[arin-discuss] ARIN billing practice

[Owen DeLong]

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  
>> 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.
>
> 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.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> 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.


Owen