From bjohnson at drtel.com  Fri Nov  2 14:57:14 2012
From: bjohnson at drtel.com (Brian Johnson)
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 18:57:14 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGWZYjSJiRMgWmSmW+2sneemo7qasXAL8Q4Q20_C1jALTg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <27A83F4B-84FE-441B-A544-7965ECE13F36@delong.com>
	<7586e8caca5d28f9fbadcec4e3305c92@quark.net>
	<D289A03A-5140-45CE-8DF1-FC595D3AFEA4@netconsonance.com>
	<23620318-D729-4F71-8ACF-9C55E5F8FC17@delong.com>
	<83483957-83AD-4E7D-9101-672558B988EE@netconsonance.com>
	<508C18E6.8010907@umn.edu>
	<DBFE5BD1-582A-40F0-B3F9-1A6101892870@netconsonance.com>
	<508C6427.5040609@umn.edu>	<F143BD39-FBEF-40B6-B016-EC4E08C054A1@pch.net>
	<CAP-guGWZYjSJiRMgWmSmW+2sneemo7qasXAL8Q4Q20_C1jALTg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A1FEB@EX02.drtel.lan>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-consult-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-consult-
> bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of William Herrin
> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 11:09 AM
> To: Bill Woodcock
> Cc: arin-consult at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring
> 
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net> wrote:
> > Second, arguments that some other hypothetical person
> > might suffer an increased burden, that are not borne out
> > by the statistics, don't carry a heck of a lot of weight.
> >  If _you_ are unhappy with how _your_ fees are changing,
> > I want to hear about it.  Arguments about what someone
> > else, who might or might not exist, might or might not
> > think, are feckless.
> 
> Fair enough. I currently manage three end-user BGP-multihomed
> networks. I have begun IPv6 deployment on one of them. The owner had
> some end-of-fiscal-year money and wasn't real particular about how it
> was spent.
> 
> On the second, I'm blocked by a lack of ISP support (for *some* reason
> they've chosen not to start deploying IPv6) and by the fact that it's
> a low budget network where the ARIN cost of IPv6 is not justifiable.
> 

HE can help you out with the proved who doesn't have IPv6 deployed: http://tunnelbroker.net/

> On the third, I'm blocked solely because the ARIN cost of IPv6 is not
> justifiable.
> 
> I don't mean "too much." I mean not justifiable: If I deploy it now, I
> won't gain $1200 of benefit in the next 12 months. I won't gain $600
> of benefit either. Or even $100 of benefit. Not this year. The same
> money buys be a better router, another server, spare budget for
> replacement parts, something from which I will derive benefit. This
> year.

How does the organization afford it's other expenses to support the network connectivity and the like? If donated, perhaps the same organization would be willing to provide a donation for the ARIN fees. It would likely be a fraction of the losses from the donation of the network access. ;)

> 
> If I could deploy cost-neutral, I'd do it. I can't, so I'll wait until
> the short-term benefit is much closer to the short-term cost.
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin

- Brian J


From bjohnson at drtel.com  Mon Nov  5 10:10:00 2012
From: bjohnson at drtel.com (Brian Johnson)
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 15:10:00 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
Message-ID: <F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A71A4@EX02.drtel.lan>

I have 2 questions that may be illustrative:

1. If I have IPv4 space and a single ASN and request IPv6 space under the current fee structure and the request doesn't change my RSSP size category, will I be charged any more than I am currently?
2. Per question 1... Will this change under the new fee structure?

Keep in mind, I know there are more situations, but let me be clear by example:

An organization has 1 ASN, a single IPv4 /21 and is requesting an IPv6 /48 for their use. Under the current fee structure, I believe the bill would be the X-Small fee ($1250). Is this correct?

Under the new structure, the same situation would have the XX-Small fee ($500). Is this correct?

