[ppml] 2005-1 status
--On February 6, 2006 10:06:23 AM +0000 Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com wrote:
>> Good point; that's a major oversight. Though I think the fees for doing
>> would discourage most folks, it still needs to be fixed/clarified.
> Careful about this. It would not be wise to
> draw the Department of Justice into a "restraint
> of trade" investigation. Fees need to be fair and
> represent the value provided. One can argue that
> the value provided by ARIN to a service provider
> is vastly larger than the value provided to an
> end user and therefore, the end user fees should
> be vastly lower than the service provider fees.
They are. The research and validation fees are the
same (initial one time fee) per block size, and, that
is reasonable because the fees scale with the relative
amount of research and validation effort required on the
part of ARIN staff.
The maintenance fees, OTOH, for a subscriber are equal
to the initial allocation fees. For an end-site, on
the other hand, they are $100 regardless of the number
of objects maintained by that ORG.
As such, I think it is vastly cheaper overall for an ORG,
but, the initial allocation fee does serve as a somewhat
reasonable barrier to frivolous assignments.
> In addition, the annual fees reflect the fact that
> service providers require continuing support from
> ARIN because of their assignment activity and the
> inevitable requests for additional allocations.
> This is not the case for end users.
> Can you justify an onging fee at all?
Yes... Maintaining an object in the database has a cost.
> And can you justify more than a $100 first time
No need. The barrier is the initial assignment fee. The
maintenance fee can remain low.
> --Michael Dillon
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
If this message was not signed with gpg key 0FE2AA3D, it's probably
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available