[arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule

[John Curran]

On Apr 11, 2013, at 4:11 PM, "Mike A. Salim" <msalim at localweb.com>
 wrote:

> Thanks John, I stand corrected - the policy is indeed worded as you state.
> 
> Having said that, the policy as proposed for the July implementation, has left me with the impression that ARIN is having regrets about parceling out /32 blocks early on for even the smallest requests (i.e. for early adopters), and wishes they had started with /36 instead.  It being not feasible to forcibly retrieve those /32 blocks from ISPs, ARIN is saying to these early adopter X-S and XX-S ISP's:  "Hand back your /32 and renumber to a new /36 or pay a higher fee if you want to keep your /32".  Hence my comment.

Mike - 
 
  ARIN doesn't "have regrets" - we just follow the policy that 
  you folks develop and support via this mailing list and the 
  Public Policy meetings.

  It's been noticed that the Revised Fee schedule has an "xx-small" 
  category (at $500/year) which has never been there before, and 
  Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3 "Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs" has 
  been proposed which would allow ARIN to make /40 assignments if
  requested by ISPs to put them in that category (we've never had 
  an xx-small category before)  This effectively extends the present
  option of asking for a /36 (to be in x-small) down another tier.

  We are also lowering fees for ISPs in the x-small category (down
  to  $1000/year) but the problem, as stated by some, is that having
  an option that is even lower (at $500/year) would tempt ISPs to ask
  unwisely for smaller allocations just to save some money, and that 
  this should not be an option available to them as a result of the 
  inadvertent technical harm that they would be doing to themselves.
  
FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN