Charging by local IRs
- Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 10:12:45 +0100
Please see the following paper on "Charging by Local Internet
Registries". This was enhanced by the Local IR working group
and adopted by RIPE earlier this week as a brief statement of
current practice in Europe, together with some guidelines for
registries. I'm sending this to the Local IR and the DNS lists,
and will also copy the European TLD administrators, so apologies
for multiple instances of the same mail. Your comments and
suggestions are always welcome.
Regards.
Mike Norris
Charging by Local Internet Registries
ripe-xxx
1. Abstract
This paper deals with charging for services by Internet registries, and
indicates acceptable practice for such charging. It identifies name-
and address-space as finite resources with no intrinsic value; as such,
direct costs cannot be ascribed to such space. It also makes
recommendations for the operation of European registries in general,
and additionally for those with monopoly positions.
2. Internet services
In Europe as elsewhere, providers offer a range of services relating to
Internet access. These include Internet connectivity, the provision of
applications to end-users, design, consultancy and training services, as
well as system services such as IP registration, DNS, routing and packet
forwarding.
With some identifiable exceptions (to which we shall return), there is
generally an open market in the provision of such services. On the
supply side, there is freedom to enter the market, to compete for business,
and to charge for services in order to stay in business. In this context,
it is acceptable practice for Internet service providers (ISPs) to charge
for services such as domain registration, routing services, packet
forwarding and IP services. On the demand side, the general plurality of
service providers means that the customer has a choice; if not satisfied
with the terms of one supplier, she can take her business to another.
3. Registries and Resources
Two of the above services involve the assignment of finite resources to
customers; these are domain name space and IPv4 address space. They are
managed and assigned by registration agencies, respectively domain name
registries and IP registries. By themselves, these resources have no
intrinsic value; their worth is only realised in conjunction with the
provision of Internet access. Thus, while registries may charge for
their administrative and technical services, they may not charge for
namespace or address space as such; no unit cost or price tag can be
attached to a domain name or to an IP address, public or private.
This principle must be made clear to the market in general and to the
customer in particular. The customer must be aware of precisely what
she is getting from the registry, whether it is paid for or not. Where
there is a charge, the customer must not be under the illusion that this
translates into a unit cost per resource assigned, nor that the transaction
is an indefinite transfer of ownership of the merchandise. Finally, the
customer must accept the terms under which name or address space is assigned.
In the case of IP address space, these include the contractual term that the
assignment is only valid for so long as the criteria of the assignment are
valid [ref 1]. As soon as the original criteria no longer apply, the address
space must be returned without penalty or premium to the assigning registry.
4. Special Case Registries
As indicated above, there are certain exceptions to the market principle in
the Internet registration services. These occur where, by virtue of their
location in the hierarchy of Internet registration, certain registries find
themselves in a monopoly position. In the case of namespace, this applies
to top-level domain (TLD) registries (in Europe, these are all country
registries), as well as certain administratively unique second-level domain
registries (such as .co.uk, .ac.at etc). When it comes to IP address
allocation, regional registries constitute monopolies within the communities
they serve. In Europe, one instance is the RIPE NCC, registry for the
European region [ref 2]. Other possible examples are the last resort
(non-provider) IP registries, although nowadays the customer has an
alternative to their services.
It is important that there be transparency in the procedures and accounts of
such "special case" registries. They must not generate excessive profits by
virtue of their monopoly position.
5. Recommendations
To meet with the objectives outlined in this paper, it is recommended that
all registries:
- publish their operating procedures;
- publish details of the services they offer and the conditions and
terms that apply, including scales of tariffs if applicable;
- explicitly publish the fact that they do not sell name or address
space as such.
As for "special case" registries as defined above, it is recommended that
where such a registry charges for service, it should, in addition to
complying with the recommendations listed above:
- relate charges to costs of operation and apply all revenues to
such costs;
- regularly publish a budget of its anticipated operating costs
and revenue;
- publish guidelines and apply these uniformly;
- ensure equality of access to registration services;
- aim to achieve consensus within the community it serves as to the
disposal of any surplus revenues;
- regularly publish accounts of income and expenditure;
- refrain from using their unique position as leverage in any other
business venture.
Daniel Karrenberg and Mike Norris
22nd April 1996
References
1. "European Internet Registry Policies and Procedures" by Orange, C., Kuehne, M.,
Karrenberg, D. (ripe-104, 1996)
2. "RIPE NCC - Delegated Internet Registry" (ripe-112, 1994)
