resource conservation. The "limited resource" to conserve nowadays is IPv4 address space: make the fee EUR 0.1 per allocated IPv4 address, that would be fair and simple. When in 4-5 years from now the IPv4 issue will be over... think about something different. Regards, A.
Hi, On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 12:06:41PM +0200, Andrea Cocito wrote:
The "limited resource" to conserve nowadays is IPv4 address space: make the fee EUR 0.1 per allocated IPv4 address, that would be fair and simple.
Thanks for volunteering to pay the 50-fold LIR fee next year. See my previous mail in this thread for explanation. Gert Doering -- TrollMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
On 10/07/2012 11:06, Andrea Cocito wrote:
On Jul 9, 2012, at 3:23 PM, Nigel Titley wrote:
..... The purpose of publishing this proposal now is to encourage RIPE NCC members to look at the proposed new model and to give their feedback. Hello,
My feedback is: the proposal raises the cost for small LIR, reduces it the for extra large ones, does not simplify anything and does not promote resource conservation.
The "limited resource" to conserve nowadays is IPv4 address space: make the fee EUR 0.1 per allocated IPv4 address, that would be fair and simple.
Andrea, in the previous round of discussions we said why we can't use an "n euros per address model". To re-iterate the argument, if we are seen to be "selling" IP addresses by the Dutch tax authorities then we lose our special tax status. This will immediately cause a rise in the cost of running the RIPE as we will be liable for Dutch corporation tax. Up until now the membership hasn't wanted this. Nigel
Il 13/07/2012 21:40, Nigel Titley ha scritto:
On 10/07/2012 11:06, Andrea Cocito wrote:
On Jul 9, 2012, at 3:23 PM, Nigel Titley wrote:
..... The purpose of publishing this proposal now is to encourage RIPE NCC members to look at the proposed new model and to give their feedback. Hello,
My feedback is: the proposal raises the cost for small LIR, reduces it the for extra large ones, does not simplify anything and does not promote resource conservation.
The "limited resource" to conserve nowadays is IPv4 address space: make the fee EUR 0.1 per allocated IPv4 address, that would be fair and simple.
Andrea, in the previous round of discussions we said why we can't use an "n euros per address model".
To re-iterate the argument, if we are seen to be "selling" IP addresses by the Dutch tax authorities then we lose our special tax status. This will immediately cause a rise in the cost of running the RIPE as we will be liable for Dutch corporation tax. Up until now the membership hasn't wanted this.
Where is the problem with any special tax status? If the incoming money serves to cover expenses, there should not be any profit on which to pay taxes, ot it should be very low. So, let's charge per resource usage and let's change the tax model! I still have problem to understand why very big companies, using the most of IPv4 addresses, should only pay a nominal fee!!! Regards, Tonino
Nigel
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
Hi,
If the incoming money serves to cover expenses, there should not be any profit on which to pay taxes, ot it should be very low.
Are you sure the tax is only on profits? The RIPE NCC allocates Internet number resources to its members as needed ("need" being based on community-derived policy). We pay membership fees to allow this to happen. One of those resources is running low, but isn't it a short-term view to base membership fees on that one resource? Cheers, Rob
Il 14/07/2012 02:03, Rob Evans ha scritto:
Hi,
If the incoming money serves to cover expenses, there should not be any profit on which to pay taxes, ot it should be very low. Are you sure the tax is only on profits?
And you sure it is not? Here in Italy, I pay tax on profit, so I suppose it should happen also there.
The RIPE NCC allocates Internet number resources to its members as needed ("need" being based on community-derived policy). We pay membership fees to allow this to happen. One of those resources is running low, but isn't it a short-term view to base membership fees on that one resource?
No, because in this moment that is the valued resource, and who is using value resource should pay for it. The big rubbery is this big companies are paying peanuts since dozen of years, for these valued resourse, thank to the crazy calculation used until now. Just thinking if this case should be filed at an anti-trust commission at european level. Regards, Tonino
Cheers, Rob
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 01:03:22AM +0100, Rob Evans wrote:
Are you sure the tax is only on profits?
Usually, corporation tax is charged on retained profits, but IANAAccountant.
The RIPE NCC allocates Internet number resources to its members as needed ("need" being based on community-derived policy). We pay membership fees to allow this to happen. One of those resources is running low, but isn't it a short-term view to base membership fees on that one resource?
