Re: 1996 Charging Scheme
- Date: Mon, 06 Mar 1995 15:15:11 +0100
> 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.