[address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)

On 06/02/2019 11:40, Jim Reid wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 6 Feb 2019, at 09:39, Daniel Karrenberg <dfk at ripe.net> wrote:
>>
>> d) The length of the waiting list and other practicalities should be
>> secondary considerations after these principles above. For instance, the
>> RIPE NCC can always recover the costs incurred by the process from those
>> using it.
> 
> That could be awkward Daniel. For instance fair and equitable treatment. Or raising barriers to entry. Then there are the overheads of all that extra bean counting. Passing these costs along is all very well, but why go to the trouble of creating them in the first place?
> 
> This would also be the start of a slippery slope. Once the NCC introduces hypothecated fees for specific services, it’ll have to do that for everything it does. Which would lead to the membership micromanaging budgets and declining to pay for the stuff they don’t want/support.

Apologies for being unclear. I did not propose a specific fee. Just the
normal LIR fee that covers all NCC services. It should more than pay for
a process that can be highly automated.

Daniel