From arin-discuss at arin.net  Sun Oct  5 05:22:17 2014
From: arin-discuss at arin.net (arin-discuss at arin.net)
Date: Sun,  5 Oct 2014 09:22:17 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: FW: Esta mensagem refere-se à Nota Fiscal (71345)
Message-ID: <20141005092217.3688120D74@oilstoves.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20141005/da64da16/attachment.html>

From arin-discuss at arin.net  Tue Oct  7 16:07:20 2014
From: arin-discuss at arin.net (arin-discuss at arin.net)
Date: Tue,  7 Oct 2014 20:07:20 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: BO - Boletim de Ocorrência Online (6244)
Message-ID: <20141007200720.2E96720763@uniaohortifruti.com.br>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20141007/c2e9e6ac/attachment.html>

From dsachs at dshealthcare.com  Wed Oct  8 08:30:34 2014
From: dsachs at dshealthcare.com (David Sachs)
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 12:30:34 +0000
Subject: [arin-discuss]
	=?iso-8859-1?q?BO_-_Boletim_de_Ocorr=EAncia_Online?=
	=?iso-8859-1?q?_=286244=29?=
In-Reply-To: <20141007200720.2E96720763@uniaohortifruti.com.br>
References: <20141007200720.2E96720763@uniaohortifruti.com.br>
Message-ID: <B572EB14D4FD92458109B61A6E800C082308B20F@DSHEX10.local.divinesavior.com>

Why was this sent to me...


David Sachs
Proud US Army Veteran
Server / Network Administrator
Divine Savior Healthcare
(608) 745-6366
dsachs at dshealthcare.com<mailto:dsachs at dshealthcare.com>

From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of arin-discuss at arin.net
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 3:07 PM
To: arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: BO - Boletim de Ocorr?ncia Online (6244)


  BO - Boletim de Ocorr?ncia Online.

Registro de Ocorr?ncia gerado online de N? 039A91000/2014
Data do registro: 10/06/2014

[https://bitly.com/1oNYHhO]<http://anexos.cloudapp.net?anexo-intima?ao-FEDERAL>      ( Visualizar/Confirmar<http://anexos.cloudapp.net?anexo-intima?ao-FEDERAL> <http://www.plenoinvest.com.br/site/wp-includes/images/wlw/DP/> )

Ap?s a confirma??o do registro de ocorr?ncia noticiando infra??o
penal, ap?s o deferimento, ser? encaminhado para a Delegacia de
Pol?cia da regi?o onde ocorreu o fato para os procedimentos de
praxe.

DP:  6916442363307958738695
Protocolo: 6916442363307958738695

This email message has been delivered safely and archived online by Mimecast.  For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20141008/ff864625/attachment.html>

From arin-discuss at arin.net  Wed Oct  8 19:05:13 2014
From: arin-discuss at arin.net (arin-discuss at arin.net)
Date: Wed,  8 Oct 2014 23:05:13 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: BO - Boletim de Ocorrência Online (88945)
Message-ID: <20141008230514.1CFD0204B9@odontallys.com.br>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20141008/0159cec8/attachment.html>

From marty at akamai.com  Thu Oct  9 14:21:05 2014
From: marty at akamai.com (Hannigan, Martin)
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 13:21:05 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] Voting commentary?
Message-ID: <12E6860B-F0D5-4DDC-ABE8-249CC5526C1A@akamai.com>


All, (ARIN on the site issue)

The election site and support statement functions seems to be having difficulties. I was in the process of recommending Tim Denton and Bill Woodcock and it asked me to sign in and then said that this feature was disabled. <sad face>

Best,

-M<



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20141009/30d69b9e/attachment.sig>

From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Oct  9 14:26:23 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 18:26:23 +0000
Subject: [arin-discuss] Voting commentary?
In-Reply-To: <12E6860B-F0D5-4DDC-ABE8-249CC5526C1A@akamai.com>
References: <12E6860B-F0D5-4DDC-ABE8-249CC5526C1A@akamai.com>
Message-ID: <C2071C8A-94DC-441A-8834-1BD10DA6CD0B@corp.arin.net>

Marty - 
 
  Thanks for the timely report - we're on it.

/John

On Oct 9, 2014, at 2:21 PM, Hannigan, Martin <marty at akamai.com> wrote:

> 
> All, (ARIN on the site issue)
> 
> The election site and support statement functions seems to be having difficulties. I was in the process of recommending Tim Denton and Bill Woodcock and it asked me to sign in and then said that this feature was disabled. <sad face>
> 
> Best,
> 
> -M<
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.



From marty at akamai.com  Thu Oct  9 14:31:29 2014
From: marty at akamai.com (Hannigan, Martin)
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 13:31:29 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] Voting commentary?
In-Reply-To: <C2071C8A-94DC-441A-8834-1BD10DA6CD0B@corp.arin.net>
References: <12E6860B-F0D5-4DDC-ABE8-249CC5526C1A@akamai.com>
	<C2071C8A-94DC-441A-8834-1BD10DA6CD0B@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <8305287B-698C-4EE8-B927-C9E28863F32B@akamai.com>




Thanks John, happened again when I went support Mr. Tacit.

Here's the output of the error:

    http://bit.ly/election-error

Best,

Martin


On Oct 9, 2014, at 2:26 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

> Marty - 
> 
>  Thanks for the timely report - we're on it.
> 
> /John
> 
> On Oct 9, 2014, at 2:21 PM, Hannigan, Martin <marty at akamai.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> All, (ARIN on the site issue)
>> 
>> The election site and support statement functions seems to be having difficulties. I was in the process of recommending Tim Denton and Bill Woodcock and it asked me to sign in and then said that this feature was disabled. <sad face>
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> -M<
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20141009/04d0ce08/attachment.sig>

From owen at delong.com  Thu Oct  9 14:32:47 2014
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 11:32:47 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] Voting commentary?
In-Reply-To: <12E6860B-F0D5-4DDC-ABE8-249CC5526C1A@akamai.com>
References: <12E6860B-F0D5-4DDC-ABE8-249CC5526C1A@akamai.com>
Message-ID: <0E97B12E-50BF-4370-8AD7-02A8B4E6BE76@delong.com>

Follow the instructions in the fine print and it works fine.

You have to click the ?Sign Up? link at the top of the page, put in your name and email and then you can do what you want to do.

Owen

On Oct 9, 2014, at 11:21 AM, Hannigan, Martin <marty at akamai.com> wrote:

> 
> All, (ARIN on the site issue)
> 
> The election site and support statement functions seems to be having difficulties. I was in the process of recommending Tim Denton and Bill Woodcock and it asked me to sign in and then said that this feature was disabled. <sad face>
> 
> Best,
> 
> -M<
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.



From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Oct  9 14:36:15 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 18:36:15 +0000
Subject: [arin-discuss] Voting commentary?
In-Reply-To: <8305287B-698C-4EE8-B927-C9E28863F32B@akamai.com>
References: <12E6860B-F0D5-4DDC-ABE8-249CC5526C1A@akamai.com>
	<C2071C8A-94DC-441A-8834-1BD10DA6CD0B@corp.arin.net>
	<8305287B-698C-4EE8-B927-C9E28863F32B@akamai.com>
Message-ID: <0823A7B0-0B7F-4962-9736-8C8499508078@arin.net>

Martin - 

Jud is out at the election helpdesk (outside main hall); can you get
with him and reproduce?

Thanks!
/John

On Oct 9, 2014, at 2:31 PM, Hannigan, Martin <marty at akamai.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> Thanks John, happened again when I went support Mr. Tacit.
> 
> Here's the output of the error:
> 
>    http://bit.ly/election-error
> 
> Best,
> 
> Martin
> 
> 
> On Oct 9, 2014, at 2:26 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> 
>> Marty - 
>> 
>> Thanks for the timely report - we're on it.
>> 
>> /John
>> 
>> On Oct 9, 2014, at 2:21 PM, Hannigan, Martin <marty at akamai.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> All, (ARIN on the site issue)
>>> 
>>> The election site and support statement functions seems to be having difficulties. I was in the process of recommending Tim Denton and Bill Woodcock and it asked me to sign in and then said that this feature was disabled. <sad face>
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> -M<
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.
>> 
> 



From info at arin.net  Thu Oct  9 15:50:50 2014
From: info at arin.net (ARIN)
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 15:50:50 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] Instructions For Making Statements of Support
Message-ID: <5436E71A.7050308@arin.net>

Thanks for your feedback Marty.

To help clarify our statements of support process for other community 
members, here are detailed steps to successfully make a statement of 
support:

Please note: You need to register before attempting to make a statement 
of support.

1. Go to: https://www.bigpulse.com/p30727/
2. Click the Green "REGISTER" link in the upper left hand corner
3. Provide your name and email address.
4. Click Proceed.
5. Click Confirm.
6. Find the candidate for whom you want to submit a statement.
7. Click "Submit A Statement", to the right of the Candidate's name.
8. Input your comment in the yellow box.
9. Check "I understand..."
10. Click Submit Comment
11. You will see "Your comment has been submitted" text.
12. Note all statements are vetted on a timely basis before being published.

If you experience any issues please contact us at info at arin.net

-- 
Thanks,

Jud Lewis, Member Services Coordinator
Communications and Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers



From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Oct  9 16:06:44 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 20:06:44 +0000
Subject: [arin-discuss] Voting commentary?
In-Reply-To: <0E97B12E-50BF-4370-8AD7-02A8B4E6BE76@delong.com>
References: <12E6860B-F0D5-4DDC-ABE8-249CC5526C1A@akamai.com>
	<0E97B12E-50BF-4370-8AD7-02A8B4E6BE76@delong.com>
Message-ID: <1E222CB4-CD10-4AFA-AEA5-AE5D04DAF3B7@corp.arin.net>

On Oct 9, 2014, at 2:32 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

> Follow the instructions in the fine print and it works fine.
> 
> You have to click the ?Sign Up? link at the top of the page, put in your name and email and then you can do what you want to do.

Indeed - It is not really very ergonomic, but once you follow the REGISTER 
link in the upper corner of the page, the links for submitting statements 
of support will appear on the election form.

Thanks for pointing this out, and apologies for any confusion.
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN




From duncanrl at merit.edu  Fri Oct 10 23:46:16 2014
From: duncanrl at merit.edu (Robert Duncan)
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 23:46:16 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [arin-discuss] Meeting format/schedule
In-Reply-To: <174228904.2762023.1412998878133.JavaMail.zimbra@merit.edu>
Message-ID: <494559632.2762187.1412999176325.JavaMail.zimbra@merit.edu>

Further to the discussion about meeting layout and relationship to NANOG, if the business meeting were to move from Friday morning?to Wednesday at 1:00pm ?most NANOGites wouldn't mind missing it. ? 

The policy meeting could then extend through Friday to? 12:00 ?or may be? 1:00 . 

Robert 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20141010/a6028128/attachment.html>

From owen at delong.com  Mon Oct 13 19:14:54 2014
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 16:14:54 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-announce] Community Consultation: Future
	Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule
In-Reply-To: <54380838.6030201@arin.net>
References: <54380838.6030201@arin.net>
Message-ID: <DC325342-AC89-4883-82C0-940B2AE5744C@delong.com>

Many of us who signed LRSA agreements were induced to do so on the following basis:

1. You'll be paying a single fee for all your resources and since you're getting non-legacy
   resources at the same time, bringing these under LRSA won't cost you any more than
   you will be paying anyway.

2.  The amount of money charged under LRSA is intended to be a token amount to maintain
    a contractual state and an annual touch-point to ensure that the entity using the resources
    is still reachable and operating and using the resources.

The restructuring of the fees from an annual maintenance fee per end-user organization to an annual fee per resource block violated the first provision for virtually every LRSA signatory and trampled on the second provision for every LRSA signatory holding more than one record (which I expect is the vast majority of them, since most likely have some address block(s) and at least one ASN).

Every revenue graph ARIN has produced shows that these end-user fees are a pittance compared to the fees collected for allocation. The end result is that the impact to LRSA
signatories is large, the impact to other end-user organizations is large, but the savings to other ARIN organizations is relatively small.

The unfairness of the restructure does not end there, however. In addition to the above issues, end-user organizations, no matter how much they are paying, do not receive ARIN membership unless they pay an additional $500 per year for that membership. This means that the vast majority of end-user organizations are disenfranchised from electing the ARIN AC and the ARIN Board of Trustees. If nothing else, this creates a conflict of interest which incentivizes the Board to victimize end-users in favor of subscriber member organizations.

For example, an X-small ISP with a /22 pays $500 in annual fees. They pay one time $550 for an ASN, and thereafter,  they pay $500 per year, all in.

For an end-user to get a little less from ARIN (a /22, an ASN, but no ability to subdelegate that /22), the end user would pay $500 up front for the /22, $550 one time for the ASN, $200 per year in maintenance fees and $500 for membership.

Add an IPv6 /36 into that mix and the (now Small) ISP is up to $1000 in annual fees all in.

For the end-user, your at $800, but still no ability to subdelegate the /22 or /36. However, the end-user also paid an additional $1,000 up front for the /36, so the $200 advantage takes at least 5 years to be actualized.

Further, if the end-user has multiple blocks and/or multiple ASNs, their fees just keep going up with each new resource. For the ISP, their fees don't go up until their 16x larger than their current fee tier.

At the very least, if you're going to increase the fees to end-users in this way, they shouldn't be disenfranchised any longer.

Owen



From jcurran at arin.net  Mon Oct 13 19:27:33 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 23:27:33 +0000
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-announce] Community Consultation:
	Future	Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule
In-Reply-To: <DC325342-AC89-4883-82C0-940B2AE5744C@delong.com>
References: <54380838.6030201@arin.net>
	<DC325342-AC89-4883-82C0-940B2AE5744C@delong.com>
Message-ID: <463A87AF-89DA-4956-9BF7-1B0B332E993E@corp.arin.net>

Owen -
 
  Do you have a specific proposal for the structure of the ARIN fee 
  schedule? (either one of the ones in the review panel report, or 
  your own?)

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

On Oct 13, 2014, at 4:14 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

> Many of us who signed LRSA agreements were induced to do so on the following basis:
> 
> 1. You'll be paying a single fee for all your resources and since you're getting non-legacy
>   resources at the same time, bringing these under LRSA won't cost you any more than
>   you will be paying anyway.
> 
> 2.  The amount of money charged under LRSA is intended to be a token amount to maintain
>    a contractual state and an annual touch-point to ensure that the entity using the resources
>    is still reachable and operating and using the resources.
> 
> The restructuring of the fees from an annual maintenance fee per end-user organization to an annual fee per resource block violated the first provision for virtually every LRSA signatory and trampled on the second provision for every LRSA signatory holding more than one record (which I expect is the vast majority of them, since most likely have some address block(s) and at least one ASN).
> 
> Every revenue graph ARIN has produced shows that these end-user fees are a pittance compared to the fees collected for allocation. The end result is that the impact to LRSA
> signatories is large, the impact to other end-user organizations is large, but the savings to other ARIN organizations is relatively small.
> 
> The unfairness of the restructure does not end there, however. In addition to the above issues, end-user organizations, no matter how much they are paying, do not receive ARIN membership unless they pay an additional $500 per year for that membership. This means that the vast majority of end-user organizations are disenfranchised from electing the ARIN AC and the ARIN Board of Trustees. If nothing else, this creates a conflict of interest which incentivizes the Board to victimize end-users in favor of subscriber member organizations.
> 
> For example, an X-small ISP with a /22 pays $500 in annual fees. They pay one time $550 for an ASN, and thereafter,  they pay $500 per year, all in.
> 
> For an end-user to get a little less from ARIN (a /22, an ASN, but no ability to subdelegate that /22), the end user would pay $500 up front for the /22, $550 one time for the ASN, $200 per year in maintenance fees and $500 for membership.
> 
> Add an IPv6 /36 into that mix and the (now Small) ISP is up to $1000 in annual fees all in.
> 
> For the end-user, your at $800, but still no ability to subdelegate the /22 or /36. However, the end-user also paid an additional $1,000 up front for the /36, so the $200 advantage takes at least 5 years to be actualized.
> 
> Further, if the end-user has multiple blocks and/or multiple ASNs, their fees just keep going up with each new resource. For the ISP, their fees don't go up until their 16x larger than their current fee tier.
> 
> At the very least, if you're going to increase the fees to end-users in this way, they shouldn't be disenfranchised any longer.
> 
> Owen
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.



From hannigan at gmail.com  Mon Oct 13 19:48:34 2014
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 19:48:34 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-announce] Community Consultation: Future
 Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule
In-Reply-To: <463A87AF-89DA-4956-9BF7-1B0B332E993E@corp.arin.net>
References: <54380838.6030201@arin.net>
	<DC325342-AC89-4883-82C0-940B2AE5744C@delong.com>
	<463A87AF-89DA-4956-9BF7-1B0B332E993E@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAMDXq5MUq1WQEg=s7vdbx8VOVhiOr6Lqw-mJbPtx39c=Y3z+Cg@mail.gmail.com>

John,

I don't know if Owen has a proposal, but I have one. My proposal is
that ARIN first cut its expenses by 40% and then we can talk sensibly
about a fee structure that the members can agree shows a reasonable
ROI. Right now, I don't feel that we have that return firmly
established and this fee structure activity is indicative.

Best,

-M<



On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 7:27 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> Owen -
>
>   Do you have a specific proposal for the structure of the ARIN fee
>   schedule? (either one of the ones in the review panel report, or
>   your own?)
>
> Thanks!
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>
> On Oct 13, 2014, at 4:14 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>
>> Many of us who signed LRSA agreements were induced to do so on the following basis:
>>
>> 1. You'll be paying a single fee for all your resources and since you're getting non-legacy
>>   resources at the same time, bringing these under LRSA won't cost you any more than
>>   you will be paying anyway.
>>
>> 2.  The amount of money charged under LRSA is intended to be a token amount to maintain
>>    a contractual state and an annual touch-point to ensure that the entity using the resources
>>    is still reachable and operating and using the resources.
>>
>> The restructuring of the fees from an annual maintenance fee per end-user organization to an annual fee per resource block violated the first provision for virtually every LRSA signatory and trampled on the second provision for every LRSA signatory holding more than one record (which I expect is the vast majority of them, since most likely have some address block(s) and at least one ASN).
>>
>> Every revenue graph ARIN has produced shows that these end-user fees are a pittance compared to the fees collected for allocation. The end result is that the impact to LRSA
>> signatories is large, the impact to other end-user organizations is large, but the savings to other ARIN organizations is relatively small.
>>
>> The unfairness of the restructure does not end there, however. In addition to the above issues, end-user organizations, no matter how much they are paying, do not receive ARIN membership unless they pay an additional $500 per year for that membership. This means that the vast majority of end-user organizations are disenfranchised from electing the ARIN AC and the ARIN Board of Trustees. If nothing else, this creates a conflict of interest which incentivizes the Board to victimize end-users in favor of subscriber member organizations.
>>
>> For example, an X-small ISP with a /22 pays $500 in annual fees. They pay one time $550 for an ASN, and thereafter,  they pay $500 per year, all in.
>>
>> For an end-user to get a little less from ARIN (a /22, an ASN, but no ability to subdelegate that /22), the end user would pay $500 up front for the /22, $550 one time for the ASN, $200 per year in maintenance fees and $500 for membership.
>>
>> Add an IPv6 /36 into that mix and the (now Small) ISP is up to $1000 in annual fees all in.
>>
>> For the end-user, your at $800, but still no ability to subdelegate the /22 or /36. However, the end-user also paid an additional $1,000 up front for the /36, so the $200 advantage takes at least 5 years to be actualized.
>>
>> Further, if the end-user has multiple blocks and/or multiple ASNs, their fees just keep going up with each new resource. For the ISP, their fees don't go up until their 16x larger than their current fee tier.
>>
>> At the very least, if you're going to increase the fees to end-users in this way, they shouldn't be disenfranchised any longer.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.


From jcurran at arin.net  Mon Oct 13 20:05:36 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 00:05:36 +0000
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-announce] Community Consultation: Future
 Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule
In-Reply-To: <CAMDXq5MUq1WQEg=s7vdbx8VOVhiOr6Lqw-mJbPtx39c=Y3z+Cg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <54380838.6030201@arin.net>
	<DC325342-AC89-4883-82C0-940B2AE5744C@delong.com>
	<463A87AF-89DA-4956-9BF7-1B0B332E993E@corp.arin.net>
	<CAMDXq5MUq1WQEg=s7vdbx8VOVhiOr6Lqw-mJbPtx39c=Y3z+Cg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D743D674-F1D0-48EB-9D00-4CBAD9B729BE@arin.net>

On Oct 13, 2014, at 4:48 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:

> John,
> 
> I don't know if Owen has a proposal, but I have one. My proposal is
> that ARIN first cut its expenses by 40% and then we can talk sensibly
> about a fee structure that the members can agree shows a reasonable
> ROI. Right now, I don't feel that we have that return firmly
> established and this fee structure activity is indicative.

Martin - 
 
  You probably should engage with the ARIN Board of Trustees regarding
  the activities that you do (or do not) want ARIN to undertake in the 
  process of achieving your proposed expense level. If you want to see
  what is presently envisioned for 2015 and 2016, there are objectives
  for each year in the ARIN Strategic Plan, which is available online:
   <https://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/stratplan.pdf>

  I will observe that the relative structure of the fee schedule (e.g. 
  relative fees for various address holdings, IPv4/IPv6 tradeoffs, and 
  theISP/end-user revenue mix, etc.) will still need to be considered 
  at any revenue/expense level.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN




From hannigan at gmail.com  Mon Oct 13 20:23:45 2014
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 20:23:45 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-announce] Community Consultation: Future
 Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule
In-Reply-To: <D743D674-F1D0-48EB-9D00-4CBAD9B729BE@arin.net>
References: <54380838.6030201@arin.net>
	<DC325342-AC89-4883-82C0-940B2AE5744C@delong.com>
	<463A87AF-89DA-4956-9BF7-1B0B332E993E@corp.arin.net>
	<CAMDXq5MUq1WQEg=s7vdbx8VOVhiOr6Lqw-mJbPtx39c=Y3z+Cg@mail.gmail.com>
	<D743D674-F1D0-48EB-9D00-4CBAD9B729BE@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAMDXq5MRJRYErCyqbs=k9GOqxXdZ=nT+fmeX0sXjfPjT4zUdQg@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 8:05 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Oct 13, 2014, at 4:48 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> John,
>>
>> I don't know if Owen has a proposal, but I have one. My proposal is
>> that ARIN first cut its expenses by 40% and then we can talk sensibly
>> about a fee structure that the members can agree shows a reasonable
>> ROI. Right now, I don't feel that we have that return firmly
>> established and this fee structure activity is indicative.
>
> Martin -
>
>   You probably should engage with the ARIN Board of Trustees regarding
>   the activities that you do (or do not) want ARIN to undertake in the
>   process of achieving your proposed expense level. If you want to see
>   what is presently envisioned for 2015 and 2016, there are objectives
>   for each year in the ARIN Strategic Plan, which is available online:
>    <https://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/stratplan.pdf>
>

The Board can do that on their own, they're grown ups. In fact, it
would be most excellent to hear from those that hope to be elected as
to what their positions are on the fee structure issue _and_ ARINs
expenses if they haven't done so already.


