[arin-discuss] ARIN billing practice

[David Farmer]

On 21 Sep 2009 Owen DeLong wrote:

> 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.

It is only punitive if they let their bill get more than a year 
delinquent, and it is possible that they will have lost their 
allocation(s) then anyway, that is potentially way more punitive 
than requiring a two year renewal.

> >> 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.

My intent was to reinforce that ARIN-DISCUSS was and is the 
right place for the conservation, I probably wasn't as clear 
about that as I should have been, sorry.

> > 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

I agree, I don't have a more effective solution handy either.  
With a little data, like I asked for, I could probably support 
something along these lines.  

I would like an idea of how many accounts get to more than a 
year past due, it is O(10) or O(100).  If it were O(1,000) or 
O(10,000), then I suspect we would have heard about this as a 
completely different kind of issue.  Further, if it is O(1) then I'm 
not sure this would be worth the effort, that would fall into the 
"if it ain't broke, don't fix it" category in my view.


===============================================
David Farmer                                      Email:farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
Networking & Telecomunication Services
University of Minnesota		       Phone: 612-626-0815
2218 University Ave SE		       Cell: 612-812-9952
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029	       FAX: 612-626-1818
===============================================