Re: Changes we'd make to EPP

Interesting, you'd have to ask the accountants about it, they do like
precise allocations :-)


Michael Young




On 12-01-17 4:26 PM, "Christopher Browne" <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 5:04 PM, MICHAEL YOUNG <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Charging against objects assumes declaring a billing period and
>>addressing
>> deferred revenues.  Yes it would work but its expensive since it hits a
>> lot of downstream billing related systems.
>
>Maybe, if you try to bill it in a really detailed way against the objects.
>
>What I imagine is better is to be very much NOT detailed about it, to
>NOT try to tie fees to individual objects, rather, charging round
>amounts for ranges.
>
>"Dear Registrar:
>On the evaluation date for this quarter, you had 5430 unlinked
>contacts.  See your reports for a list.
>We charge $250 for storing 1000 to 10000 unused contacts, $500 for
>10000 to 100000, and bulk storage of over 100000 contacts will be
>billed $2500 per quarter for each 100000.
>Your bill, for 5430 unused contacts, is $250."
>
>What is most preferable is to never need to issue a bill for this, as
>dead, unvaluable objects get cleaned out before the evaluation date.


_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg