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

Re: Waiving of Fees for

  • To: Daniel Karrenberg < >
  • From: Dr Agathoclis Stylianou < >
  • Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 08:07:40 +0300 (WET)
  • Cc: NCC Contributors < >

Regarding Daniels proposals.


1.	I believe that our role is to provide guidance and rules under 
which the RIPE team should function.
2.	However exciting it may appear, I would try and avoid getting 
involved in the evaluation of every proposal except in EXTREME situations 
where Daniel or the RIPE team feels there are truly exceptional 
circumstances and they require our guidance.
3.	How sophisticated and wide we want to make the rules, is up to 
the NCC.
4.	RIPE has been very sensible in its judgement and advice and I 
would like to encourage them by providing guidance rather that involved 
in perharps their daily managing of ops.
5.	I would therefore suggest option 3, and as alternative option 1.

Regards
AK Stylianou
 

On Tue, 22 Aug 1995, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:

> Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 10:27:40 +0200
> From: Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg@localhost
> To: NCC Contributors ncc-co@localhost
> Cc: Dr Agathoclis Stylianou agatho@localhost, billing@localhost
> Subject: Waiving of Fees for 
> 
> 
> Dear contributors,
> 
> it seems that we do not have consensus in the case of Microlink from
> Estonia. We also do not seem to have consensus to evaluate these cases
> individually by the Contributors Committee. There have been requests to
> formalise this process.
> 
> Personally I have my doubts about formalisation. The waiving of fees is
> intended for special circumstances. It is difficult to formalise special
> circumstances and to set up rules for such a thing.
> 
> We have three possibilities:
> 
> 
> 1) Continue evaluation of requests individually by the committee, i.e. 
>    asking all contributors whether they are willing to subsidise each case.
> 
> 2) Discontinue any fee wavers.
> 
> 3) Evaluation of requests by the NCC according to a policy set by the
>    contributors.
> 
> 
> Pro 1: Each request gets scrutiny of all contributors, especially those in
>        the same region as requestor. No need to draw up difficult rules.
> 
> Con 1: Needs effort by contributors. Maybe decisions are not always 
>        consistent (although this can be helped by support from the NCC).
>        Maybe consensus can never be reached anymore because of size of 
>        ncc-co.
> 
> 
> Pro 2: Easy to implement. Consistent.
> 
> Con 2: Makes it difficult to establish a registry in "new Internet" places.
>        results in "monopoly" of last-resort registries there.
>        Encourages dubious registration practises.
> 
> 
> Pro 3: No effort by contributors. Consistency.
> 
> Con 3: Large effort in draewing up rules for exceptional cases.
>        Difficult to fit cases to the rules.
> 
> 
> I personally prefer soloutions 1 or 2. 
> 
> I'll ask Steve Druck to put this on the agenda for the next meeting.
> I'll also circulate some possible rules for case 3 later on.
> 
> Comments welcome
> 
> Daniel
> 

--------------------------------------------------------------------
|	Dr Agathoclis Stylianou	Fax : (02)-476082 or 366198	   |
|	Director		Tel : (02)-366186   		   |
|	Computer Centre		e-mail : agatho@localhost  |
|	University of Cyprus					   |
|	POBox 537						   |
|	Nicosia							   |
|	CYPRUS							   |
--------------------------------------------------------------------





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