[arin-discuss] ARIN billing practice
owen at delong.com
Mon Sep 21 16:47:59 EDT 2009
On Sep 21, 2009, at 1:33 PM, David Farmer wrote:
> On 21 Sep 2009 Owen DeLong wrote:
>> 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
>> 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
>> you pay 3 years up front, if you only use 1, you get 1 back, costs
>> 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.
> Refunds can create accounting issues, they may be
> considered future liabilities and need to be carried on the
> books until the second year of registration is started. I'm not
> an accountant so I don't know all the details. But I know
> accountants don't like refunds, especially ones built-in to a
> process. I suspect this is why ARIN has no refunds written into
> their current contracts. So I would suggest going with a non-
> refundable charge even at this step.
I didn't want the policy to be punitive to organizations that may
be legitimate, but, go out of business in a year or whatever.
>> 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.
> I guess I wouldn't oppose such a process, procedure, or policy.
> But, I would want some evidence that it would have an effect.
> FWIW, this sounds more like a billing procedure or issues to
> me, that staff and the board should deal with rather than a
> policy that should go through the Policy Development Process.
Maybe that's why the ARIN membership is discussing this on
ARIN-DISCUSS instead of the public discussing it on PPML.
> This doesn't seem to negatively effect the normal good actors,
> and wouldn't even greatly effect people that don't pay there
> bills on time. First they would have to let the bill go more than
> a year delinquent, and then they would just have to pay ahead
> a little. They still get two or three years of registration, they are
> just required to pay it a head of time.
> But, no one should view this as a magic bullet. As has been
> said this kind of thing isn't really going to stop spamers or other
> bad actors. At best it might stop a few of the dumb or lazy
> ones, it really only slightly raises the bar for most spamers.
Of course it's not a magic bullet. While I would certainly welcome
any more effective solution, I don't have one handy.
More information about the ARIN-discuss