[members-discuss] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016

> From: Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl>
> Agree.  We're focusing too much on the money side here. I think the
> objections to the charging scheme have nothing to do with money. It is
> all about having some downside to keeping unused resources, and the
> default way we got to think about that is to charge money for it.

People will not agree to a large enough fee to make that work, and if
the resource is scarce more so, people have seen the v4 market
looming

Take PI charging as an example, the money is trivial, the real cost was
in the enforced paper trail that consumed way more resources to sort
out. I don't know the stats (happy to be shown otherwise) on how many
were recovered at the cost of messing how many legit owners around, I
suspect very few

Time wasted fiddling with legacy v4 better spent rolling out v6.

> The address policy WG wants to make policies easy and simple, but
> if they become too easy then abuse and negligence is feared so we
> try to put a limit on that. The current trends is to do this by
> making the NCC charge the holders

It used to be you had to show a new AS advertised by two upstreams or
you lost it, enough messing to discourage casual abuse

brandon