[arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Fee proposal (was Re: Alternative to arbitrarytransfers)

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Lee Howard
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 3:09 PM
> To: Brian Johnson; ARIN PPML
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Fee proposal (was Re: Alternative to 
> arbitrarytransfers)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Brian Johnson <bjohnson at drtel.com>
> >
> > If viewed by cost/IP, then the cost/IP for larger orgs 
> (ISPs generally
> > speaking) is less than for smaller orgs. This has been long 
> standing 
> > policy. If you want to change this. Make a proposal and get 
> consensus.
> > Don't degrade one group to make yourself feel better.
> 
> Probably suggestion process, not policy process.  The 
> suggestion doesn't have to be for a specific fee structure; 
> rather, you[1] want to change the principle by which fees are 
> set: instead of setting fees based on ARIN's cost, you want 
> to set fees based on a per-address cost.
> https://www.arin.net/app/suggestion/
> 
> Probably requires member consensus.  Probably belongs on arin-discuss.
> 

Lee,

It was not my intent to trigger a discussion on fees.

But, since we are discussing them, adjustments to the fee
structure do not have to be made to increase the money paid
to ARIN.  You can reduce the discount to larger players, collecting
more money from them, and reduce the fees for smaller players,
collecting less money from them, and end up with the same
money coming in - just a different distribution among the
bearers of the fees.

In any case, I will direct your attention to the ARIN staff
comments on 2008-7, posted to arin-ppml on 3/23/09:

"...An annual re-registration of all POCs (~223,000 currently) will
      likely result in a vast increase in workload, particularly with
      the follow up work and research involved when a POC does not reply
      within 60 days. ..."

An increase in workload will mean having to hire more people at
ARIN which will increase costs.  Thus increasing fees under the
existing principle.  Since increasing fees to the largest consumers
of IPv4 would increase incentive of those consumers to more efficiently
utilize IPv4 and thus defer additional IPv4 requests, which would
affect the largest amount of available IPv4, it would be completely
logical to do this rather than increase fees across the board.

Ted