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

[Jim Reid]

> On 6 Feb 2019, at 09:39, Daniel Karrenberg <d...@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.