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

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

All I am asking is that anyone who cares anything at all
about transitioning to IPv6, be aware that a fee incentive
exists for the largest holders to NOT transition.

As I don't work at a large holder I do not know if the
fee discount for large IPv4 holdings actually influences
decisions.  If it does not, because the IP address registration
fee is such a small part of total business expenses, then
perhaps the fees should be adjusted until they do start
to influence decisions.

Just a thought.

Ted

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Tobin [mailto:JTobin at origindigital.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 8:01 AM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt; 'Lee Howard'; 'Brian Johnson'
> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Fee proposal (was Re: 
> Alternative toarbitrarytransfers)
> 
> 
>  All, this thread is hard to follow... What are you asking me?
> 
> 
> John Tobin	
> Director Of Information Technology
> 
> 
> 300 Boulevard East
> Weehawken, NJ 07086-6702, U.S.A.
> 
> E: jtobin at origindigital.com   | C: 732-616-8780 | V: 
> 201.272.8451 |  F: 201.272.8400 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
> This message contains information which may be confidential 
> and/or privileged. Unless you are the intended recipient (or 
> authorized to receive for the intended recipient), you may 
> not read, use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any 
> information contained in the message. If you have received 
> the message in error, please advise the sender by reply 
> e-mail at jtobin at origindigital.com and delete the message and 
> any attachment(s) thereto without retaining any copies. 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 6:52 PM
> To: 'Lee Howard'; 'Brian Johnson'
> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Fee proposal (was Re: 
> Alternative to arbitrarytransfers)
> 
>  
> 
> > -----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 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 
>