Certainly is. I do wonder what the plan for the inevitable ipv6-only members is? Will membership for those be free? What I do not like about this new charging scheme is, inter alia, that it is apparently intended to be a barrier to new members. Specifically, together with the (IMO completely unjustifiable) "administration fee", a new member will have an upfront cost of ~EUR4000 before the first prefix is allocated. That is not a marginal cost for most start-up companies. rgds, Sascha Luck
On 14.07.2012 02:46, LIR wrote:
So, let's charge per resource usage ...
AFAIK, RIPE NCC is NOT a merchant of numbering resources. It is not selling goods, but rather provides a service to community. If we were to charge "per usage", then the annual number of humanly processed tickets should be taken for qualifying LIRs. More allocated addresses doesn't automatically mean more requests, and more load on RIPE NCC. There might be LIRs with rather large address space allocated, which nevertheless send only few requests, which needed human processing. Why such LIR should pay more than a LIR sending a lot of requests/applications every day? Regards, D.Sidelnikov
When you buy water, you pay per liter, not for the number of invoices you have. If you buy 10.000 liters, you pay 10.000 liters, indipendently if they are charged in one invoice or 100 invoices. Regards, Tonino Il 14/07/2012 02:05, Dimitri I Sidelnikov ha scritto:
On 14.07.2012 02:46, LIR wrote:
So, let's charge per resource usage ... AFAIK, RIPE NCC is NOT a merchant of numbering resources. It is not selling goods, but rather provides a service to community. If we were to charge "per usage", then the annual number of humanly processed tickets should be taken for qualifying LIRs.
More allocated addresses doesn't automatically mean more requests, and more load on RIPE NCC. There might be LIRs with rather large address space allocated, which nevertheless send only few requests, which needed human processing. Why such LIR should pay more than a LIR sending a lot of requests/applications every day?
Regards, D.Sidelnikov
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
" More allocated addresses doesn't automatically mean more requests, and more load on RIPE NCC." It should do if you are correctly registering your allocations... End Sent using BlackBerry® from CCS Leeds Ltd -----Original Message----- From: LIR <lir@lanto.it> Sender: <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 14:23:12 To: <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model When you buy water, you pay per liter, not for the number of invoices you have. If you buy 10.000 liters, you pay 10.000 liters, indipendently if they are charged in one invoice or 100 invoices. Regards, Tonino Il 14/07/2012 02:05, Dimitri I Sidelnikov ha scritto:
On 14.07.2012 02:46, LIR wrote:
So, let's charge per resource usage ... AFAIK, RIPE NCC is NOT a merchant of numbering resources. It is not selling goods, but rather provides a service to community. If we were to charge "per usage", then the annual number of humanly processed tickets should be taken for qualifying LIRs.
More allocated addresses doesn't automatically mean more requests, and more load on RIPE NCC. There might be LIRs with rather large address space allocated, which nevertheless send only few requests, which needed human processing. Why such LIR should pay more than a LIR sending a lot of requests/applications every day?
Regards, D.Sidelnikov
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
For IPv6, quantity could not be a problem, but for IPv4 the addresses are the valued resource, and as such must be paid. Regards, Tonino Il 14/07/2012 14:21, Peter Knapp ha scritto:
" More allocated addresses doesn't automatically mean more requests, and more load on RIPE NCC."
It should do if you are correctly registering your allocations... End
Sent using BlackBerry® from CCS Leeds Ltd
-----Original Message----- From: LIR <lir@lanto.it> Sender: <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 14:23:12 To: <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
When you buy water, you pay per liter, not for the number of invoices you have.
If you buy 10.000 liters, you pay 10.000 liters, indipendently if they are charged in one invoice or 100 invoices.
Regards,
Tonino
Il 14/07/2012 02:05, Dimitri I Sidelnikov ha scritto:
On 14.07.2012 02:46, LIR wrote:
So, let's charge per resource usage ... AFAIK, RIPE NCC is NOT a merchant of numbering resources. It is not selling goods, but rather provides a service to community. If we were to charge "per usage", then the annual number of humanly processed tickets should be taken for qualifying LIRs.
More allocated addresses doesn't automatically mean more requests, and more load on RIPE NCC. There might be LIRs with rather large address space allocated, which nevertheless send only few requests, which needed human processing. Why such LIR should pay more than a LIR sending a lot of requests/applications every day?
Regards, D.Sidelnikov
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
Dear Tonino, On 14.07.2012 16:23, LIR wrote:
When you buy water, you pay per liter, not for the number of invoices you have.
If you buy 10.000 liters, you pay 10.000 liters, indipendently if they are charged in one invoice or 100 invoices.
RIPE NCC is not selling water:-) . RIPE NCC is more akin to notary. Please, don't make RIPE NCC to transform into a kind of Stock exchange or an auction house. If that ever happens, all resources will be spread eventually among the most rich companies, and Medium/Small LIRs will find themselves in worse position, than they have now. Regards, D.Sidelnikov
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 3:11 AM, Dimitri I Sidelnikov <sid@free.net> wrote:
Dear Tonino,
On 14.07.2012 16:23, LIR wrote:
When you buy water, you pay per liter, not for the number of invoices you have.
If you buy 10.000 liters, you pay 10.000 liters, indipendently if they are charged in one invoice or 100 invoices.
RIPE NCC is not selling water:-) . RIPE NCC is more akin to notary.
Please, don't make RIPE NCC to transform into a kind of Stock exchange or an auction house. If that ever happens, all resources will be spread eventually among the most rich companies, and Medium/Small LIRs will find themselves in worse position, than they have now.
Regards, D.Sidelnikov
Consider the listing service every RIR are offering...I wondering will it be true someday... resource(capital or IPs doesn't matter) always being distributed most effectively if market come into play. Bu I think this is off topic though...and we always have IPv6 at our disposal if one day everything getting too expensive to operate.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
-- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
why does this keep popping up... its all sooooo irrelevant for 32bit asn and ipv6.... look people, the only reason we keep ipv4 around is to connect to -your old shit- :P now get up to date and we can forget about ipv4 and 'payment per resource' etc. On Mon, 16 Jul 2012, Lu Heng wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 3:11 AM, Dimitri I Sidelnikov <sid@free.net> wrote:
Dear Tonino,
On 14.07.2012 16:23, LIR wrote:
When you buy water, you pay per liter, not for the number of invoices you have.
If you buy 10.000 liters, you pay 10.000 liters, indipendently if they are charged in one invoice or 100 invoices.
RIPE NCC is not selling water:-) . RIPE NCC is more akin to notary.
Please, don't make RIPE NCC to transform into a kind of Stock exchange or an auction house. If that ever happens, all resources will be spread eventually among the most rich companies, and Medium/Small LIRs will find themselves in worse position, than they have now.
Regards, D.Sidelnikov
Consider the listing service every RIR are offering...I wondering will it be true someday...
resource(capital or IPs doesn't matter) always being distributed most effectively if market come into play.
Bu I think this is off topic though...and we always have IPv6 at our disposal if one day everything getting too expensive to operate.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
-- -- Kind regards. Lu
This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
Hi On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Sven Olaf Kamphuis <sven@cb3rob.net> wrote:
why does this keep popping up... its all sooooo irrelevant for 32bit asn and ipv6.... look people, the only reason we keep ipv4 around is to connect to -your old shit- :P
now get up to date and we can forget about ipv4 and 'payment per resource' etc.
I think go to IPv6 or not is irrelevant to this discussion. To date, IPv4 is still potential high value item. As long as it is high value and it is trade-able, people would want it to be more fair. But I take no side in the discussion, for us, both model works.(everybody pays same or big guys pay more).
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012, Lu Heng wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 3:11 AM, Dimitri I Sidelnikov <sid@free.net> wrote:
Dear Tonino,
On 14.07.2012 16:23, LIR wrote:
When you buy water, you pay per liter, not for the number of invoices you have.
If you buy 10.000 liters, you pay 10.000 liters, indipendently if they are charged in one invoice or 100 invoices.
RIPE NCC is not selling water:-) . RIPE NCC is more akin to notary.
Please, don't make RIPE NCC to transform into a kind of Stock exchange or an auction house. If that ever happens, all resources will be spread eventually among the most rich companies, and Medium/Small LIRs will find themselves in worse position, than they have now.
Regards, D.Sidelnikov
Consider the listing service every RIR are offering...I wondering will it be true someday...
resource(capital or IPs doesn't matter) always being distributed most effectively if market come into play.
Bu I think this is off topic though...and we always have IPv6 at our disposal if one day everything getting too expensive to operate.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
-- -- Kind regards. Lu
This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
-- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
2012.07.16. 9:46 keltezéssel, Sven Olaf Kamphuis írta:
now get up to date and we can forget about ipv4 and 'payment per resource' etc.