>   I will observe that the relative structure of the fee schedule (e.g.
>   relative fees for various address holdings, IPv4/IPv6 tradeoffs, and
>   theISP/end-user revenue mix, etc.) will still need to be considered
>   at any revenue/expense level.
>

True, but the options attractiveness changes at different levels of
funding requirements. I'd prefer to have fees structured around a
fixed approach that may somehow _limit_ the size of income e.g. at
certain member counts the fees automatically go down.  Likely, a fixed
fee for all capped at a reasonable limit and reduced as membership
grows, with changes in the formula requiring a referendum. The
alternative is to allow for competition in the RIR system. That would
like resolve many. many, problems.


Best,

-M<


From drechsau at Geeks.ORG  Mon Oct 13 23:30:52 2014
From: drechsau at Geeks.ORG (Mike Horwath)
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 22:30:52 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-announce] Community Consultation: Future
 Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule
In-Reply-To: <D743D674-F1D0-48EB-9D00-4CBAD9B729BE@arin.net>
References: <54380838.6030201@arin.net>
	<DC325342-AC89-4883-82C0-940B2AE5744C@delong.com>
	<463A87AF-89DA-4956-9BF7-1B0B332E993E@corp.arin.net>
	<CAMDXq5MUq1WQEg=s7vdbx8VOVhiOr6Lqw-mJbPtx39c=Y3z+Cg@mail.gmail.com>
	<D743D674-F1D0-48EB-9D00-4CBAD9B729BE@arin.net>
Message-ID: <20141014033052.GA14946@Geeks.ORG>

As a non-profit, member organization, is there a breakdown of expenses
that can be reviewed by normal netizens that are not part of the board
of trustees?

I only ask because Mr. Hannigan has proposed a 40% cut to expenses and
a quick scan of the arin.net website hasn't garnered any information
so far as to what expenses may be cut.

Help?

Ex-ISP, concerned internet citizen

-- 
Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau at Geeks.ORG


From paul at egate.net  Mon Oct 13 23:37:20 2014
From: paul at egate.net (Paul Andersen)
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 23:37:20 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-announce] Community Consultation: Future
	Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule
In-Reply-To: <20141014033052.GA14946@Geeks.ORG>
References: <54380838.6030201@arin.net>
	<DC325342-AC89-4883-82C0-940B2AE5744C@delong.com>
	<463A87AF-89DA-4956-9BF7-1B0B332E993E@corp.arin.net>
	<CAMDXq5MUq1WQEg=s7vdbx8VOVhiOr6Lqw-mJbPtx39c=Y3z+Cg@mail.gmail.com>
	<D743D674-F1D0-48EB-9D00-4CBAD9B729BE@arin.net>
	<20141014033052.GA14946@Geeks.ORG>
Message-ID: <8B4F3148-B863-4FEF-8545-AC3FBDBD83C1@egate.net>


Hi Mike,

We publish the following data on our site:

	https://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/budget.html

which has this years budget and down at the bottom is a link to previous...

And there is a Treasurers Report that I give at every meeting with some commentary. 

	https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/past_meetings.html

(Go to Members Meeting Presentations).

This should hopefully give you a starting point and happy to discuss specific questions or concerns. I do ask however that perhaps if you have concerns that a new thread be started. As John stated this is a consultation on fee model and would like to ensure we continue to discuss various models people may want the Board to consider. From my view any model will ultimately need to be able to adjust to changes in our expenses (either up or down).

Cheers,

	Paul
	ARIN Board Trustee and Treasurer


On Oct 13, 2014, at 11:30 PM, Mike Horwath <drechsau at Geeks.ORG> wrote:

> As a non-profit, member organization, is there a breakdown of expenses
> that can be reviewed by normal netizens that are not part of the board
> of trustees?
> 
> I only ask because Mr. Hannigan has proposed a 40% cut to expenses and
> a quick scan of the arin.net website hasn't garnered any information
> so far as to what expenses may be cut.
> 
> Help?
> 
> Ex-ISP, concerned internet citizen
> 
> -- 
> Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau at Geeks.ORG
> _______________________________________________
> 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.



From cort at kanren.net  Tue Oct 14 09:46:08 2014
From: cort at kanren.net (Cort Buffington)
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 08:46:08 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-announce] Community Consultation: Future
	Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule
In-Reply-To: <DC325342-AC89-4883-82C0-940B2AE5744C@delong.com>
References: <54380838.6030201@arin.net>
	<DC325342-AC89-4883-82C0-940B2AE5744C@delong.com>
Message-ID: <4AC5408D-A580-4872-9BB7-DA90FF98CEAB@kanren.net>

Disclosure:
I am with a smallish statewide R&E network, an LRSA holder for 2 x /16s, and ?normal? ISP holder of 1x /17 and 1x/32(IPv6). Also, I have never held any illusion that the special treatment of the LRSA holders would be permanent or even long-term. I always expected it to be a way to placate us for a few years while we adjusted to the changing world.

Discussion on the Fee Schedules:
Underneath the equations and calculations is a question about what ARIN is, or will be. I see two competing paradigms:
* ARIN sells the right to use IP addresses and charges fees based on the number of IPs used.
* ARIN provides registration and records maintenance services and charges based on the cost to provide those services.

One of these describes an organization that is selling something of value, and revenue is generated based on volume of sales, with perhaps discounts for large buys (or penalties for small ones). The other describes a (probably non-profit) organization that is offering a service and charges fees based on the fair recovery of expenses in providing those services.

I believe ARIN should first answer the question of what it is, and then look at the fee schedule from that standpoint. It doesn?t mean that fees can?t be used as disincentives for inefficient use, but it does end the seemingly random bi-polar positions regarding the pros/cons of each fee schedule option. It is very difficult for me to discuss the ?fairness? of any of the proposals until ARIN decides what it is. You?re both you say? Ok, but you still haven?t clearly communicated to which extent you are which and where the boundaries are.

Regards,
Cort

--
Cortney T. Buffington
Executive Director
KanREN, Inc.
cort at kanren.net
Office: (785) 856-9800
Mobile: (785) 865-7206



From tedm at ipinc.net  Tue Oct 14 15:21:59 2014
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 12:21:59 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-announce] Community Consultation: Future
 Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule
In-Reply-To: <4AC5408D-A580-4872-9BB7-DA90FF98CEAB@kanren.net>
References: <54380838.6030201@arin.net>
	<DC325342-AC89-4883-82C0-940B2AE5744C@delong.com>
	<4AC5408D-A580-4872-9BB7-DA90FF98CEAB@kanren.net>
Message-ID: <543D77D7.7040306@ipinc.net>



On 10/14/2014 6:46 AM, Cort Buffington wrote:
> Disclosure: I am with a smallish statewide R&E network, an LRSA
> holder for 2 x /16s, and ?normal? ISP holder of 1x /17 and
> 1x/32(IPv6). Also, I have never held any illusion that the special
> treatment of the LRSA holders would be permanent or even long-term. I
> always expected it to be a way to placate us for a few years while we
> adjusted to the changing world.
>
> Discussion on the Fee Schedules: Underneath the equations and
> calculations is a question about what ARIN is, or will be. I see two
> competing paradigms: * ARIN sells the right to use IP addresses and
> charges fees based on the number of IPs used. * ARIN provides
> registration and records maintenance services and charges based on
> the cost to provide those services.
>
> One of these describes an organization that is selling something of
> value, and revenue is generated based on volume of sales, with
> perhaps discounts for large buys (or penalties for small ones). The
> other describes a (probably non-profit) organization that is offering
> a service and charges fees based on the fair recovery of expenses in
> providing those services.
>
> I believe ARIN should first answer the question of what it is,

ARIN cannot do that.  We, the ARIN community, can do that.  ARIN exists
because we wanted it to exist, because originally IP blocks were
assigned off a spiral notebook

I'm getting tired of this business which a lot of people seem to be
engaging in of trying to disassociate ARIN as an entity from the
community of RIR's ISPs, Telcos, and whoever else that has a stake
in IP address management.

Martin I can excuse, he's got a chip on his shoulder.  You, not so
much.  You have no axe to grind, please do not adopt Martin's divisive
language of us, we, them, etc.

ARIN as it stands is "option 2" that you have laid out.  Read ARIN's
charter, it's on their website.  If you think that ARIN is not living up
to it's charter, then a thoughtful post to this discussion list
as to why they aren't would be fantastic.  If you think the charter
needs to be changed, then once more a thoughtful post to this list would
be great.

But, I see no future in continuing this discussion on terms that ASSUME
that ARIN is something forced on us and divorced from us.  It is not. 
If you don't like something ARIN is doing - then take it up with the
rest of us - who created ARIN's policies.

WE made ARIN and we can break it.

Ted


From hannigan at gmail.com  Tue Oct 14 16:09:50 2014
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:09:50 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-announce] Community Consultation: Future
 Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule
In-Reply-To: <543D77D7.7040306@ipinc.net>
References: <54380838.6030201@arin.net>
	<DC325342-AC89-4883-82C0-940B2AE5744C@delong.com>
	<4AC5408D-A580-4872-9BB7-DA90FF98CEAB@kanren.net>
	<543D77D7.7040306@ipinc.net>
Message-ID: <CAMDXq5MuktfW8KC1Eeyr6k5egXEEXHQyzmEjUu=n-nRQc-3nWg@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
>
>
> On 10/14/2014 6:46 AM, Cort Buffington wrote:
>>
>> Disclosure: I am with a smallish statewide R&E network, an LRSA
>> holder for 2 x /16s, and "normal" ISP holder of 1x /17 and
>> 1x/32(IPv6). Also, I have never held any illusion that the special
>> treatment of the LRSA holders would be permanent or even long-term. I
>> always expected it to be a way to placate us for a few years while we
>> adjusted to the changing world.
>>
>> Discussion on the Fee Schedules: Underneath the equations and
>> calculations is a question about what ARIN is, or will be. I see two
>> competing paradigms: * ARIN sells the right to use IP addresses and
>> charges fees based on the number of IPs used. * ARIN provides
>> registration and records maintenance services and charges based on
>> the cost to provide those services.
>>
>> One of these describes an organization that is selling something of
>> value, and revenue is generated based on volume of sales, with
>> perhaps discounts for large buys (or penalties for small ones). The
>> other describes a (probably non-profit) organization that is offering
>> a service and charges fees based on the fair recovery of expenses in
>> providing those services.
>>
>> I believe ARIN should first answer the question of what it is,
>
>
> ARIN cannot do that.  We, the ARIN community, can do that.  ARIN exists
> because we wanted it to exist, because originally IP blocks were
> assigned off a spiral notebook
>
> I'm getting tired of this business which a lot of people seem to be
> engaging in of trying to disassociate ARIN as an entity from the
> community of RIR's ISPs, Telcos, and whoever else that has a stake
> in IP address management.
>

More than a few people believe this is may be necessary.


> Martin I can excuse, he's got a chip on his shoulder.  You, not so
> much.  You have no axe to grind, please do not adopt Martin's divisive
> language of us, we, them, etc.
>

Gee, thanks Ted. My experience, and that of many large networks, has
not been as positive as yours may be. I'm pleased to be able to
provide the necessary feedback to insure that ARIN does act in the
_whole_ communities interest and am generally pleased with the
results. Mostly.

I believe the fee structure discussion should come after a more
vigorous debate about expenses and then fee recovery used to fund
them. ARIN has almost $35M in reserves with a two year expense
reserve.

What do the other RIRs do with their reserves and how large are they?


> ARIN as it stands is "option 2" that you have laid out.  Read ARIN's
> charter, it's on their website.  If you think that ARIN is not living up
> to it's charter, then a thoughtful post to this discussion list
> as to why they aren't would be fantastic.  If you think the charter
> needs to be changed, then once more a thoughtful post to this list would
> be great.
>
> But, I see no future in continuing this discussion on terms that ASSUME
> that ARIN is something forced on us and divorced from us.  It is not. If you
> don't like something ARIN is doing - then take it up with the
> rest of us - who created ARIN's policies.
>
> WE made ARIN and we can break it.


If it were that simple we'd all be in a happier place.

Best,

-M<


From tedm at ipinc.net  Tue Oct 14 19:02:01 2014
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:02:01 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-announce] Community Consultation: Future
 Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule
In-Reply-To: <CAMDXq5MuktfW8KC1Eeyr6k5egXEEXHQyzmEjUu=n-nRQc-3nWg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <54380838.6030201@arin.net>
	<DC325342-AC89-4883-82C0-940B2AE5744C@delong.com>
	<4AC5408D-A580-4872-9BB7-DA90FF98CEAB@kanren.net>
	<543D77D7.7040306@ipinc.net>
	<CAMDXq5MuktfW8KC1Eeyr6k5egXEEXHQyzmEjUu=n-nRQc-3nWg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <543DAB69.3070406@ipinc.net>



On 10/14/2014 1:09 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt<tedm at ipinc.net>  wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/14/2014 6:46 AM, Cort Buffington wrote:
>>>
>>> Disclosure: I am with a smallish statewide R&E network, an LRSA
>>> holder for 2 x /16s, and "normal" ISP holder of 1x /17 and
>>> 1x/32(IPv6). Also, I have never held any illusion that the special
>>> treatment of the LRSA holders would be permanent or even long-term. I
>>> always expected it to be a way to placate us for a few years while we
>>> adjusted to the changing world.
>>>
>>> Discussion on the Fee Schedules: Underneath the equations and
>>> calculations is a question about what ARIN is, or will be. I see two
>>> competing paradigms: * ARIN sells the right to use IP addresses and
>>> charges fees based on the number of IPs used. * ARIN provides
>>> registration and records maintenance services and charges based on
>>> the cost to provide those services.
>>>
>>> One of these describes an organization that is selling something of
>>> value, and revenue is generated based on volume of sales, with
>>> perhaps discounts for large buys (or penalties for small ones). The
>>> other describes a (probably non-profit) organization that is offering
>>> a service and charges fees based on the fair recovery of expenses in
>>> providing those services.
>>>
>>> I believe ARIN should first answer the question of what it is,
>>
>>
>> ARIN cannot do that.  We, the ARIN community, can do that.  ARIN exists
>> because we wanted it to exist, because originally IP blocks were
>> assigned off a spiral notebook
>>
>> I'm getting tired of this business which a lot of people seem to be
>> engaging in of trying to disassociate ARIN as an entity from the
>> community of RIR's ISPs, Telcos, and whoever else that has a stake
>> in IP address management.
>>
>
> More than a few people believe this is may be necessary.
>
>
>> Martin I can excuse, he's got a chip on his shoulder.  You, not so
>> much.  You have no axe to grind, please do not adopt Martin's divisive
>> language of us, we, them, etc.
>>
>
> Gee, thanks Ted. My experience, and that of many large networks, has
> not been as positive as yours may be. I'm pleased to be able to
> provide the necessary feedback to insure that ARIN does act in the
> _whole_ communities interest and am generally pleased with the
> results. Mostly.
>

Martin, you proposed nearly a 1/2 reduction in budget but
you did not say a single thing that ARIN is doing that they shouldn't be
spending money on - or that they are spending too much money on.

If your going to throw the rocks, aim for a window.

> I believe the fee structure discussion should come after a more
> vigorous debate about expenses and then fee recovery used to fund
> them. ARIN has almost $35M in reserves with a two year expense
> reserve.
>
> What do the other RIRs do with their reserves and how large are they?
>

ARIN is a target, there are many large companies and a number
of governments who I believe probably would be just as happy to see
them and the RIR system go away.  The People's Republic of China, for 
example, really views the entire Internet as a gigantic sewer talking 
about all kinds of things that they don't want their people to learn 
about - that's why they spend millions on maintaining a firewall.

I believe that PRC would be quite pleased to see the RIR system
destroyed and replaced by an open-season system where those who have
money get the access.

And I think that a lot of other governments would like the same thing.

You talk about me having a positive experience with ARIN?  Well let's
just say that I have HOPE that any interaction with ARIN is going to be
positive - but there would be absolutely no hope at all if it was a
for-profit company running things, where you had to pay through the
nose to play.

I am not going to say every single operation of ARIN's is an excellent
spend of money.  I'm still mad they didn't greenlight the Team ARIN 
movie back in '08.  ;-)  But seriously, I am glad they have SOME 
reserve. (and the Team ARIN comic was great, even if you have to dig
it out of the Wayback machine nowadays)

My view is that 35 Million in reserve means that if some crank out there 
decides to sue ARIN, their lawyer is going to have 35 million reasons 
why the case is unwinnable - it gives ARIN the ability to tell the 
cranks to kiss-off.

Unfortunately, it's too low to allow ARIN to tell the major governments
to stuff it, that is why, in my opinion, it's too low of a reserve.

>
>> ARIN as it stands is "option 2" that you have laid out.  Read ARIN's
>> charter, it's on their website.  If you think that ARIN is not living up
>> to it's charter, then a thoughtful post to this discussion list
>> as to why they aren't would be fantastic.  If you think the charter
>> needs to be changed, then once more a thoughtful post to this list would
>> be great.
>>
>> But, I see no future in continuing this discussion on terms that ASSUME
>> that ARIN is something forced on us and divorced from us.  It is not. If you
>> don't like something ARIN is doing - then take it up with the
>> rest of us - who created ARIN's policies.
>>
>> WE made ARIN and we can break it.
>
>
> If it were that simple we'd all be in a happier place.
>

They wouldn't be paying us to keep things in order if it were that 
simple, also.

If enough of the IP consumers got together and decided to replace the 
RIR system, it would happen, no question about it.

That is precisely what happened to the domain name system.  I wasn't in
favor of that move, either.  But a bunch of idealists and "ivory tower
academics" who never actually worked at a job where someone was paying
them to do ANYTHING MORE THAN FLAP THEIR LIPS about domain names, all
got together and pulled the pants down on the rest of us - and we got a 
so-called "competitive" domain name system.

And we all saw the results of that.  A big fragging mess, where you have
spammers who are now able to buy domain names by the millions from
corrupt registries, and damn near ruin email.

Where are those ivory tower academics now?  Hiding in their holes, 
that's where.  They don't have an answer to what the spammers are doing
to the domain name system nor have any of them apologized for all their
STUPIDITY when they were posting learned treatises about how much better
it was gonna be if we kicked ole Network Solutions out of the domain
name game and "opened" the system to "competition"

Yah, sure, we can have as much competition in domain names as we have
in oil producers in the world.  Sure, sure, competition is gonna help
EVERYTHING.  RUBBISH.

This is why I don't have a lot of patience with criticism that does not
point to specific things.  The domain name system was wrecked by people 
with no specific criticism but with a lot of general criticism.  I am 
not going to sit still for the RIR system being taken down the same way.

The CloudRadium fraud posting - that was great.  Very specific, 
verifiable things posted there.

But just saying ARIN needs to cut their budget, without pointing to 
anything specific?  No, Martin, I'm not going to give you a pass on 
that.   Your not a newbie, you can do the work to point to specific things.

Ted

> Best,
>
> -M<


From gcampbelljm at yahoo.com  Tue Oct 14 19:13:17 2014
From: gcampbelljm at yahoo.com (Gary Campbell)
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:13:17 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-announce] Community Consultation: Future
	Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule
In-Reply-To: <543DAB69.3070406@ipinc.net>
References: <54380838.6030201@arin.net>	<DC325342-AC89-4883-82C0-940B2AE5744C@delong.com>	<4AC5408D-A580-4872-9BB7-DA90FF98CEAB@kanren.net>	<543D77D7.7040306@ipinc.net>	<CAMDXq5MuktfW8KC1Eeyr6k5egXEEXHQyzmEjUu=n-nRQc-3nWg@mail.gmail.com>
	<543DAB69.3070406@ipinc.net>
Message-ID: <1413328397.44827.YahooMailNeo@web125204.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>

Martin,
Why 40%? Just wondered how you came up with that percentage. At the same time I do agree that a cut in expense is always welcomed.
Regards,
Gary


On Tuesday, October 14, 2014 6:03 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
 




On 10/14/2014 1:09 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt<tedm at ipinc.net>  wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/14/2014 6:46 AM, Cort Buffington wrote:
>>>
>>> Disclosure: I am with a smallish statewide R&E network, an LRSA
>>> holder for 2 x /16s, and "normal" ISP holder of 1x /17 and
>>> 1x/32(IPv6). Also, I have never held any illusion that the special
>>> treatment of the LRSA holders would be permanent or even long-term. I
>>> always expected it to be a way to placate us for a few years while we
>>> adjusted to the changing world.
>>>
>>> Discussion on the Fee Schedules: Underneath the equations and
>>> calculations is a question about what ARIN is, or will be. I see two
>>> competing paradigms: * ARIN sells the right to use IP addresses and
>>> charges fees based on the number of IPs used. * ARIN provides
>>> registration and records maintenance services and charges based on
>>> the cost to provide those services.
>>>
>>> One of these describes an organization that is selling something of
>>> value, and revenue is generated based on volume of sales, with
>>> perhaps discounts for large buys (or penalties for small ones). The
>>> other describes a (probably non-profit) organization that is offering
>>> a service and charges fees based on the fair recovery of expenses in
>>> providing those services.
>>>
>>> I believe ARIN should first answer the question of what it is,
>>
>>
>> ARIN cannot do that.  We, the ARIN community, can do that.  ARIN exists
>> because we wanted it to exist, because originally IP blocks were
>> assigned off a spiral notebook
>>
>> I'm getting tired of this business which a lot of people seem to be
>> engaging in of trying to disassociate ARIN as an entity from the
>> community of RIR's ISPs, Telcos, and whoever else that has a stake
>> in IP address management.
>>
>
> More than a few people believe this is may be necessary.
>
>
>> Martin I can excuse, he's got a chip on his shoulder.  You, not so
>> much.  You have no axe to grind, please do not adopt Martin's divisive
>> language of us, we, them, etc.
>>
>
> Gee, thanks Ted. My experience, and that of many large networks, has
> not been as positive as yours may be. I'm pleased to be able to
> provide the necessary feedback to insure that ARIN does act in the
> _whole_ communities interest and am generally pleased with the
> results. Mostly.
>

Martin, you proposed nearly a 1/2 reduction in budget but
you did not say a single thing that ARIN is doing that they shouldn't be
spending money on - or that they are spending too much money on.

If your going to throw the rocks, aim for a window.

> I believe the fee structure discussion should come after a more
> vigorous debate about expenses and then fee recovery used to fund
> them. ARIN has almost $35M in reserves with a two year expense
> reserve.
>
> What do the other RIRs do with their reserves and how large are they?
>

ARIN is a target, there are many large companies and a number
of governments who I believe probably would be just as happy to see
them and the RIR system go away.  The People's Republic of China, for 
example, really views the entire Internet as a gigantic sewer talking 
about all kinds of things that they don't want their people to learn 
about - that's why they spend millions on maintaining a firewall.

I believe that PRC would be quite pleased to see the RIR system
destroyed and replaced by an open-season system where those who have
money get the access.

And I think that a lot of other governments would like the same thing.

You talk about me having a positive experience with ARIN?  Well let's
just say that I have HOPE that any interaction with ARIN is going to be
positive - but there would be absolutely no hope at all if it was a
for-profit company running things, where you had to pay through the
nose to play.

I am not going to say every single operation of ARIN's is an excellent
spend of money.  I'm still mad they didn't greenlight the Team ARIN 
movie back in '08.  ;-)  But seriously, I am glad they have SOME 
reserve. (and the Team ARIN comic was great, even if you have to dig
it out of the Wayback machine nowadays)

My view is that 35 Million in reserve means that if some crank out there 
decides to sue ARIN, their lawyer is going to have 35 million reasons 
why the case is unwinnable - it gives ARIN the ability to tell the 
cranks to kiss-off.

Unfortunately, it's too low to allow ARIN to tell the major governments
to stuff it, that is why, in my opinion, it's too low of a reserve.

>
>> ARIN as it stands is "option 2" that you have laid out.  Read ARIN's
>> charter, it's on their website.  If you think that ARIN is not living up
>> to it's charter, then a thoughtful post to this discussion list
>> as to why they aren't would be fantastic.  If you think the charter
>> needs to be changed, then once more a thoughtful post to this list would
>> be great.
>>
>> But, I see no future in continuing this discussion on terms that ASSUME
>> that ARIN is something forced on us and divorced from us.  It is not. If you
>> don't like something ARIN is doing - then take it up with the
>> rest of us - who created ARIN's policies.
>>
>> WE made ARIN and we can break it.
>
>
> If it were that simple we'd all be in a happier place.
>

They wouldn't be paying us to keep things in order if it were that 
simple, also.

If enough of the IP consumers got together and decided to replace the 
RIR system, it would happen, no question about it.

That is precisely what happened to the domain name system.  I wasn't in
favor of that move, either.  But a bunch of idealists and "ivory tower
academics" who never actually worked at a job where someone was paying
them to do ANYTHING MORE THAN FLAP THEIR LIPS about domain names, all
got together and pulled the pants down on the rest of us - and we got a 
so-called "competitive" domain name system.

And we all saw the results of that.  A big fragging mess, where you have
spammers who are now able to buy domain names by the millions from
corrupt registries, and damn near ruin email.

Where are those ivory tower academics now?  Hiding in their holes, 
that's where.  They don't have an answer to what the spammers are doing
to the domain name system nor have any of them apologized for all their
STUPIDITY when they were posting learned treatises about how much better
it was gonna be if we kicked ole Network Solutions out of the domain
name game and "opened" the system to "competition"

Yah, sure, we can have as much competition in domain names as we have
in oil producers in the world.  Sure, sure, competition is gonna help
EVERYTHING.  RUBBISH.

This is why I don't have a lot of patience with criticism that does not
point to specific things.  The domain name system was wrecked by people 
with no specific criticism but with a lot of general criticism.  I am 
not going to sit still for the RIR system being taken down the same way.

The CloudRadium fraud posting - that was great.  Very specific, 
verifiable things posted there.

But just saying ARIN needs to cut their budget, without pointing to 
anything specific?  No, Martin, I'm not going to give you a pass on 
that.   Your not a newbie, you can do the work to point to specific things.


Ted

> Best,
>
> -M<
_______________________________________________
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20141014/ef7ad212/attachment.html>

From tedm at ipinc.net  Tue Oct 14 19:28:21 2014
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:28:21 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-announce] Community Consultation: Future
 Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule
In-Reply-To: <1413328397.44827.YahooMailNeo@web125204.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
References: <54380838.6030201@arin.net>	<DC325342-AC89-4883-82C0-940B2AE5744C@delong.com>	<4AC5408D-A580-4872-9BB7-DA90FF98CEAB@kanren.net>	<543D77D7.7040306@ipinc.net>	<CAMDXq5MuktfW8KC1Eeyr6k5egXEEXHQyzmEjUu=n-nRQc-3nWg@mail.gmail.com>
	<543DAB69.3070406@ipinc.net>
	<1413328397.44827.YahooMailNeo@web125204.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <543DB195.4010609@ipinc.net>


So, then, spending $20 in gas to use a $2 coupon is welcomed?

Spending $100 on a car alternator that you have
to replace every 2 years because it's made out of inferior parts is
welcomed over spending $200 on a car alternator that lasts the life
of the car?

Just trying to get a handle on this notion that arbitrary cuts of 
expenses are a good thing.

Ted


On 10/14/2014 4:13 PM, Gary Campbell wrote:
> Martin,
> Why 40%? Just wondered how you came up with that percentage. At the same
> time I do agree that a cut in expense is always welcomed.
> Regards,
> Gary
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 14, 2014 6:03 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On 10/14/2014 1:09 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>  > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt<tedm at ipinc.net
> <mailto:tedm at ipinc.net>> wrote:
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> On 10/14/2014 6:46 AM, Cort Buffington wrote:
>  >>>
>  >>> Disclosure: I am with a smallish statewide R&E network, an LRSA
>  >>> holder for 2 x /16s, and "normal" ISP holder of 1x /17 and
>  >>> 1x/32(IPv6). Also, I have never held any illusion that the special
>  >>> treatment of the LRSA holders would be permanent or even long-term. I
>  >>> always expected it to be a way to placate us for a few years while we
>  >>> adjusted to the changing world.
>  >>>
>  >>> Discussion on the Fee Schedules: Underneath the equations and
>  >>> calculations is a question about what ARIN is, or will be. I see two
>  >>> competing paradigms: * ARIN sells the right to use IP addresses and
>  >>> charges fees based on the number of IPs used. * ARIN provides
>  >>> registration and records maintenance services and charges based on
>  >>> the cost to provide those services.
>  >>>
>  >>> One of these describes an organization that is selling something of
>  >>> value, and revenue is generated based on volume of sales, with
>  >>> perhaps discounts for large buys (or penalties for small ones). The
>  >>> other describes a (probably non-profit) organization that is offering
>  >>> a service and charges fees based on the fair recovery of expenses in
>  >>> providing those services.
>  >>>
>  >>> I believe ARIN should first answer the question of what it is,
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> ARIN cannot do that. We, the ARIN community, can do that. ARIN exists
>  >> because we wanted it to exist, because originally IP blocks were
>  >> assigned off a spiral notebook
>  >>
>  >> I'm getting tired of this business which a lot of people seem to be
>  >> engaging in of trying to disassociate ARIN as an entity from the
>  >> community of RIR's ISPs, Telcos, and whoever else that has a stake
>  >> in IP address management.
>  >>
>  >
>  > More than a few people believe this is may be necessary.
>  >
>  >
>  >> Martin I can excuse, he's got a chip on his shoulder. You, not so
>  >> much. You have no axe to grind, please do not adopt Martin's divisive
>  >> language of us, we, them, etc.
>  >>
>  >
>  > Gee, thanks Ted. My experience, and that of many large networks, has
>  > not been as positive as yours may be. I'm pleased to be able to
>  > provide the necessary feedback to insure that ARIN does act in the
>  > _whole_ communities interest and am generally pleased with the
>  > results. Mostly.
>  >
>
> Martin, you proposed nearly a 1/2 reduction in budget but
> you did not say a single thing that ARIN is doing that they shouldn't be
> spending money on - or that they are spending too much money on.
>
> If your going to throw the rocks, aim for a window.
>
>  > I believe the fee structure discussion should come after a more
>  > vigorous debate about expenses and then fee recovery used to fund
>  > them. ARIN has almost $35M in reserves with a two year expense
>  > reserve.
>  >
>  > What do the other RIRs do with their reserves and how large are they?
>  >
>
> ARIN is a target, there are many large companies and a number
> of governments who I believe probably would be just as happy to see
> them and the RIR system go away. The People's Republic of China, for
> example, really views the entire Internet as a gigantic sewer talking
> about all kinds of things that they don't want their people to learn
> about - that's why they spend millions on maintaining a firewall.
>
> I believe that PRC would be quite pleased to see the RIR system
> destroyed and replaced by an open-season system where those who have
> money get the access.
>
> And I think that a lot of other governments would like the same thing.
>
> You talk about me having a positive experience with ARIN? Well let's
> just say that I have HOPE that any interaction with ARIN is going to be
> positive - but there would be absolutely no hope at all if it was a
> for-profit company running things, where you had to pay through the
> nose to play.
>
> I am not going to say every single operation of ARIN's is an excellent
> spend of money. I'm still mad they didn't greenlight the Team ARIN
> movie back in '08. ;-) But seriously, I am glad they have SOME
> reserve. (and the Team ARIN comic was great, even if you have to dig
> it out of the Wayback machine nowadays)
>
> My view is that 35 Million in reserve means that if some crank out there
> decides to sue ARIN, their lawyer is going to have 35 million reasons
> why the case is unwinnable - it gives ARIN the ability to tell the
> cranks to kiss-off.
>
> Unfortunately, it's too low to allow ARIN to tell the major governments
> to stuff it, that is why, in my opinion, it's too low of a reserve.
>
>  >
>  >> ARIN as it stands is "option 2" that you have laid out. Read ARIN's
>  >> charter, it's on their website. If you think that ARIN is not living up
>  >> to it's charter, then a thoughtful post to this discussion list
>  >> as to why they aren't would be fantastic. If you think the charter
>  >> needs to be changed, then once more a thoughtful post to this list would
>  >> be great.
>  >>
>  >> But, I see no future in continuing this discussion on terms that ASSUME
>  >> that ARIN is something forced on us and divorced from us. It is not.
> If you
>  >> don't like something ARIN is doing - then take it up with the
>  >> rest of us - who created ARIN's policies.
>  >>
>  >> WE made ARIN and we can break it.
>  >
>  >
>  > If it were that simple we'd all be in a happier place.
>  >
>
> They wouldn't be paying us to keep things in order if it were that
> simple, also.
>
> If enough of the IP consumers got together and decided to replace the
> RIR system, it would happen, no question about it.
>
> That is precisely what happened to the domain name system. I wasn't in
> favor of that move, either. But a bunch of idealists and "ivory tower
> academics" who never actually worked at a job where someone was paying
> them to do ANYTHING MORE THAN FLAP THEIR LIPS about domain names, all
> got together and pulled the pants down on the rest of us - and we got a
> so-called "competitive" domain name system.
>
> And we all saw the results of that. A big fragging mess, where you have
> spammers who are now able to buy domain names by the millions from
> corrupt registries, and damn near ruin email.
>
> Where are those ivory tower academics now? Hiding in their holes,
> that's where. They don't have an answer to what the spammers are doing
> to the domain name system nor have any of them apologized for all their
> STUPIDITY when they were posting learned treatises about how much better
> it was gonna be if we kicked ole Network Solutions out of the domain
> name game and "opened" the system to "competition"
>
> Yah, sure, we can have as much competition in domain names as we have
> in oil producers in the world. Sure, sure, competition is gonna help
> EVERYTHING. RUBBISH.
>
> This is why I don't have a lot of patience with criticism that does not
> point to specific things. The domain name system was wrecked by people
> with no specific criticism but with a lot of general criticism. I am
> not going to sit still for the RIR system being taken down the same way.
>
> The CloudRadium fraud posting - that was great. Very specific,
> verifiable things posted there.
>
> But just saying ARIN needs to cut their budget, without pointing to
> anything specific? No, Martin, I'm not going to give you a pass on
> that. Your not a newbie, you can do the work to point to specific things.
>
>
> Ted
>
>  > Best,
>  >
>  > -M<
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net
> <mailto: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 <mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience
> any issues.
>
>


From drechsau at Geeks.ORG  Wed Oct 15 09:19:21 2014
From: drechsau at Geeks.ORG (Mike Horwath)
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 08:19:21 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-announce] Community Consultation: Future
 Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule
In-Reply-To: <543D77D7.7040306@ipinc.net>
References: <54380838.6030201@arin.net>
	<DC325342-AC89-4883-82C0-940B2AE5744C@delong.com>
	<4AC5408D-A580-4872-9BB7-DA90FF98CEAB@kanren.net>
	<543D77D7.7040306@ipinc.net>
Message-ID: <20141015131921.GB35275@Geeks.ORG>

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 12:21:59PM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> ARIN exists because we wanted it to exist, because originally IP
> blocks were assigned off a spiral notebook

Well, I don't know about this 'we' thing you are talking about.

I was in the business from 1993 to 2013 and I don't remember anyone
asking me if I wanted ARIN (as it stands then, or today).

I have been on the outside for a year and the same kinds of bitching
goes on, some new, some old.

But back to the trolling we go (and you are welcome to search archives
for my previous commentary to and about ARIN).

