[address-policy-wg] late conciliatory response to 2014-03

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 08:00:10AM +0100, Tore Anderson wrote:
>Would an ASN charge be more palatable to you if the membership fee
>included a quota of 1 (or N) gratis ASNs? Or perhaps that the already
>existing IPv4/IPv6 PI charge would include 1 gratis ASN per resource?
>
>I'm thinking that as long as N is a quite modest number, this does not
>cause any real abuse potential and at the same time it would make it
>more likely that the membership would agree to having an ASN fee put in
>place - as the vast majority of us won't actually have to pay anything
>more than we do today.

It would make it operationally easier (at least for me), but I
still think it's a bad idea to have a policy depend on the
charging scheme (or vice versa).

Even assuming the NCC proposes an ASN charge *and* the members
vote for it, this is not guaranteed to survive the next GM. This
gives two possible outcomes:

a) there is a (perceived) barrier to changing the charging scheme
again because a policy depends on it. Basically, policy infringing
on something that should be the exclusive purview of the membership.

b) if the charging scheme does get changed regardless, the policy 
doesn't work and needs changing again. Waste of time and offends
Nick's sensible requirement that the policy should be good for n
years...

All in all, an unelegant solution. Besides, I like the idea of a
"flat-rate" charging scheme where you pay yor membership fee and
have all your services for the year covered.

rgds,
Sascha Luck