OK, but how will this help with the RIPE funding? I thought the discussion was about that. Regards Peter Marton
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 05:11:30AM +0400, Dimitri I Sidelnikov wrote:
RIPE NCC is not selling water:-) . RIPE NCC is more akin to notary.
Please, don't make RIPE NCC to transform into a kind of Stock exchange or an auction house. If that ever happens, all resources will be spread eventually among the most rich companies, and Medium/Small LIRs will find themselves in worse position, than they have now.
+1 That is not where I want the RIPE NCC to go. I want the NCC to be a community resource registry and information clearinghouse, not a shop where you buy ipv4 by the /32. It's up to us, who fund the NCC and by whose consent it "governs" to make this happen in a fair and non-excluding way. rgds, Sascha Luck
Il 16/07/2012 03:11, Dimitri I Sidelnikov ha scritto:
Dear Tonino,
On 14.07.2012 16:23, LIR wrote:
When you buy water, you pay per liter, not for the number of invoices you have.
If you buy 10.000 liters, you pay 10.000 liters, indipendently if they are charged in one invoice or 100 invoices.
RIPE NCC is not selling water:-) . RIPE NCC is more akin to notary.
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!!!!! Regards, Tonino
Please, don't make RIPE NCC to transform into a kind of Stock exchange or an auction house. If that ever happens, all resources will be spread eventually among the most rich companies, and Medium/Small LIRs will find themselves in worse position, than they have now.
So, for avoiding to have less resources, I should pay the same of who is using 16 times my assignments already from 16 years? I'm thinking more and more if it is the case to file a case at EU level..... Regards, Tonino
Regards, D.Sidelnikov
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
On 17.07.2012 00:45, LIR wrote:
RIPE is managing a public resource, and usage should be fair and available to all.
Absolutely! And all adopted rules and procedures, described in RIPE documents, serve to this very purpose. If one doubts the efficiency of these procedures, he/she is welcome to suggest improvements. BTW, I wouldn't be so confident that money is the universal measure of fairness. :-)
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.
Perhaps, these bad guys should pay not to RIPE NCC, but directly to those good guys, whom they deprived of resources? :-D
So, for avoiding to have less resources, I should pay the same of who is using 16 times my assignments already from 16 years?
Not exactly! You would pay the same only if you place the same load on RIPE NCC as the bigger LIR. Just to illustrate that fairness is an ambiguous concept in given case, imagine an absurd situation when RIPE NCC is almost exclusively occupied by processing thousands of applications from LIRs with /21 allocations, while most part of the RIPE NCC budget consists of contributions from the other (bigger) LIRs, which place only a negligible load. Is it fair? The answer depends on the size of allocated address block, doesn't it? ;-)
I'm thinking more and more if it is the case to file a case at EU level.....
Cool!8-) It would be the worst thing you could do for RIPE community. Just FYI: RIPE NCC service region is not limited by EU, there are many RIPE LIRs beyond EU. If our discussion were elevated to the level of Governments, we would get another UN, instead of RIPE. Or many regional UN, which would be even worse. Regards, D.Sidelnikov
On Jul 16, 2012, at 10:45 PM, LIR 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!!!!!
Agreed, and as said the non-profit/profit issue is a formality that has nothing to to with this: it is possible to have a membership fee that is proportional with resource usage and keep a non-profit status, as well as the opposite. I find a little bit disturbing that the two things get confused. If the question is "can we have a membership fee that substantially depends on the number of public and limited resources used while keeping the nonprofit status" is turned into a "can we sell IP addresses and keep a nonprofit status" then the answer is obvious, but that's not how things are. I do not think that reiterating the profit/nonprofit thing is a good answer, as the model I proposed that substantially makes the membership fee depend on the number of limited resources a LIR uses does not imply a profit status at all, on the contrary: it is formally IDENTICAL to what RIPE did for years…. Regards, A.
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 <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
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
Dear All
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.
I never said that we should "tax" IPs only that it is a parameter to LIR size, together with other parameters. The point is that, I am still wondering why big LIR are paying such a low amount of money (in percentage compared to revenues) Regards
-- 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 <lir@lanto.it <mailto: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
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
-- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it
On 17/07/2012 14:55, LeaderTelecom Ltd. wrote:
On the other hand, I can't understund why RIPE charges per PI/AS right now?
the RIPE NCC charges for each direct number resource assignment (regardless of size) for two reasons: 1. because this is a highly effective means of garbage collection. I.e. if someone isn't interested enough in paying for the number (PI / ASN), it will be reclaimed and moved back into the free pool for re-use and 2. because it cost a lot of money to implement 2007-01 and there needed to be some mechanism for recouping at least some of this money. This charge was introduced subsequent to proposal 2007-01; before that, there was no effective means of reclaiming unused resources, and this led to a situation where there was a large number of assignments where the assignee was no longer interested in maintaining the assignment, or where the assignee no longer existed. PA resource leakage also occurs but because each allocation is linked to a LIR, PA resource leakage already has an effective garbage collection mechanism, particularly now that ipv4 is beginning to become scarce. Nick
Dear Nigel,
This will immediately cause a rise in the cost of running the RIPE as we will be liable for Dutch corporation tax. Up until now the membership hasn't wanted this.
Yes, but if profit will be near 0, then Dutch corporation tax will be 20% * 0 euro = 0 euro. Lets see RIPE Budget for 2011 year. Profit 1 023 kEUR. Corporate tax: 25% (while profit >200kEUR). It is 256 kEUR. Total income: 18 550 kEUR. So real corporate tax is only 1,38% from our Income. The main Value which get any LIR from RIPE are IP adresses. So price must be depend from count of IPs. Most of members pay too high price in case when RIPE has non profit status. May be make sense to develop second budget and charging scheme in case when RIPE will be switch status from non profit to profit Organisation? -- Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom Ltd. 13.07.2012 23:41 - Nigel Titley написал(а): On 10/07/2012 11:06, Andrea Cocito wrote:
On Jul 9, 2012, at 3:23 PM, Nigel Titley wrote:
..... The purpose of publishing this proposal now is to encourage RIPE NCC members to look at the proposed new model and to give their feedback. Hello,
My feedback is: the proposal raises the cost for small LIR, reduces it the for extra large ones, does not simplify anything and does not promote resource conservation.
The "limited resource" to conserve nowadays is IPv4 address space: make the fee EUR 0.1 per allocated IPv4 address, that would be fair and simple.
Andrea, in the previous round of discussions we said why we can't use an "n euros per address model". To re-iterate the argument, if we are seen to be "selling" IP addresses by the Dutch tax authorities then we lose our special tax status. This will immediately cause a rise in the cost of running the RIPE as we will be liable for Dutch corporation tax. Up until now the membership hasn't wanted this. Nigel ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: [1]https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. [1] https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
On 14/07/2012 09:22, LeaderTelecom Ltd. wrote:
Dear Nigel,
This will immediately cause a rise in the cost of running the RIPE as we will be liable for Dutch corporation tax. Up until now the membership hasn't wanted this.
Yes, but if profit will be near 0, then Dutch corporation tax will be 20% * 0 euro = 0 euro.
Lets see RIPE Budget for 2011 year. Profit 1 023 kEUR. Corporate tax: 25% (while profit >200kEUR). It is 256 kEUR. Total income: 18 550 kEUR. So real corporate tax is only 1,38% from our Income.
The main Value which get any LIR from RIPE are IP adresses. So price must be depend from count of IPs. Most of members pay too high price in case when RIPE has non profit status. May be make sense to develop second budget and charging scheme in case when RIPE will be switch status from non profit to profit Organisation?
Perfectly happy to do this, but members have in the past indicated that they want to retain not-for-profit and the special tax status. Nigel
"Nigel Titley" wrote the following on 16/07/2012 11:02:
On 14/07/2012 09:22, LeaderTelecom Ltd. wrote:
Dear Nigel,
This will immediately cause a rise in the cost of running the RIPE as we will be liable for Dutch corporation tax. Up until now the membership hasn't wanted this.
Yes, but if profit will be near 0, then Dutch corporation tax will be 20% * 0 euro = 0 euro.
Lets see RIPE Budget for 2011 year. Profit 1 023 kEUR. Corporate tax: 25% (while profit >200kEUR). It is 256 kEUR. Total income: 18 550 kEUR. So real corporate tax is only 1,38% from our Income.
The main Value which get any LIR from RIPE are IP adresses. So price must be depend from count of IPs. Most of members pay too high price in case when RIPE has non profit status. May be make sense to develop second budget and charging scheme in case when RIPE will be switch status from non profit to profit Organisation?
Perfectly happy to do this, but members have in the past indicated that they want to retain not-for-profit and the special tax status.
Certainly this member does. We can discuss, at length, how we all think the Dutch government *might* interpret things, but I'm in favour of certainty (or as much certainty as possible) when it comes to very large sums of money. Brian -- Brian Nisbet, Network Operations Manager HEAnet Limited, Ireland's Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 Registered in Ireland, no 275301 tel: +35316609040 fax: +35316603666 web: http://www.heanet.ie/
On Jul 13, 2012, at 9:40 PM, Nigel Titley wrote:
Andrea, in the previous round of discussions we said why we can't use an "n euros per address model".
To re-iterate the argument, if we are seen to be "selling" IP addresses by the Dutch tax authorities then we lose our special tax status. This will immediately cause a rise in the cost of running the RIPE as we will be liable for Dutch corporation tax. Up until now the membership hasn't wanted this.
I am sorry I was not here in the previous discussions. I understand your point, but I personally see RIPE and its role as something that goes beyond a "company", as a matter of fact RIPE is something whose policies go far beyond the Dutch laws … and even though I do not have to propose a "technical" solution I am still convinced that the technicalities of the dutch tax system should not impact something so important (I understand that this is easy to state as a principle, but hard to apply as a matter of fact). The principle in my mind is quite simple: IPv4 is a limited resource, everyone would love to have a /8 allocated tomorrow morning, but that is simply not possible. With all limited (shared) resources in the world the only way to limit their misuse is a magic and hated word: taxes. This is what happens to use of water, to pollution, to a lot of other things: the more you use/pollute/occupy the more taxes you pay. Now I understand that it is probably impossible for legal reasons to put it in the form "pay 0.1 euro per IP", but still I think it would make sense to push toward a "the more you use the more you pay" model, and not toward "everyone pays the same" scheme. I see that this proposal goes toward the "everyone pays the same" schema. My opinion is that RIPE should go in the opposite direction. Since I represent a "medium" LIR (we have about 16K addresses allocated) the two models do not change much on our side. By the way I can say that the RIPE fee is a marginal cost in our budget (you bet a few gigabits of transit on Tier1 networks costs a couple of orders of magnitude more). So there is no personal/institutional bias on this. I would say that a model like "up to a /21 total allocation you are small and pay 1; up to a /18 you are medium and pay 8; up to a /15 you are large and pay 64; up to /12 you are fat and pay 512…" would be a fair approach, technically not different from the preexisting one and pushing toward resource saving and evolution (knock knock… time to shift to IPv6??? or want to pay 500k euros??). Really, I suppose these are known and already discussed arguments, I apologize if being the last coming here I reiterate them… but still, that's what my opinion is. Regards, A.
Nigel, Am 13.07.2012 um 21:40 schrieb Nigel Titley <nigel@titley.com>:
On 10/07/2012 11:06, Andrea Cocito wrote:
On Jul 9, 2012, at 3:23 PM, Nigel Titley wrote:
..... The purpose of publishing this proposal now is to encourage RIPE NCC members to look at the proposed new model and to give their feedback. Hello,
My feedback is: the proposal raises the cost for small LIR, reduces it the for extra large ones, does not simplify anything and does not promote resource conservation.
The "limited resource" to conserve nowadays is IPv4 address space: make the fee EUR 0.1 per allocated IPv4 address, that would be fair and simple.
Andrea, in the previous round of discussions we said why we can't use an "n euros per address model".
To re-iterate the argument, if we are seen to be "selling" IP addresses by the Dutch tax authorities then we lose our special tax status. This
RIPE can't sell IP addresses by definition. Yet, RIPE can charge registration fees based on resource utilization. To me, this argument seems invalid (and term "selling" introduced by purpose). Not going to re-iterating other tax-related arguments on this list.
will immediately cause a rise in the cost of running the RIPE as we will be liable for Dutch corporation tax. Up until now the membership hasn't wanted this.
Could RIPE NCC please quantify what change in taxation would cause to membership fees? I doubt this to be significant. Regards Sebastian
Nigel
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
Hi everyone, (everything below is my personal view, not necessarily my companies - an extra large LIR:s - view..) Oh it has started again, moneytalks... Here is my personal view on what may be the case. A couple of small LIR:s would rather not pay at all for ip:s since they are starting companies, and have not too much money yet. (imho They forget it is not only IP:s they are paying for) Most large and extra large LIR:s have also large company customers, and sometimes even millions of private customers so they have much more ip:s gathered in say 15 - 20 years time, based on real needs, verified by the communities rules (RIPE). We all knew IPv4 would become scarse, but nobody did anything about it, except for maybe a few of us. And since the resource is running out (realy old news), new LIRs, and small lirs want to pay less so that the big LIRS could and should pay more, since the small ones can no longer benefit from IPv4 on a large scale. The fee is basically meant for the excellent service the RIPE NCC has given to its members, not only "ip handouts", also tools, meetings, coordination, and making it possible for the community to get involved. I think that a large LIR does not take that much more time of the RIPE NCC, compared to most small LIR:s who need - in the beginning- help and backup in most cases, just like we did in the beginning. All the other services of the RIPE NCC are the same for everyone, availlable to everyone. Now alloversudden, when it becomes clear (again realy old news) that v4 runs out some day, there is anger, jealousy, and bitterness, maybe even fear, since "the big old guys have many ip:s, lets make them pay for it, or they should return them..." After re-reading this myself i know the above sounds like we are not willing to pay ourselves, or are jealous ourselves if someone gets it cheaper, but no, not realy. IF large LIR:s should pay more for their ip:s, and little ones less, it should not be a dramatic change at once, neither should new lirs get it as a bargain, since they are the ones that need resources from the RIPE NCC, this is the actual cost (salary, offices, equipment) I would suggest a moderate change, little by little, over the years, not based on a per IP base. Rgds, Raymond -- ************************************************************ Raymond Jetten Phone: +358 3 41024 139 Senior System Specialist Fax: +358 3 41024 199 Elisa Oyj / Network Management Mobile: +358 45 6700 139 Hermiankatu 3A raymond.jetten@elisa.fi FIN-33720, TAMPERE http://www.elisa.fi ************************************************************
On 17/07/2012 12:00, Raymond Jetten wrote:
Now alloversudden, when it becomes clear (again realy old news) that v4 runs out some day, there is anger, jealousy, and bitterness, maybe even fear, since "the big old guys have many ip:s, lets make them pay for it, or they should return them..."
Not sure where this position comes from. From where I sit, I get the impression that members understand that running the RIPE NCC costs money and that his money needs to be collected from the membership. Other than that as far as I can tell, most people generally seem to agree with the conclusions of the Charging Scheme Task Force. Nick
On Jul 13, 2012, at 9:40 PM, Nigel Titley wrote:
Andrea, in the previous round of discussions we said why we can't use an "n euros per address model".
To re-iterate the argument, if we are seen to be "selling" IP addresses by the Dutch tax authorities then we lose our special tax status. This will immediately cause a rise in the cost of running the RIPE as we will be liable for Dutch corporation tax. Up until now the membership hasn't wanted this.
I am sorry I was not here in the previous discussions. I understand your point, but I personally see RIPE and its role as something that goes beyond a "company", as a matter of fact RIPE is something whose policies go far beyond the Dutch laws and even though I do not have to propose a "technical" solution I am still convinced that the technicalities of the dutch tax system should not impact something so important (I understand that this is easy to state as a principle, but hard to apply as a matter of fact). The principle in my mind is quite simple: IPv4 is a limited resource, everyone would love to have a /8 allocated tomorrow morning, but that is simply not possible. With all limited (shared) resources in the world the only way to limit their misuse is a magic and hated word: taxes. This is what happens to use of water, to pollution, to a lot of other things: the more you use/pollute/occupy the more taxes you pay. Now I understand that it is probably impossible for legal reasons to put it in the form "pay 0.1 euro per IP", but still I think it would make sense to push toward a "the more you use the more you pay" model, and not toward "everyone pays the same" scheme. I see that this proposal goes toward the "everyone pays the same" schema. My opinion is that RIPE should go in the opposite direction. Since I represent a "medium" LIR (we have about 16K addresses allocated) the two models do not change much on our side. By the way I can say that the RIPE fee is a marginal cost in our budget (you bet a few gigabits of transit on Tier1 networks costs a couple of orders of magnitude more). So there is no personal/institutional bias on this. I would say that a model like "up to a /21 total allocation you are small and pay 1; up to a /18 you are medium and pay 8; up to a /15 you are large and pay 64; up to /12 you are fat and pay 512 " would be a fair approach, technically not different from the preexisting one and pushing toward resource saving and evolution (knock knock time to shift to IPv6??? or want to pay 500k euros??). Really, I suppose these are known and already discussed arguments, I apologize if being the last coming here I reiterate them but still, that's what my opinion is. Regards, A.
