On 06/02/2019 11:40, Jim Reid wrote:
>
>
>> On 6 Feb 2019, at 09:39, Daniel Karrenberg <[email protected]> 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