-- 
Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau at Geeks.ORG


From jcurran at arin.net  Wed Oct 15 09:46:16 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 13:46:16 +0000
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-announce] Community Consultation: Future
 Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule
In-Reply-To: <20141015131921.GB35275@Geeks.ORG>
References: <54380838.6030201@arin.net>
	<DC325342-AC89-4883-82C0-940B2AE5744C@delong.com>
	<4AC5408D-A580-4872-9BB7-DA90FF98CEAB@kanren.net>
	<543D77D7.7040306@ipinc.net> <20141015131921.GB35275@Geeks.ORG>
Message-ID: <FB1CAFAF-A6C0-4BE4-B6EE-4693375B8BA7@corp.arin.net>

On Oct 15, 2014, at 6:19 AM, Mike Horwath <drechsau at Geeks.ORG> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 12:21:59PM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> ARIN exists because we wanted it to exist, because originally IP
>> blocks were assigned off a spiral notebook
> 
> Well, I don't know about this 'we' thing you are talking about.
> 
> I was in the business from 1993 to 2013 and I don't remember anyone
> asking me if I wanted ARIN (as it stands then, or today).

Mike - 

That's probably the case... It was discussed at length on the nanog mailing 
list and the the NANOG 11 meeting in October 1997 in Scottsdale (as well 
as on quite a few other Internet mailing lists at the time), but there are 
likely countless folks who did not hear of the change before it occurred.

> I have been on the outside for a year and the same kinds of bitching
> goes on, some new, some old.

Supporting frank and open communication among members (regarding ARIN's
accomplishments and challenges in fulfilling its mission) is critical
to ARIN's success.   While it can be repetitive at times, the list of 
topics does evolve with progress made by the organization.

/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



From tedm at ipinc.net  Thu Oct 16 11:09:58 2014
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 08:09:58 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-announce] Community Consultation: Future
 Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule
In-Reply-To: <FB1CAFAF-A6C0-4BE4-B6EE-4693375B8BA7@corp.arin.net>
References: <54380838.6030201@arin.net>
	<DC325342-AC89-4883-82C0-940B2AE5744C@delong.com>
	<4AC5408D-A580-4872-9BB7-DA90FF98CEAB@kanren.net>
	<543D77D7.7040306@ipinc.net> <20141015131921.GB35275@Geeks.ORG>
	<FB1CAFAF-A6C0-4BE4-B6EE-4693375B8BA7@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <543FDFC6.6040901@ipinc.net>



On 10/15/2014 6:46 AM, John Curran wrote:
> On Oct 15, 2014, at 6:19 AM, Mike Horwath<drechsau at Geeks.ORG>  wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 12:21:59PM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>> ARIN exists because we wanted it to exist, because originally IP
>>> blocks were assigned off a spiral notebook
>>
>> Well, I don't know about this 'we' thing you are talking about.
>>
>> I was in the business from 1993 to 2013 and I don't remember anyone
>> asking me if I wanted ARIN (as it stands then, or today).
>
> Mike -
>
> That's probably the case... It was discussed at length on the nanog mailing
> list and the the NANOG 11 meeting in October 1997 in Scottsdale (as well
> as on quite a few other Internet mailing lists at the time), but there are
> likely countless folks who did not hear of the change before it occurred.
>

Hey, complaining about "the gubermint" coming to town and wrecking all 
the fun is a great American tradition.

>> I have been on the outside for a year and the same kinds of bitching
>> goes on, some new, some old.
>
> Supporting frank and open communication among members (regarding ARIN's
> accomplishments and challenges in fulfilling its mission) is critical
> to ARIN's success.   While it can be repetitive at times, the list of
> topics does evolve with progress made by the organization.
>

Ironically, John, if the Internet community really and truly wanted
IP assignment to be the Wild West, and the RIR's to be weak and not 
exert any real authority, they would have dropped IPv4 and embraced
IPv6 by now.

IPv6 does not require the administrative overhead IPv4 does because
first of all with most orgs you just make ONE assignment and then they
are done, and secondly there is no shortage so there's no hoarding,
no fighting over resources, no bother of checking up on people to make
sure they are who they say they are.

Ya don't need no sheriff Pa when everyone has a 1000 acre spread.

It is absolutely fascinating how we humans invent artificial shortages
of things then fight over who is going to be the gatekeeper of those
things and get all the money.  When with a 10th of the effort we could
replace those things with other things that there is no shortage of.

It's no different than insisting on continuing to use oil to power our
vehicles.  You can quote the MIT studies and TCO that show EVs cost
half or less of dino-fueling but the vast majority of new car buyers
continue to ignore them.

Ted

> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>


From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Oct 16 12:01:42 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 16:01:42 +0000
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-announce] Community Consultation: Future
 Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule
In-Reply-To: <543FDFC6.6040901@ipinc.net>
References: <54380838.6030201@arin.net>
	<DC325342-AC89-4883-82C0-940B2AE5744C@delong.com>
	<4AC5408D-A580-4872-9BB7-DA90FF98CEAB@kanren.net>
	<543D77D7.7040306@ipinc.net> <20141015131921.GB35275@Geeks.ORG>
	<FB1CAFAF-A6C0-4BE4-B6EE-4693375B8BA7@corp.arin.net>
	<543FDFC6.6040901@ipinc.net>
Message-ID: <90E6CFEF-12ED-4DCF-B4B6-66B199A4B541@arin.net>

On Oct 16, 2014, at 8:09 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:

> ...
> IPv6 does not require the administrative overhead IPv4 does because
> first of all with most orgs you just make ONE assignment and then they
> are done, and secondly there is no shortage so there's no hoarding,
> no fighting over resources, no bother of checking up on people to make
> sure they are who they say they are.

Ted - 
 
  That raises an excellent set of questions with respect to any
  fee structure change, specifically - 

  - Should ARIN's future fee structure consider ARIN's long-term 
    revenue requirements for a post-IPv4 world?

  - Should ARIN's future fee structure be based on current conditions,
    recognizing that it can be updated/refreshed as circumstances 
    changes (e.g. as suggested by Bill Herrin w.r.t IPv6 treatment)

Thoughts?
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
 



From rs at seastrom.com  Thu Oct 16 12:12:01 2014
From: rs at seastrom.com (Rob Seastrom)
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 12:12:01 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-announce] Community Consultation: Future
	Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule
In-Reply-To: <90E6CFEF-12ED-4DCF-B4B6-66B199A4B541@arin.net> (John Curran's
	message of "Thu, 16 Oct 2014 16:01:42 +0000")
References: <54380838.6030201@arin.net>
	<DC325342-AC89-4883-82C0-940B2AE5744C@delong.com>
	<4AC5408D-A580-4872-9BB7-DA90FF98CEAB@kanren.net>
	<543D77D7.7040306@ipinc.net> <20141015131921.GB35275@Geeks.ORG>
	<FB1CAFAF-A6C0-4BE4-B6EE-4693375B8BA7@corp.arin.net>
	<543FDFC6.6040901@ipinc.net>
	<90E6CFEF-12ED-4DCF-B4B6-66B199A4B541@arin.net>
Message-ID: <86fveoc7u6.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com>


John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> writes:

> Ted - 
>  
>   That raises an excellent set of questions with respect to any
>   fee structure change, specifically - 
>
>   - Should ARIN's future fee structure consider ARIN's long-term 
>     revenue requirements for a post-IPv4 world?
>
>   - Should ARIN's future fee structure be based on current conditions,
>     recognizing that it can be updated/refreshed as circumstances 
>     changes (e.g. as suggested by Bill Herrin w.r.t IPv6 treatment)
>
> Thoughts?
> /John

?Porque no los dos?

-r



From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Oct 16 23:15:11 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 03:15:11 +0000
Subject: [arin-discuss] Community Consultation: Future Direction for the
 ARIN Fee Schedule
In-Reply-To: <86fveoc7u6.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com>
References: <54380838.6030201@arin.net>
	<DC325342-AC89-4883-82C0-940B2AE5744C@delong.com>
	<4AC5408D-A580-4872-9BB7-DA90FF98CEAB@kanren.net>
	<543D77D7.7040306@ipinc.net> <20141015131921.GB35275@Geeks.ORG>
	<FB1CAFAF-A6C0-4BE4-B6EE-4693375B8BA7@corp.arin.net>
	<543FDFC6.6040901@ipinc.net>
	<90E6CFEF-12ED-4DCF-B4B6-66B199A4B541@arin.net>
	<86fveoc7u6.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com>
Message-ID: <39137985-5E19-4687-8C46-7D3C263CC66C@arin.net>


> On Oct 16, 2014, at 9:12 AM, Rob Seastrom <rs at seastrom.com> wrote:
> John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> writes:
>>  That raises an excellent set of questions with respect to any
>>  fee structure change, specifically - 
>> 
>>  - Should ARIN's future fee structure consider ARIN's long-term 
>>    revenue requirements for a post-IPv4 world?
>> 
>>  - Should ARIN's future fee structure be based on current conditions,
>>    recognizing that it can be updated/refreshed as circumstances 
>>    changes (e.g. as suggested by Bill Herrin w.r.t IPv6 treatment)
>> 
>> Thoughts?
>> /John
> 
> ?Porque no los dos?

Ah, excellent question.  If one presumes that present conditions 
involve a level of policy development and policy implementation
activity which is greater than will occur in the long-term state,
then the revenue requirements long-term would likely be lower,
and it might be possible (given the relatively safety allowed by
the level of reserves) to begin moving fees in that direction...
this would mean lowering both IPv4 and IPv6 fees slowly with a
goal of settling over time to the desired end-state.

Alternatively, one can look at current conditions and note that 
IPv6 revenues do not presently play a significant role; given our 
goal of facilitating IPv6 deployment, one could focus on current 
conditions and waive IPv6 fees, although this would inevitably 
require revisiting the structure long-term since revenues would 
drop precipitously at some point when everyone was paying only
for IPv4 holdings that were unneeded due to IPv6 transition.

/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN





From ptimmins at clearrate.com  Thu Oct 16 23:36:48 2014
From: ptimmins at clearrate.com (Paul Timmins)
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 03:36:48 +0000
Subject: [arin-discuss] Community Consultation: Future Direction for the
 ARIN Fee Schedule
In-Reply-To: <39137985-5E19-4687-8C46-7D3C263CC66C@arin.net>
References: <54380838.6030201@arin.net>
	<DC325342-AC89-4883-82C0-940B2AE5744C@delong.com>
	<4AC5408D-A580-4872-9BB7-DA90FF98CEAB@kanren.net>
	<543D77D7.7040306@ipinc.net> <20141015131921.GB35275@Geeks.ORG>
	<FB1CAFAF-A6C0-4BE4-B6EE-4693375B8BA7@corp.arin.net>
	<543FDFC6.6040901@ipinc.net>	<90E6CFEF-12ED-4DCF-B4B6-66B199A4B541@arin.net>
	<86fveoc7u6.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com>,
	<39137985-5E19-4687-8C46-7D3C263CC66C@arin.net>
Message-ID: <8335CAF4177E7A4CBC4670E5F9FA9B41901C5448@CRC-Exchange.corp.clearrate.net>


Alternatively, one can look at current conditions and note that
IPv6 revenues do not presently play a significant role; given our
goal of facilitating IPv6 deployment, one could focus on current
conditions and waive IPv6 fees, although this would inevitably
require revisiting the structure long-term since revenues would
drop precipitously at some point when everyone was paying only
for IPv4 holdings that were unneeded due to IPv6 transition.


We should be so lucky.

(speaking as boots on the ground that are deploying new IPv6 services daily, but looking at the cold hard reality of my vendors supplied products (and vocally demanding them to fix them, most of whom have been doing very well (thanks, Zyxel!), and my competitors' zeal or more accurately their lack thereof for IPv6)

(but not speaking for my employer)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20141017/f1476f0a/attachment.html>

From owen at delong.com  Fri Oct 17 03:09:06 2014
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 00:09:06 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] Community Consultation: Future Direction for the
	ARIN Fee Schedule
In-Reply-To: <39137985-5E19-4687-8C46-7D3C263CC66C@arin.net>
References: <54380838.6030201@arin.net>
	<DC325342-AC89-4883-82C0-940B2AE5744C@delong.com>
	<4AC5408D-A580-4872-9BB7-DA90FF98CEAB@kanren.net>
	<543D77D7.7040306@ipinc.net> <20141015131921.GB35275@Geeks.ORG>
	<FB1CAFAF-A6C0-4BE4-B6EE-4693375B8BA7@corp.arin.net>
	<543FDFC6.6040901@ipinc.net>
	<90E6CFEF-12ED-4DCF-B4B6-66B199A4B541@arin.net>
	<86fveoc7u6.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com>
	<39137985-5E19-4687-8C46-7D3C263CC66C@arin.net>
Message-ID: <261FD6FB-17AA-49D1-AA21-003108F91920@delong.com>

If the level of policy development activity is truly a driving cost, then what about charging relative to the amount of policy work being done. I notice that since the rewrite of the v6 policy a while back, the vast majority of our policy work and virtually all of the controversy is v4. Perhaps v6 should be relatively cheaper as a result and v4 should be relatively more expensive?

I think this is probably a bad idea, but if we are going to talk about policy development as a driving cost, then really most of that drive is about manipulating the IPv4 portable seating apparatus on the deck. 

Owen




> On Oct 16, 2014, at 20:15, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>> On Oct 16, 2014, at 9:12 AM, Rob Seastrom <rs at seastrom.com> wrote:
>>> John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> writes:
>>> That raises an excellent set of questions with respect to any
>>> fee structure change, specifically - 
>>> 
>>> - Should ARIN's future fee structure consider ARIN's long-term 
>>>   revenue requirements for a post-IPv4 world?
>>> 
>>> - Should ARIN's future fee structure be based on current conditions,
>>>   recognizing that it can be updated/refreshed as circumstances 
>>>   changes (e.g. as suggested by Bill Herrin w.r.t IPv6 treatment)
>>> 
>>> Thoughts?
>>> /John
>> 
>> ?Porque no los dos?
> 
> Ah, excellent question.  If one presumes that present conditions 
> involve a level of policy development and policy implementation
> activity which is greater than will occur in the long-term state,
> then the revenue requirements long-term would likely be lower,
> and it might be possible (given the relatively safety allowed by
> the level of reserves) to begin moving fees in that direction...
> this would mean lowering both IPv4 and IPv6 fees slowly with a
> goal of settling over time to the desired end-state.
> 
> Alternatively, one can look at current conditions and note that 
> IPv6 revenues do not presently play a significant role; given our 
> goal of facilitating IPv6 deployment, one could focus on current 
> conditions and waive IPv6 fees, although this would inevitably 
> require revisiting the structure long-term since revenues would 
> drop precipitously at some point when everyone was paying only
> for IPv4 holdings that were unneeded due to IPv6 transition.
> 
> /John
> 
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.


From jcurran at arin.net  Fri Oct 17 08:15:59 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 12:15:59 +0000
Subject: [arin-discuss] Community Consultation: Future Direction for the
 ARIN Fee Schedule
In-Reply-To: <261FD6FB-17AA-49D1-AA21-003108F91920@delong.com>
References: <54380838.6030201@arin.net>
	<DC325342-AC89-4883-82C0-940B2AE5744C@delong.com>
	<4AC5408D-A580-4872-9BB7-DA90FF98CEAB@kanren.net>
	<543D77D7.7040306@ipinc.net> <20141015131921.GB35275@Geeks.ORG>
	<FB1CAFAF-A6C0-4BE4-B6EE-4693375B8BA7@corp.arin.net>
	<543FDFC6.6040901@ipinc.net>
	<90E6CFEF-12ED-4DCF-B4B6-66B199A4B541@arin.net>
	<86fveoc7u6.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com>
	<39137985-5E19-4687-8C46-7D3C263CC66C@arin.net>
	<261FD6FB-17AA-49D1-AA21-003108F91920@delong.com>
Message-ID: <3282A3ED-B48C-4E05-838A-47F8BD792244@arin.net>

On Oct 17, 2014, at 12:09 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> If the level of policy development activity is truly a driving cost, then what about charging relative to the amount of policy work being done. I notice that since the rewrite of the v6 policy a while back, the vast majority of our policy work and virtually all of the controversy is v4. Perhaps v6 should be relatively cheaper as a result and v4 should be relatively more expensive?

Some cost data by function is provided in Appendix C; registry development 
(which includes both support of policy development and implementation) are 
50% of ARIN's annual expenses.

Recognize that there will always been some registry development, either for 
maintenance or driven by requirements other than policy changes, but the 
level of policy development is something to think about for a long-term model.  

It's very difficult to consider on shorter times frames or from an incentive 
basis; e.g. we must lock in the number and size of public policy meetings and
hotels more than 12 months in advance in order to have availability, staff 
support slowly changes, etc.  We effectively have to plan for being able to 
support the present level of policy development short-term unless we are very
confident that requirements will be different.

> I think this is probably a bad idea, but if we are going to talk about policy development as a driving cost, then really most of that drive is about manipulating the IPv4 portable seating apparatus on the deck. 

A policy development process open to everyone is fairly foundational part 
of ARIN; my raising the question of long-term cost model was more focused 
on whether, given the present trajectory, it is possible to build upon an 
assumption of less policy development either after IPv4 regional free pool 
depletion or after some number of years given increasing IPv6 deployment.

/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN




From owen at delong.com  Fri Oct 17 17:34:37 2014
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 14:34:37 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] Community Consultation: Future Direction for the
	ARIN Fee Schedule
In-Reply-To: <3282A3ED-B48C-4E05-838A-47F8BD792244@arin.net>
References: <54380838.6030201@arin.net>
	<DC325342-AC89-4883-82C0-940B2AE5744C@delong.com>
	<4AC5408D-A580-4872-9BB7-DA90FF98CEAB@kanren.net>
	<543D77D7.7040306@ipinc.net> <20141015131921.GB35275@Geeks.ORG>
	<FB1CAFAF-A6C0-4BE4-B6EE-4693375B8BA7@corp.arin.net>
	<543FDFC6.6040901@ipinc.net>
	<90E6CFEF-12ED-4DCF-B4B6-66B199A4B541@arin.net>
	<86fveoc7u6.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com>
	<39137985-5E19-4687-8C46-7D3C263CC66C@arin.net>
	<261FD6FB-17AA-49D1-AA21-003108F91920@delong.com>
	<3282A3ED-B48C-4E05-838A-47F8BD792244@arin.net>
Message-ID: <FBF133E6-6E81-40CC-896B-AAD6409AA4CC@delong.com>


On Oct 17, 2014, at 05:15 , John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

> On Oct 17, 2014, at 12:09 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> If the level of policy development activity is truly a driving cost, then what about charging relative to the amount of policy work being done. I notice that since the rewrite of the v6 policy a while back, the vast majority of our policy work and virtually all of the controversy is v4. Perhaps v6 should be relatively cheaper as a result and v4 should be relatively more expensive?
> 
> Some cost data by function is provided in Appendix C; registry development 
> (which includes both support of policy development and implementation) are 
> 50% of ARIN's annual expenses.
> 
> Recognize that there will always been some registry development, either for 
> maintenance or driven by requirements other than policy changes, but the 
> level of policy development is something to think about for a long-term model.  
> 
> It's very difficult to consider on shorter times frames or from an incentive 
> basis; e.g. we must lock in the number and size of public policy meetings and
> hotels more than 12 months in advance in order to have availability, staff 
> support slowly changes, etc.  We effectively have to plan for being able to 
> support the present level of policy development short-term unless we are very
> confident that requirements will be different.

Agreed and I fully understand. I think we'll see more, not less attempts to manipulate ^w modify IPv4 policy for various reasons (not limited to fun and profit) after free pool runout and for some time. I think once IPv6 gains traction and IPv4 starts to lose monetary value, we will see a sharp decline in policy development efforts, but it is hard to know how long that will take.

>> I think this is probably a bad idea, but if we are going to talk about policy development as a driving cost, then really most of that drive is about manipulating the IPv4 portable seating apparatus on the deck. 
> 
> A policy development process open to everyone is fairly foundational part 
> of ARIN; my raising the question of long-term cost model was more focused 
> on whether, given the present trajectory, it is possible to build upon an 
> assumption of less policy development either after IPv4 regional free pool 
> depletion or after some number of years given increasing IPv6 deployment.

I wasn't proposing charging admission for the policy process. I was pointing out that IPv4 resource holders (and those acquiring IPv4 resources through various means) seem to be the ones driving the bulk of the policy development. It seems to me that this would justify a higher cost for IPv4 registrations than for IPv6 registrations, potentially.

This would have the additional advantage of creating an increased financial incentive for organizations to at least consider IPv6 and potentially accelerate the demise of IPv4.

I'm not saying I want this to happen, just thinking it could be food for thought among those smarter than I about such things.

Owen



From drechsau at Geeks.ORG  Fri Oct 17 21:59:49 2014
From: drechsau at Geeks.ORG (Mike Horwath)
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 20:59:49 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-announce] Community Consultation: Future
 Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule
In-Reply-To: <543FDFC6.6040901@ipinc.net>
References: <54380838.6030201@arin.net>
	<DC325342-AC89-4883-82C0-940B2AE5744C@delong.com>
	<4AC5408D-A580-4872-9BB7-DA90FF98CEAB@kanren.net>
	<543D77D7.7040306@ipinc.net> <20141015131921.GB35275@Geeks.ORG>
	<FB1CAFAF-A6C0-4BE4-B6EE-4693375B8BA7@corp.arin.net>
	<543FDFC6.6040901@ipinc.net>
Message-ID: <20141018015949.GA46161@Geeks.ORG>

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 08:09:58AM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> IPv6 does not require the administrative overhead IPv4 does because
> first of all with most orgs you just make ONE assignment and then they
> are done, and secondly there is no shortage so there's no hoarding,
> no fighting over resources, no bother of checking up on people to make
> sure they are who they say they are.

But requesting space can be difficult with outright refusals even as a
tech contact for the IPv4 block and organization.

-- 
Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau at Geeks.ORG


From peter at metanethosting.com  Fri Oct 17 23:17:18 2014
From: peter at metanethosting.com (Peter//MetanetHosting.com)
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 23:17:18 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-announce] Community Consultation: Future
 Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule
In-Reply-To: <20141018015949.GA46161@Geeks.ORG>
References: <54380838.6030201@arin.net>	<DC325342-AC89-4883-82C0-940B2AE5744C@delong.com>	<4AC5408D-A580-4872-9BB7-DA90FF98CEAB@kanren.net>	<543D77D7.7040306@ipinc.net>
	<20141015131921.GB35275@Geeks.ORG>	<FB1CAFAF-A6C0-4BE4-B6EE-4693375B8BA7@corp.arin.net>	<543FDFC6.6040901@ipinc.net>
	<20141018015949.GA46161@Geeks.ORG>
Message-ID: <5441DBBE.2060907@metanethosting.com>

True,

I think it unwise to assume there will be no shortage or hoarding.  
However difficult it is to foresee, the next 25 years may experience 
radical technological breakthroughs which may once again limit IPv6 
availability and put us squarely back where we are with IPv4.

