[arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?

[John Curran]

On Apr 22, 2013, at 3:29 PM, Michael Tague <tague at win.net> wrote:

> So the question it seems to me is:  what is fair?   

Michael - 

  Fair as in "fair allocation of costs" or "fair fee for value?"
  With respect to costs, I will repeat that processing of larger
  requests is not significantly different that processing of 
  smaller requests (and may actually be shorter due to experience)
  This would argue for a flat and/or block linear fee structure.

  Fair with respect to "value" is hard since the registry services
  are obligatory; there is not competitive market for which to shop
  for your registry services under the current structure of the 
  system, so there is no clear way to known their actual value.

  Remember that we're discussing fees for registry services, not the
  issuance of address blocks.  In a short time, there will no more 
  address blocks issued, but parties still need ARIN's registration 
  services even if they paid to obtain the rights to the IP addresses
  from another party.  The fee schedule is supposed to cover the cost
  of the registry services, whether directly issued by ARIN from its
  free pool or received via transfer; burdening the fees based on some
  perceived "value" of the IP addresses is not appropriate as they 
  may have been ARIN issued or been received via transfer.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN