Yet Another Proposal for the Charging Scheme 2012
Hiya @everyone, I hope I didn't miss any of the last 108 E-Mails came through the mailing list these days. The current issues are concerning the charging scheme and the budget. Regarding the charging scheme, as I understood the RIPE NCC was interested in a "per IP" billing base, but this can't be done easily without risk due to tax issues. I hope no one proposed it yet and I didn't see it, so I don't bother people with my email now having a already existing proposal ;) In my opinion, the most fair solution for everyone would be if the RIPE removes the category based charging scheme and makes one member fee for everyone. Something like 500 EUR. Then there are no tax issues anymore, because RIPE takes a membership fee, so it has members. Additionally to this 500 EUR "base fee", every resource will be billed additionally, like currently with the IPv4-PI. I think that would solve all problems and we get our fair "per IP (resource)" billing. Something like: ASN = 50 EUR IPv4-PI /24 = 50 EUR IPv4-PI /23 = 100 EUR IPv4-PI /22 = 200 EUR IPv4-PI /21 = 400 EUR IPv4-PI /20 = 800 EUR [...] IPv4 alloc /22 = 50 EUR IPv4 alloc /21 = 100 EUR IPv4 alloc /20 = 200 EUR IPv4 alloc /19 = 400 EUR IPv4 alloc /18 = 800 EUR IPv4 alloc /17 = 1.600 EUR [...] IPv6 alloc /32 = 100 EUR [...] So, a LIR with a /17 IPv4 alloc, a /32 IPv6 alloc, a ASN and a /24 PI for his customer will pay 2.200 EUR. 500 EUR membership base fee + 1.600 EUR /17 alloc + 50 EUR ASN + 50 EUR /24 IPv4-PI. I just wrote some numbers down, without actually calculating a real price per allocation. The real prices have to be calculated based on the budget. But in my opinion this is the most fair way to bill its members. So everyone gets billed for the resources the he/she uses. Our own category wouldn't actually change with the proposal from RIPE, but still I'm concerned regarding our community. Cheers, Sven -- Sven Wiese CEO I.C.S. "Trabia-Network" S.R.L. [t] +373 (22) 844-844 [e] s.wiese@trabia.net <mailto:s.wiese@trabia.net> [i] www.trabia.net <http://www.trabia.net> Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not in the addresses indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such a case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail.
Regarding the charging scheme, as I understood the RIPE NCC was interested in a "per IP" billing base, but this can't be done easily without risk due to tax issues.
What tax issues are those? -- Alfredo Sola ASP5-RIPE http://www.solucionesdinamicas.net/
Due to legal form (non-profit), RIPE NCC made some tricks to avoid corporate tax. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_Netherlands Did the financial department perform the tax predictions in case of applicable corporate tax? You wrote Thursday, October 6, 2011, 11:33:22 AM:
Regarding the charging scheme, as I understood the RIPE NCC was interested in a "per IP" billing base, but this can't be done easily without risk due to tax issues. What tax issues are those?
-- Kind regards, sergey myasoedov
On 06.10.2011 12:33 , Alfredo Sola wrote:
Regarding the charging scheme, as I understood the RIPE NCC was interested in a "per IP" billing base, but this can't be done easily without risk due to tax issues. What tax issues are those? As Nigel wrote in his E-Mail from September 30th, there is an issue with "having Members" and "Bill per IP".
participants (3)
-
Alfredo Sola
-
sergey myasoedov
-
Sven Wiese