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

Re: Meeting, Charging & Documents

  • To:
  • From: "Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" < >
  • Date: Mon, 09 Sep 1996 13:48:32 MET-DST
  • Cc:

  Dear all !
  ACOnet has in the past strongly supported the idea of flat fees - mostly for
  simplicity reasons, but also because we do not have a "down-stream" food-chain
  to pass on any variable expenses. Thus we still propose to continue with Model 1.
  If the current system of self-determination of category is somewhat flawed,
  then I'd rely on the input from the NCC to advise on necessary changes. 
  We might even want to make that a regular activity of the NCC before the
  discussion of the fee strucure or semi-annually, either as part of the regular
  reporting or in private to the LIRs. 

  If we feel that there is a need for just a couple of more categories (few!),
  then let's try to fix that.

  On top of that, we would be happy to pay an additional fee for things that are
  requested only once in a while and can be clearly attributed to a certin project,
  like assigning an AS# or having a *fixed* surcharge for an address request
  exceeding a certain size (or the assignment window - although that is probably
  already too dynamic for small and/or startup registries. Also, requesting
  another /16 (or whatever size is appropriate) to carry a one-time charge is
  conceivable, because that can be planned avead in due time and can be accounted
  for in local budget forecasts.
  We are *strongly* against Model 2 because it involves too much administrative
  overhead *on both sides*, but can probably live with Model 3.
  Trying to review Models 2 and 3, I think we need more input on why there would
  still be a different basic charge? I'm currently inclined to propose to our
  management to down-grade ACOnet's category to small, if Model 2 (or 3) should
  be adopted.
  And, given the amount of time I could devote to analyzing the address space
  cost table in Model 3, I think I need more input to understand why a chunk of
  addresses allocated at the beginning of 1997 would be charged at 548.72 in Q1
  compared to a mere 208.95 by Q4 - that's less than 50% ?
  In general, if we propose to go to Model 3, I think we need more input on the
  rationale of the figures involved, and why addresses are going to be tagged
  with grossly different "values".
  Thanks for your consideration.
  Best regards,
  Wilfried Woeber                :  e-mail: Woeber@localhost
  Computer Center - ACOnet       :  
  Vienna University              :  Tel: +43 1 4065822 355
  Universitaetsstrasse 7         :  Fax: +43 1 4065822 170
  A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe :  NIC: WW144

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