Moin,
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. Along with that, I would also argue that a tiered approach tying PI prices relatively to the membership fee in some way might be a good way forward (as noted in the previous mail). In any case, the current proposal does not necessarily change the incentive structure, as it does not change that one /44 vs. 16 /48 from the same request would still only be charged once for EUR75/year under either version of the policy. So, I would argue that--while I generally agree that the incentive issue is certainly imperative to solve--it is not something to solve in the current iteration/change. With best regards, Tobias