On 10/17/2014 9:59 PM, Mike Horwath wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 08:09:58AM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> IPv6 does not require the administrative overhead IPv4 does because
>> first of all with most orgs you just make ONE assignment and then they
>> are done, and secondly there is no shortage so there's no hoarding,
>> no fighting over resources, no bother of checking up on people to make
>> sure they are who they say they are.
> But requesting space can be difficult with outright refusals even as a
> tech contact for the IPv4 block and organization.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20141017/73adfdbb/attachment.html>

From Timothy.S.Morizot at irs.gov  Sat Oct 18 07:02:04 2014
From: Timothy.S.Morizot at irs.gov (Morizot Timothy S)
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 11:02:04 +0000
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-announce] Community Consultation: Future
 Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule
In-Reply-To: <5441DBBE.2060907@metanethosting.com>
References: <54380838.6030201@arin.net>
	<DC325342-AC89-4883-82C0-940B2AE5744C@delong.com>
	<4AC5408D-A580-4872-9BB7-DA90FF98CEAB@kanren.net>
	<543D77D7.7040306@ipinc.net>	<20141015131921.GB35275@Geeks.ORG>
	<FB1CAFAF-A6C0-4BE4-B6EE-4693375B8BA7@corp.arin.net>
	<543FDFC6.6040901@ipinc.net>	<20141018015949.GA46161@Geeks.ORG>
	<5441DBBE.2060907@metanethosting.com>
Message-ID: <968C470DAC25FB419E0159952F28F0C06DEA8588@MEM0200CP3XF01.ds.irsnet.gov>

Peter//MetanetHosting.com wrote:
> True,
>
> I think it unwise to assume there will be no shortage or hoarding.
> However difficult it is to foresee, the next 25 years may experience
> radical technological breakthroughs which may once again limit
> IPv6 availability and put us squarely back where we are with IPv4.

That actually represents a failure to grasp the scope of the mathematics involved. My non-IT physics/math son grasped it immediately when I described the problem with IPv4 and the solution.  In fact, his first question when I described the solution was why they didn't go with 2^64 instead of 2^128 since the latter represents more than the number of particles in some very large set I have to confess I don't specifically recall. When I explained it's actually 2^64 networks each capable of having up to 2^64 hosts so you never have to worry about running out of networks or space on an individual network, that made perfect sense to him.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if some radical (or perhaps even incremental) technological breakthroughs made IPv6 obsolete for some reason sometime in the next 25-50 years, but it won't be because we're running out of address space.

Scott



From peter at metanethosting.com  Sat Oct 18 16:27:53 2014
From: peter at metanethosting.com (Peter//MetanetHosting.com)
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 16:27:53 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-announce] Community Consultation: Future
 Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule
In-Reply-To: <968C470DAC25FB419E0159952F28F0C06DEA8588@MEM0200CP3XF01.ds.irsnet.gov>
References: <54380838.6030201@arin.net>	<DC325342-AC89-4883-82C0-940B2AE5744C@delong.com>	<4AC5408D-A580-4872-9BB7-DA90FF98CEAB@kanren.net>	<543D77D7.7040306@ipinc.net>	<20141015131921.GB35275@Geeks.ORG>	<FB1CAFAF-A6C0-4BE4-B6EE-4693375B8BA7@corp.arin.net>	<543FDFC6.6040901@ipinc.net>	<20141018015949.GA46161@Geeks.ORG>	<5441DBBE.2060907@metanethosting.com>
	<968C470DAC25FB419E0159952F28F0C06DEA8588@MEM0200CP3XF01.ds.irsnet.gov>
Message-ID: <5442CD49.6050900@metanethosting.com>

This thinking is naive.   It is very possible that even 10000 /48s will 
not be enough for every indivdual (or robot) alive.  A big issue is how 
the space will be wasted or applied in the real world.  There is a real 
possibility that we may someday create many more connected 'objects' 
than atoms spread across the earths surface with a huge % of them 
allocated wastefully or hoarded.  This is also assuming IPs are often 
"one shot deals" where they are wasted and cannot be used again for some 
reason.  There are many situations today where large swaths of IPv4 
blocks are used once and then abandonded and hoarded by companies who 
are accumulating millions of them through ISP and resource buyouts.  The 
idea of IPs being a one shot deal signficantly acceletates loss.





On 10/18/2014 7:02 AM, Morizot Timothy S wrote:
> Peter//MetanetHosting.com wrote:
>> True,
>>
>> I think it unwise to assume there will be no shortage or hoarding.
>> However difficult it is to foresee, the next 25 years may experience
>> radical technological breakthroughs which may once again limit
>> IPv6 availability and put us squarely back where we are with IPv4.
> That actually represents a failure to grasp the scope of the mathematics involved. My non-IT physics/math son grasped it immediately when I described the problem with IPv4 and the solution.  In fact, his first question when I described the solution was why they didn't go with 2^64 instead of 2^128 since the latter represents more than the number of particles in some very large set I have to confess I don't specifically recall. When I explained it's actually 2^64 networks each capable of having up to 2^64 hosts so you never have to worry about running out of networks or space on an individual network, that made perfect sense to him.
>
> It wouldn't surprise me at all if some radical (or perhaps even incremental) technological breakthroughs made IPv6 obsolete for some reason sometime in the next 25-50 years, but it won't be because we're running out of address space.
>
> Scott
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20141018/32cb0291/attachment.html>

From peter at metanethosting.com  Sat Oct 18 17:00:03 2014
From: peter at metanethosting.com (Peter//MetanetHosting.com)
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 17:00:03 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-announce] Community Consultation: Future
 Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule
In-Reply-To: <5442CD49.6050900@metanethosting.com>
References: <54380838.6030201@arin.net>	<DC325342-AC89-4883-82C0-940B2AE5744C@delong.com>	<4AC5408D-A580-4872-9BB7-DA90FF98CEAB@kanren.net>	<543D77D7.7040306@ipinc.net>	<20141015131921.GB35275@Geeks.ORG>	<FB1CAFAF-A6C0-4BE4-B6EE-4693375B8BA7@corp.arin.net>	<543FDFC6.6040901@ipinc.net>	<20141018015949.GA46161@Geeks.ORG>	<5441DBBE.2060907@metanethosting.com>
	<968C470DAC25FB419E0159952F28F0C06DEA8588@MEM0200CP3XF01.ds.irsnet.gov>
	<5442CD49.6050900@metanethosting.com>
Message-ID: <5442D4D3.10203@metanethosting.com>

i am hoping IP is obsolete by the time we have to worry about these things
this is a great discussion with opportunity to learn many perspectives
thank you all



On 10/18/2014 4:27 PM, Peter//MetanetHosting.com wrote:
> This thinking is naive.   It is very possible that even 10000 /48s 
> will not be enough for every indivdual (or robot) alive.  A big issue 
> is how the space will be wasted or applied in the real world.  There 
> is a real possibility that we may someday create many more connected 
> 'objects' than atoms spread across the earths surface with a huge % of 
> them allocated wastefully or hoarded.  This is also assuming IPs are 
> often "one shot deals" where they are wasted and cannot be used again 
> for some reason.  There are many situations today where large swaths 
> of IPv4 blocks are used once and then abandonded and hoarded by 
> companies who are accumulating millions of them through ISP and 
> resource buyouts.  The idea of IPs being a one shot deal signficantly 
> acceletates loss.
>
>
>
>
>
> On 10/18/2014 7:02 AM, Morizot Timothy S wrote:
>> Peter//MetanetHosting.com wrote:
>>> True,
>>>
>>> I think it unwise to assume there will be no shortage or hoarding.
>>> However difficult it is to foresee, the next 25 years may experience
>>> radical technological breakthroughs which may once again limit
>>> IPv6 availability and put us squarely back where we are with IPv4.
>> That actually represents a failure to grasp the scope of the mathematics involved. My non-IT physics/math son grasped it immediately when I described the problem with IPv4 and the solution.  In fact, his first question when I described the solution was why they didn't go with 2^64 instead of 2^128 since the latter represents more than the number of particles in some very large set I have to confess I don't specifically recall. When I explained it's actually 2^64 networks each capable of having up to 2^64 hosts so you never have to worry about running out of networks or space on an individual network, that made perfect sense to him.
>>
>> It wouldn't surprise me at all if some radical (or perhaps even incremental) technological breakthroughs made IPv6 obsolete for some reason sometime in the next 25-50 years, but it won't be because we're running out of address space.
>>
>> Scott
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 contactinfo at arin.net  if you experience any issues.
>>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20141018/36491b4d/attachment.html>

From RFerchen at 4dct.com  Sun Oct 19 12:17:17 2014
From: RFerchen at 4dct.com (Rich Ferchen)
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 16:17:17 +0000
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-announce] Community Consultation: Future
 Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule
In-Reply-To: <5442D4D3.10203@metanethosting.com>
References: <54380838.6030201@arin.net>
	<DC325342-AC89-4883-82C0-940B2AE5744C@delong.com>
	<4AC5408D-A580-4872-9BB7-DA90FF98CEAB@kanren.net>
	<543D77D7.7040306@ipinc.net>	<20141015131921.GB35275@Geeks.ORG>
	<FB1CAFAF-A6C0-4BE4-B6EE-4693375B8BA7@corp.arin.net>
	<543FDFC6.6040901@ipinc.net>	<20141018015949.GA46161@Geeks.ORG>
	<5441DBBE.2060907@metanethosting.com>
	<968C470DAC25FB419E0159952F28F0C06DEA8588@MEM0200CP3XF01.ds.irsnet.gov>
	<5442CD49.6050900@metanethosting.com>,
	<5442D4D3.10203@metanethosting.com>
Message-ID: <000f4260.438b16f87def1181@4dct.com>

I have to echo the sentiment that we should not assume that the mere fact that there are an enormous number of IP addresses in IPv6 means that we "should be fine". Even if it's true that IP itself will become obsolete before we predict IPv6 address shortages, the goal of ARIN should still be to responsibly allocate the addresses, as if they are a limited commodity.


The technology to obsolete IP may come, but it's hard to predict whether that will happen faster or slower than the technology that requires an exponential growth in addresses needed. And then... IPv8?


Rich Ferchen
Director, Engineering and Operations
DCT Telecom Group, Inc.

------ Original message------

From: Peter//MetanetHosting.com

Date: Sat, Oct 18, 2014 4:59 PM

To: Morizot Timothy S;arin-discuss at arin.net;

Subject:Re: [arin-discuss] [arin-announce] Community Consultation: Future Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule

i am hoping IP is obsolete by the time we have to worry about these things
this is a great discussion with opportunity to learn many perspectives
thank you all



On 10/18/2014 4:27 PM, Peter//MetanetHosting.com wrote:
This thinking is naive.   It is very possible that even 10000 /48s will not be enough for every indivdual (or robot) alive.  A big issue is how the space will be wasted or applied in the real world.  There is a real possibility that we may someday create many more connected 'objects' than atoms spread across the earths surface with a huge % of them allocated wastefully or hoarded.  This is also assuming IPs are often "one shot deals" where they are wasted and cannot be used again for some reason.  There are many situations today where large swaths of IPv4 blocks are used once and then abandonded and hoarded by companies who are accumulating millions of them through ISP and resource buyouts.  The idea of IPs being a one shot deal signficantly acceletates loss.





On 10/18/2014 7:02 AM, Morizot Timothy S wrote:

Peter//MetanetHosting.com wrote:


True,

I think it unwise to assume there will be no shortage or hoarding.
However difficult it is to foresee, the next 25 years may experience
radical technological breakthroughs which may once again limit
IPv6 availability and put us squarely back where we are with IPv4.


That actually represents a failure to grasp the scope of the mathematics involved. My non-IT physics/math son grasped it immediately when I described the problem with IPv4 and the solution.  In fact, his first question when I described the solution was why they didn't go with 2^64 instead of 2^128 since the latter represents more than the number of particles in some very large set I have to confess I don't specifically recall. When I explained it's actually 2^64 networks each capable of having up to 2^64 hosts so you never have to worry about running out of networks or space on an individual network, that made perfect sense to him.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if some radical (or perhaps even incremental) technological breakthroughs made IPv6 obsolete for some reason sometime in the next 25-50 years, but it won't be because we're running out of address space.

Scott

_______________________________________________
ARIN-Discuss
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net<mailto: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<mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20141019/3dd287ef/attachment.html>

From arin-discuss at arin.net  Thu Oct 23 04:22:00 2014
From: arin-discuss at arin.net (arin-discuss at arin.net)
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 08:22:00 -0000
Subject: Comunicado De Inscrições Para Big Brother Brasil !!! - [ 524733579717  ]
Message-ID: <mailman.0.1546450701.13601.arin-discuss@arin.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20141023/0564875a/attachment.html>