Hi,
The intricacies with "one /44 for 15 sites = 1 or 16 charging units?" etc. came up over the years... so giving clear guidance to the NCC on what is to be considered "a chargeable assignment according to the charging scheme" is definitely a worthy goal.
While I generally agree, I am still not sure whether that should be part of the assignment policy, or a separate document.
I have to chime in here. Anything dictating charging scheme behaviour is out of scope for this working group. And I’m saying that with both APWG chair and RIPE NCC board experience in mind :) So, what I would suggest: - this working group shouldn’t define any charging related things in the policy text - however, the RIPE NCC board and staff do look at the rationale behind discussions and consensus in the WG - that rationale may be taken on board by the Charging Scheme Task Force 2024 - which may influence their output - which will be taken seriously by the RIPE NCC board - which may result in certain charging scheme proposals - on which the RIPE NCC membership then has to vote So there are many steps between consensus here in the working group and the final vote by the RIPE NCC members. The wishes of this working group may (and as an ex-WG-chair I’d say “should”, but it hasn’t always worked out that way) influence the votes by the members. The important thing then becomes Communication™. If this working group can clearly explain their reasoning, then the board can explain choices made regarding the charging scheme proposals based on that, which the members then can use as input when voting. But, as with many complex things in life: no guarantees or promises :) Cheers, Sander Disclaimer: I’m not formally speaking as a board member here. I am attempting to inform this working group on what my personal understanding and expectations are based on my own experience. I am aware that things are even more complex than I describe here, but I feel any further detail will only distract. I’m meandering enough as it is :D