<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

Re: 1996 Charging Scheme

  • To: (Daniel Karrenberg)
  • From: (Simon Poole)
  • Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 12:47:36 +0100 (MET)
  • Cc:

Daniel writes:
> 1. Subscription Fee
> 
> I propose to generate a maximum of 50% of the 1996 NCC income from a
> usage based charge and a minimum of 50% from a subscription fee as in
> 1995.  The reason for this is stability and should be obvious. 

Please define who should subscribe to the service. Are we talking about
the local IR's again? If yes, this again leads to the same problem we 
experienced this year in that the NCC is charging for something that
actually takes work -off- the NCC. 

As Peter more or less pointed out, usage should be measured now and the
results published. How otherwise is the commitee supposed to come to
reasonable conclusions? I would like to see at least:

	- address block allocations per local IR and total

	- reassignments per local IR and total 

	- time spent working on requests per local IR and total

	- Ripe database usage on a per domain/address base

Second point: before we embark on this voyage, do we have any idea what
size budget you will be proposing next year? Roughly the same size? 
Twice the size? ...

Simon




  • Post To The List:
<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>