Andrea, in the previous round of discussions we said why we can't use an "n euros per address model".
To re-iterate the argument, if we are seen to be "selling" IP addresses by the Dutch tax authorities then we lose our special tax status. This will immediately cause a rise in the cost of running the RIPE as we will be liable for Dutch corporation tax. Up until now the membership hasn't wanted this.
Could RIPE look change its jurisdiction ? was it ever considered ? Large organisation (and RIPE could be seen in that way) tend to move to the country providing them the best operational advantages, including taxes. Thomas
Good idea! If they demand more taxes - we can move out to any of off-shore jurisdictions. 24.07.12 21:22, Thomas Mangin написав(ла):
Could RIPE look change its jurisdiction ? was it ever considered ? Large organisation (and RIPE could be seen in that way) tend to move to the country providing them the best operational advantages, including taxes.
On 25/07/12 11:12, Max Tulyev wrote:
Good idea! If they demand more taxes - we can move out to any of off-shore jurisdictions.
Surely RIPE would only pay tax on profits anyway, and as a member organisation, shouldn't the income more or less match expenditure meaning little profit to tax?
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 11:37:01AM +0100, Flipside Data Network Operations wrote:
Surely RIPE would only pay tax on profits anyway, and as a member organisation, shouldn't the income more or less match expenditure meaning little profit to tax?
I think it's the reserves they are worried about - these might be retained profits and subject to corpo tax. rgds, Sascha Luck
On 25/07/12 12:16, Sascha Luck wrote:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 11:37:01AM +0100, Flipside Data Network Operations wrote:
Surely RIPE would only pay tax on profits anyway, and as a member organisation, shouldn't the income more or less match expenditure meaning little profit to tax?
I think it's the reserves they are worried about - these might be retained profits and subject to corpo tax.
If the reserve is large enough that this is a problem, why aren't the fees reducing?
Il 25/07/2012 13:16, Sascha Luck ha scritto:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 11:37:01AM +0100, Flipside Data Network Operations wrote:
Surely RIPE would only pay tax on profits anyway, and as a member organisation, shouldn't the income more or less match expenditure meaning little profit to tax? I think it's the reserves they are worried about - these might be retained profits and subject to corpo tax.
This is a no sense discussion. Actually RIPE divides LIRs into categories based on resources allocated to each LIRs, so fee is based on resources. It would be simple to keep actual calculation, WITHOUT any discount due to age of allocation. Then, scale the new fees to match actual incoming. For example, if new calculation takes to a raport of 12.5 between new calculation and actual RIPE budget, divide any fee by 12.5, so total income for RIPE will not change, but fee for each LIR would be more effective if compared to resource usage. Regards, Tonino
rgds, Sascha Luck
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
I think it's the reserves they are worried about - these might be retained profits and subject to corpo tax.
Extra reserves can be returned to members as it was in 2008. -- Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom Ltd. 25.07.2012 15:16 - Sascha Luck написал(а): On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 11:37:01AM +0100, Flipside Data Network Operations wrote:
Surely RIPE would only pay tax on profits anyway, and as a member organisation, shouldn't the income more or less match expenditure meaning little profit to tax?
I think it's the reserves they are worried about - these might be retained profits and subject to corpo tax. rgds, Sascha Luck ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: [1]https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. [1] https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
participants (31)
-
Andrea Cocito -
Brian Nisbet -
Dimitri I Sidelnikov -
Erik Bais -
Flipside Data Network Operations -
Frank Louwers -
Gert Doering -
Jamie Stallwood -
Jochem de Ruig -
LeaderTelecom Ltd. -
LIR -
Lu Heng -
Max Tulyev -
Michiel Ettema -
Nick Hilliard -
Nigel Titley -
Paolo Di Francesco -
Peter Knapp -
Raymond Jetten -
ripelist＠bnethungaria.hu -
Rob Evans -
Rob Golding -
Sascha Luck -
Sebastian Abt -
stievano＠windnet.it -
Sven Olaf Kamphuis -
Sylvain Vallerot -
Thomas Jacob -
Thomas Jacob -
Thomas Mangin -
Tomas Hlavacek