[members-discuss] Charging scheme discussion

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rob Golding" <rob.golding at othellotech.net>
> To: members-discuss at ripe.net
> Sent: Wednesday, 25 July, 2012 3:07:42 AM
> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Charging scheme  discussion
> 
> >> "count" of ip's within a block - no, it's back
> >> to them being a "commodity"
> >> (altering the tax status)
> > This is wrong and leads to misinformation.
> > Until last year RIPE membership had a cost
> >  depending on a class model
> > (large, small, extra large, etc), which on
> > its behalf depended on the
> > number of allocated resources.
> 
> *number* of resources, not *size* of resources
> 
> So thank you for confirming my point:p
> 
> If the charging switches to per-IP then they become "product" or
> "stock" or
> "items" or similar, and have a value, and that WILL change the
> tax-status of
> RIPE - which at current levels, will mean 25% tax which *WILL* have
> to be
> taken from members in fees
> 
> So, hands up who wants a 25% price hike ?
> 
> Rob
> 

No, there are five different billing categories for ranges of scores and each billing category has a price associated with it. The scores are calculated from a formula which includes the time of allocation relative to 1992 and the size of the allocation from a /19 to a /22 in IPv4 or a /30 to a /33 in IPv6.

The scoring units increase with the number of IP addresses in an allocation, so someone with a /20 allocated in 2012 has a score double that of someone with a /21 allocated in 2012 (40 and 20 respectively). There is a clear emphasis on the size of resources allocated.

Edward Dore
Freethought Internet