[arin-discuss] ARIN billing practice

[Owen DeLong]

What about a policy that covers the situation of repeated receipt and
reclamation? For example:

1.	Standard process applies the first time you get address space
	as it does today.

2.	You return the space or fail to pay your bill.

3.	You come back for a second round of addresses on a new "initial"
	application. Based on your history, you are expected to front a deposit
	for your next two years renewal as well, 50% of which is refundable
	if you return your space at the end of the first year. (In other words,
	you pay 3 years up front, if you only use 1, you get 1 back, costs you
	two.)  If you use for more than a year, the deposit is forfeit, but,  
you don't
	owe fees until you begin your fourth year of utilization.

4.	You return the space, get your one year refund, and subsequently
	apply for a 3rd round of addressing on yet another new application.

5.	This time, you're still charged on the 3-year deposit basis, but,  
it is
	completely non-refundable.

Thoughts?

Owen

On Sep 21, 2009, at 7:30 AM, Schiller, Heather A (HeatherSkanks) wrote:

>
> I was reading Chris Morrow's comment on Nanog - about spammers..
>
> "The end of the discussion was along the lines of: "Yes, we know this
> guy is bad news, but he always comes to us with the proper paperwork  
> and
> numbers, there's nothing in the current policy set to deny him address
> resources. Happily though he never pays his bill after the first 12
> months so we just reclaim whatever resources are allocated  
> then."  (yes,
> comments about more address space ending up on BL's were made, and  
> that
> he probably doesn't pay because after the first 3 months the address
> space is 'worthless' to him...)"
>
> ..and got to wondering, "Why doesn't ARIN charge first and last years
> "rent" on resource allocations?"
>
> If you notify ARIN before your bill is due, that you will be returning
> the resource and not renewing, you get a refund.  If you don't notify
> ARIN and your bill lapses, then ARIN isn't out the money they would  
> have
> gotten from you, during the time they hold your resource before/during
> revocation for non-payment. (since most folks keep using it, you  
> should
> still have to pay for it..)
>
> I'm not claiming this would make the spam thing any better.. just  
> raise
> the financial bar, make them have to do work if they want their money
> back.
>
> I don't know whether I'm even in favor of this or not.. but just about
> every other 'utility' type service has this practice, and maybe this  
> is
> worth considering.  Maybe there is a reason ARIN doesn't do this..?
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --Heather
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.