Thanks for the clarification. Flames and trolls will be ignored. ;)

_________________________________________
Brian Johnson
Converged Network Engineer
CCNP(r) & CCNP Security(r) Certified



From jcurran at arin.net  Mon Nov  5 10:20:52 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 15:20:52 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A71A4@EX02.drtel.lan>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A71A4@EX02.drtel.lan>
Message-ID: <619DFCF3-DE52-451D-9553-4A9DEE330392@corp.arin.net>

On Nov 5, 2012, at 10:10 AM, Brian Johnson <bjohnson at drtel.com>
 wrote:

> I have 2 questions that may be illustrative:
> 
> 1. If I have IPv4 space and a single ASN and request IPv6 space under the current fee structure and the request doesn't change my RSSP size category, will I be charged any more than I am currently?
> 

> 2. Per question 1... Will this change under the new fee structure?

If IPv6 block requested does not change your size category, then your
annual RSSP fee will not change, either presently or under the proposed
schedule.  

> Keep in mind, I know there are more situations, but let me be clear by example:
> 
> An organization has 1 ASN, a single IPv4 /21 and is requesting an IPv6 /48 for their use. Under the current fee structure, I believe the bill would be the X-Small fee ($1250). Is this correct?

Correct.

> Under the new structure, the same situation would have the XX-Small fee ($500). Is this correct?

If the IPv4 block was /22, then it would be XX-Small ($500).  Since it is /21, 
the right category is X-Small (i.e. "Larger than /22, up to and including /20"), 
and the revised fee is $1000/annual.  

Note that the IPv6 block could be "Larger than /48, up to and including /36" and 
the organization would still stay in the X-Small category under the new proposed
fee/category schedule.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN




From bjohnson at drtel.com  Mon Nov  5 11:51:00 2012
From: bjohnson at drtel.com (Brian Johnson)
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 16:51:00 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <619DFCF3-DE52-451D-9553-4A9DEE330392@corp.arin.net>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A71A4@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<619DFCF3-DE52-451D-9553-4A9DEE330392@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A7304@EX02.drtel.lan>

Thank you for the response John.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net]
> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 9:21 AM
> To: Brian Johnson
> Cc: arin-consult at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change
> Consultation
> 
> On Nov 5, 2012, at 10:10 AM, Brian Johnson <bjohnson at drtel.com>
>  wrote:
> 
> > I have 2 questions that may be illustrative:
> >
> > 1. If I have IPv4 space and a single ASN and request IPv6 space under the
> current fee structure and the request doesn't change my RSSP size category,
> will I be charged any more than I am currently?
> >
> 
> > 2. Per question 1... Will this change under the new fee structure?
> 
> If IPv6 block requested does not change your size category, then your
> annual RSSP fee will not change, either presently or under the proposed
> schedule.
> 
> > Keep in mind, I know there are more situations, but let me be clear by
> example:
> >
> > An organization has 1 ASN, a single IPv4 /21 and is requesting an IPv6 /48
> for their use. Under the current fee structure, I believe the bill would be the
> X-Small fee ($1250). Is this correct?
> 
> Correct.
> 
> > Under the new structure, the same situation would have the XX-Small fee
> ($500). Is this correct?
> 
> If the IPv4 block was /22, then it would be XX-Small ($500).  Since it is /21,
> the right category is X-Small (i.e. "Larger than /22, up to and including /20"),
> and the revised fee is $1000/annual.

Oops. I mistyped that and should have referenced a /22 and then I would have been correct.

Even so, under a IPv4 /21 or /20 (and/or an IPv6 /44 up to /36), the rate would be less than today by $250. Correct?

> 
> Note that the IPv6 block could be "Larger than /48, up to and including /36"
> and
> the organization would still stay in the X-Small category under the new
> proposed
> fee/category schedule.
> 
> FYI,
> /John
> 
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
> 



From arizonagull at gmail.com  Mon Nov  5 13:48:36 2012
From: arizonagull at gmail.com (David Siegel)
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 11:48:36 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGU2HAC=zZ=DoYQpPjUgdiZ0F=3FFMrzPFQz-ChCdfKXBA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net> <8967.1351542207@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
	<ECC66AC4-0EBF-46D5-97F4-603D7A8BCD62@netconsonance.com>
	<9151.1351605200@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
	<67A9ACBD-D7BF-4B90-9285-EA4E59B627DD@netconsonance.com>
	<CAP-guGU2HAC=zZ=DoYQpPjUgdiZ0F=3FFMrzPFQz-ChCdfKXBA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAK-XZr+0aDqdOB0TrrC2dNb6Lko6578cwAN=7UJ8-QoiTH2gnQ@mail.gmail.com>

I agree with much of what Bill has to say on this matter.

