Re: Changes we'd make to EPP

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