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

Re: Meeting, Charging & Documents

  • To: Daniel Karrenberg < >
  • From: "Andrew Hilborne" < >
  • Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 18:08:57 +0000
  • Cc:
  • Comments: Authenticated sender is amh10@localhost
  • Organization: Onyx Internet
  • Priority: normal

On  6 Sep 96 at 10:50, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:

> If you are not happy you should definitely say so on this list and
> suggest what should be done differently.

I was going to do this anyway.

ONYX favour Option 1 for the reasons stated in the paper.  It's clear and 
simple and has worked until now.  It means that charges are known exactly at 
the start of the year.  The paper says that the major disadvantage is that 
there is some cross-subsidisation.  I'd like to know more details about this.

ONYX reject Option 2 absolutely for all the reasons given in the paper.  
Additionally we know that as a new registry it is difficult enough to work 
out what one should be doing and what is going on behind the scenes:  for 
example when one is arranging a reverse delegation.  A complex charging 
scheme such as this would be completely non-transparent to a new registry.  
They wouldn't know what they were going to be charged for every time they 
sent off email to the NCC!  This would definitely put people off in the same 
way that (in the UK at least) non-transparent charging for bank accounts is a 

ONYX don't favour Option 3 either, but much prefer it to Option 2.  We 
accept the advantages claimed in the paper, but don't believe that 
"protecting the RIPE NCC from future instabilities" is a good reason, at this 
stage, to move from a tried and tested formula to a more complex one.  If we 
start to see major consolidation of registries, with associated closures, 
then we can think again.

Andrew Hilborne

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