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

Re: 1996 Charging Scheme

  • To: (Simon Poole)
  • From: Daniel Karrenberg < >
  • Date: Mon, 06 Mar 1995 15:15:11 +0100
  • Cc:

  > poole@localhost (Simon Poole) writes:
  > 
  > Daniel writes:
  > > 
  > > Local IRs are the entities who directly generate most of the NCC work. 
  > > The system of local IRs was consciously designed to take assignment work
  > > off the NCC in order to avoid the growth problems now so evident in the
  > > US.  On the other hand the NCC has to review big assignments and audit
  > > the local IRs in order to guarantee a fair process.  Of course the NCC
  > > also provides support for the local IRs.  This is a major activity of
  > > the NCC directly associated with the registries.  If you think the local
  > > IRs are a problem with the charging model, please amplify. 
  > 
  > I'll get back to this later.

I hope rather sooner, because this fundamental level is where we need
consensus most quickly. I had assumed we had consensus. If this is not
the case we need to know it quickly.

  > But this is probably the most expensive activity of the whole NCC, if
  > we -can't- charge this back in some way, we will end rewarding the 
  > local IRs that simply immediately punt to the NCC and punish those that
  > try to educate and consult their "customers".

I agree totally that this is a problem. I just do not propose a soloution yet
because I do not know enough. Working on it.

Daniel





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