As of today, there is little to no value in deploying IPv6.  We deploy IPv6
because we know there will be a need to do it in the future and that
deploying it is the right thing to do, but the value we receive is largely
intangible.

I would love to see a discount for IPv6 that is based on a 3rd party
measure of IPv6 migration progress.  If the consensus estimate is that
traffic is at 5% of the total, then a discount of 95% should eliminate
concerns of having to pay to be an early adopter without receiving a
return.

I'm not so idealist as to believe that this alone will spur a renewed
interest in IPv6 deployment, but at least it will
not unnecessarily penalize those who have done that right thing as of today.

Dave




On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:59 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:58 PM, Jo Rhett <jrhett at netconsonance.com>
> wrote:
> > I have no idea how this relates to the question. If they can
> > pay for several uplinks, then they can afford the proposed
> > maintenance fees. The proposed maintenance fees are
> > trivial in the face of the costs of maintaining those uplinks.
>
> Hi Jo,
>
> Respectfully, I really think you're looking at this the wrong way.
>
> Is it important to you that IPv6 be deployed sooner rather than later?
> Is it important that we reach a ubiquity in IPv6 deployment where we
> can begin to retire IPv4?
>
> If you don't care how long it takes to deploy IPv6, I respect that.
> Folks use a service, they pay a fee. They don't want to pay a fee,
> they don't use the service. For the moment, many have chosen not to
> use IPv6-related services. No problem; it'll happen when its ripe.
>
> If, on the other hand, you believe as I do that your IPv6 deployment
> gains value only in relation to everybody else's IPv6 deployment then
> the bottom line is: remove the blockers. Time enough to charge for
> IPv6 when it's the primary protocol on the public Internet. Today the
> fee is one of a number of deployment blockers, so axe it.
>
>
> I do agree that it shouldn't be free forever and as a long-term matter
> I'm not overly offended by the proposed fee structure. I do think,
> however, that the appropriate metric for when to instate fees for IPv6
> registrations should be based on the measurable level of use on the
> public Internet rather than some fixed guess about how long it should
> last or a string-along annual choice by the board.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> --
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Consult
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
> Consult Mailing
> List (ARIN-consult at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the
> ARIN Member Services
> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20121105/ee8dd39f/attachment.html>

From mcr+arin at sandelman.ca  Tue Nov  6 13:19:08 2012
From: mcr+arin at sandelman.ca (Michael Richardson)
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 13:19:08 -0500
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A7304@EX02.drtel.lan>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A71A4@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<619DFCF3-DE52-451D-9553-4A9DEE330392@corp.arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A7304@EX02.drtel.lan>
Message-ID: <1520.1352225948@sandelman.ca>


Brian Johnson <bjohnson at drtel.com> wrote:
    >> > Under the new structure, the same situation would have the
    >> XX-Small fee ($500). Is this correct?
    >> 
    >> If the IPv4 block was /22, then it would be XX-Small ($500).
    >> Since it is /21, the right category is X-Small (i.e. "Larger than
    >> /22, up to and including /20"), and the revised fee is
    >> $1000/annual.

    JC> Oops. I mistyped that and should have referenced a /22 and then
    JC> I would have been correct.

    JC> Even so, under a IPv4 /21 or /20 (and/or an IPv6 /44 up to /36),
    JC> the rate would be less than today by $250. Correct?

my understanding is:
for v4/22 + v6/48, it would be $500+$500, so $250 less.
but v4/21 + v6/48, it would be $1000+$500, I think.

