____________________________________________________
Charging by Local Internet Registries
Mike Norris
Daniel Karrenberg
Document: ripe-152
Date: April 22nd 1996
1. Abstract
This paper deals with charging for services by
Internet registries, and indicates acceptable prac-
tice for such charging. It identifies name- and
address-space as finite resources with no intrinsic
value; as such, direct costs cannot be ascribed to
such space. It also makes recommendations for the
operation of European registries in general, and
additionally for those with monopoly positions.
2. Internet services
In Europe as elsewhere, providers offer a range of
services relating to Internet access. These include
Internet connectivity, the provision of applications
to end-users, design, consultancy and training ser-
vices, as well as system services such as IP regis-
tration, DNS, routing and packet forwarding.
With some identifiable exceptions (to which we shall
return), there is generally an open market in the
provision of such services. On the supply side,
there is freedom to enter the market, to compete for
business, and to charge for services in order to
stay in business. In this context, it is acceptable
practice for Internet service providers (ISPs) to
charge for services such as domain registration,
routing services, packet forwarding and IP services.
On the demand side, the general plurality of service
providers means that the customer has a choice; if
not satisfied with the terms of one supplier, she
can take her business to another.
3. Registries and Resources
Two of the above services involve the assignment of
finite resources to customers; these are domain name
space and IPv4 address space. They are managed and
____________________________________________________
ripe-152.txt Page 1
Charging by Local Internet Registries
Mike Norris, Daniel Karrenberg
____________________________________________________
assigned by registration agencies, respectively
domain name registries and IP registries. By them-
selves, these resources have no intrinsic value;
their worth is only realised in conjunction with the
provision of Internet access. Thus, while reg-
istries may charge for their administrative and
technical services, they may not charge for names-
pace or address space as such; no unit cost or price
tag can be attached to a domain name or to an IP
address, public or private.
This principle must be made clear to the market in
general and to the customer in particular. The cus-
tomer must be aware of precisely what she is getting
from the registry, whether it is paid for or not.
Where there is a charge, the customer must not be
under the illusion that this translates into a unit
cost per resource assigned, nor that the transaction
is an indefinite transfer of ownership of the mer-
chandise. Finally, the customer must accept the
terms under which name or address space is assigned.
In the case of IP address space, these include the
contractual term that the assignment is only valid
for so long as the criteria of the assignment are
valid [ref 1]. As soon as the original criteria no
longer apply, the address space must be returned
without penalty or premium to the assigning reg-
istry.
4. Special Case Registries
As indicated above, there are certain exceptions to
the market principle in the Internet registration
services. These occur where, by virtue of their
location in the hierarchy of Internet registration,
certain registries find themselves in a monopoly
position. In the case of namespace, this applies to
top-level domain (TLD) registries (in Europe, these
are all country registries), as well as certain
administratively unique second-level domain reg-
istries (such as .co.uk, .ac.at etc). When it comes
to IP address allocation, regional registries con-
stitute monopolies within the communities they
serve. The RIPE NCC is the regional registry for
the European region [ref 2]. Other possible exam-
ples are the last resort (non-provider) IP reg-
istries, although nowadays the customer has an
alternative to their services.
It is important that there be transparency in the
procedures and accounts of such "special case" reg-
istries. They must not generate excessive surplus
by virtue of their monopoly position.
____________________________________________________
ripe-152.txt Page 2
Charging by Local Internet Registries
Mike Norris, Daniel Karrenberg
____________________________________________________
5. Recommendations
To meet with the objectives outlined in this paper,
it is recommended that all registries:
* publish their operating procedures;
* publish details of the services they offer and
the conditions and terms that apply, including
scales of tariffs if applicable;
* explicitly publish the fact that they do not
sell name or address space as such.
As for "special case" registries as defined above,
it is recommended that where such a registry charges
for service, it should, in addition to complying
with the recommendations listed above:
* relate charges to costs of operation and apply
all revenues to such costs;
* regularly publish a budget of its anticipated
operating costs and revenue;
* publish guidelines and apply these uniformly;
* ensure equality of access to registration ser-
vices;
* aim to achieve consensus within the community
it serves as to the disposal of any surplus
revenues;
* regularly publish accounts of income and expen-
diture;
* refrain from using their unique position as
leverage in any other business venture.
References
1. "European Internet Registry Policies and Proce-
dures" by Orange, C., Kuehne, M., Karrenberg, D.
(ripe-104, 1996)
2. "RIPE NCC - Delegated Internet Registry"
(ripe-112, 1994)
____________________________________________________
ripe-152.txt Page 3