[arin-discuss] ARIN Fee discussion
Howard, W. Lee
Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com
Sat Oct 6 19:14:15 EDT 2007
- Previous message: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacyassignments?(fwd)
- Next message: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?(fwd)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
I am delighted to see a substantive fee discussion on ARIN-discuss! Let me try to explain the current system, without implying that it's the only system possible. The concept supporting the current fee structure is that ARIN should try to recover its costs. The cost to ARIN for issuing address space is not linear; while it takes more time to review an application for a /16 than a /22, it doesn't take 32 times as long, and the demand on servers and finance and meetings and so forth is similarly larger-but-non-linear. So for simplicity's sake a few size categories were defined, with fees at levels that seemed about right for each size, without breaking anyone. When setting fees for IPv6, we (the Finance Committee recommended to the Board) chose to follow a well-known and generally-supported fee structure. Look at the recent updates at http://www.arin.net/billing/fee_schedule.html Ignore waivers for the moment. Current policies (see the NRPM at http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html) essentially allow the following kinds of allocations or assignments: * End-user assignment from upstream provider (null) * End-user assignment from ARIN (/48 = $1,250 + $100/yr) * LIR standard allocation from ARIN (/32 = $2,250/yr) * Larger LIR allocations from ARIN (/31 and larger) There are some exceptions and corner cases, but those are the general cases. LIRs pay an annual renewal because they generate more work on an ongoing basis. End-users only pay a maintenance fee because in general, they require little additional support, only enough to make sure there's still somebody there. Earlier this year, the Finance Committee reviewed about 15 proposals for fee structures (and waivers). We agreed that we needed to continue working on this, but we recommended the IPv6 declining waiver beginning in January so we'd have a well-understood structure and waiver in place while work continued. So, as I often do, I'm soliciting suggestions for ARIN's fee structure. I suggest the following voluntary constraints: * Define "fair" in a way that's obvious to the other guy * Define your goal. Either: * Work toward ARIN's current budget, * or suggest specific budget changes, * or suggest a different goal http://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/budget.html * Emphasize IPv6 over IPv4. Current projections suggest that the initial fee for IPv4 allocations and assignments will be moot very soon. * Don't use analogies. I have not found them particularly enlightening in the past six months. * Change the subject line if you're coming up with a new suggestion. These are only suggestions, and completely voluntary--you can still post whatever you like on the topic. Your Treasurer, Lee Howard
- Previous message: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacyassignments?(fwd)
- Next message: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?(fwd)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the ARIN-discuss mailing list