You are here: Home > Participate > Join a Discussion > Mailman Archives
<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

1996 Charging Scheme

  • To:
  • From: Daniel Karrenberg < >
  • Date: Mon, 06 Mar 1995 11:13:02 +0100
  • Cc: NCC Contributors < >

Dear Colleagues,

now that we have NCC funding secured for 1995, I will start looking at
introducing usage based components into the charging scheme for 1996 and

There are some basic principles that need to be discussed first.  Since
Peter raises one of them I take the opportunity to raise some more.  If
we can get agreement about them, it will narrow down the possible
schemes and prevent useless work on inappropriate models. 

I will try to facilitate a high-quality discussion on this list about
these issues rather than coming with fait-accompli proposals in late
June.  I hope this will work. 

Ground Rules:

  - Please be constructive!

  - No reaction means either "I don't care" or "I agree". If you
    really disagree about something, please speak up.

  - Minor points and flames in *personal* mail to the authors and
    if at all possible not to the list.

I hope we can all agree to those and (mostly) operate according to them.

The charging issues:

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. 

2. Basis for Usage Based Fee

  > Peter Dawe peter@localhost writes:

  > ...
  > But can I remind some that we should will be charging 
  > according to usage next year based on this years usage.

As far as I remember the discussion and the minutes there was no
consensus about this.  Charging based on past usage has the obvious
advantage of being more stable and controllable which is preferred by
those that have stringent budgetary procedures (Glenn would say: "The
Academics").  The drawback is that it does not deal well with wildly
changing usage patterns and with new registries.  If there is indeed
consensus to go in that direction I would like it established quickly
because it eliminates quite some models that we would otherwise have to

I think this is enough for now. 


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