-- 
Michael Richardson
-on the road-
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 489 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20121106/b143e61a/attachment.sig>

From bill at herrin.us  Fri Nov  9 15:13:46 2012
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 15:13:46 -0500
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <CAK-XZr+0aDqdOB0TrrC2dNb6Lko6578cwAN=7UJ8-QoiTH2gnQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net> <8967.1351542207@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
	<ECC66AC4-0EBF-46D5-97F4-603D7A8BCD62@netconsonance.com>
	<9151.1351605200@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
	<67A9ACBD-D7BF-4B90-9285-EA4E59B627DD@netconsonance.com>
	<CAP-guGU2HAC=zZ=DoYQpPjUgdiZ0F=3FFMrzPFQz-ChCdfKXBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK-XZr+0aDqdOB0TrrC2dNb6Lko6578cwAN=7UJ8-QoiTH2gnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGWZ1uJfuhEPQPPVzFh1bP7FL5_y7ayTMMp6x3q8jJBy4Q@mail.gmail.com>

Aaron, Paul: I offer warm congratulations on your election/re-election.

As you and the rest of the board evaluate the proposed fee changes, I
would encourage you to consider this simple math:

I just got half way to election to a seat on the board, 73 votes out
of a needed 138, based primarily on a single proposal: ARIN should not
charge for IPv6 registration until the protocol is much more widely
deployed and much more widely used.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From paul at redbarn.org  Fri Nov  9 15:41:32 2012
From: paul at redbarn.org (paul vixie)
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 20:41:32 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGWZ1uJfuhEPQPPVzFh1bP7FL5_y7ayTMMp6x3q8jJBy4Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net> <8967.1351542207@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
	<ECC66AC4-0EBF-46D5-97F4-603D7A8BCD62@netconsonance.com>
	<9151.1351605200@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
	<67A9ACBD-D7BF-4B90-9285-EA4E59B627DD@netconsonance.com>
	<CAP-guGU2HAC=zZ=DoYQpPjUgdiZ0F=3FFMrzPFQz-ChCdfKXBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK-XZr+0aDqdOB0TrrC2dNb6Lko6578cwAN=7UJ8-QoiTH2gnQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAP-guGWZ1uJfuhEPQPPVzFh1bP7FL5_y7ayTMMp6x3q8jJBy4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <509D6A7C.5050300@redbarn.org>

On 11/9/2012 8:13 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> ... I would encourage you to consider this simple math:
>
> I just got half way to election to a seat on the board, 73 votes out
> of a needed 138, based primarily on a single proposal: ARIN should not
> charge for IPv6 registration until the protocol is much more widely
> deployed and much more widely used.

i think you may be underestimating your credibility on the wider range
of issues affecting our community. you didn't need to mention any
specific proposal such as a continuation of the ipv6 fee waivers in
order to garner significant support in this or any election of industry
participants.

that having been said, we are past "ipv6 launch" and v6 is now available
full time from the deepest and
hottest content providers on the internet. a network operator who turns
on ipv6 will see significant traffic. v6 is no longer an experiment or a
toy, and its inevitability is no longer debatable.

continuing a fee waiver to support something that has clearly got legs,
can be argued to shift arin's cost burden onto non-ipv6 adopters, for no
imaginable advantage in terms of the rate of v6 deployment.

paul

-- 
"I suspect I'm not known as a font of optimism." (VJS, 2012)



From bill at herrin.us  Fri Nov  9 16:19:16 2012
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 16:19:16 -0500
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <509D6A7C.5050300@redbarn.org>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net> <8967.1351542207@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
	<ECC66AC4-0EBF-46D5-97F4-603D7A8BCD62@netconsonance.com>
	<9151.1351605200@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
	<67A9ACBD-D7BF-4B90-9285-EA4E59B627DD@netconsonance.com>
	<CAP-guGU2HAC=zZ=DoYQpPjUgdiZ0F=3FFMrzPFQz-ChCdfKXBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK-XZr+0aDqdOB0TrrC2dNb6Lko6578cwAN=7UJ8-QoiTH2gnQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAP-guGWZ1uJfuhEPQPPVzFh1bP7FL5_y7ayTMMp6x3q8jJBy4Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<509D6A7C.5050300@redbarn.org>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGXVrhvva6FmAwo0=S=ODbCsytbPhm-er92pXpNrJfp14Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 3:41 PM, paul vixie <paul at redbarn.org> wrote:
> that having been said, we are past "ipv6 launch" and v6 is now available
> full time from the deepest and
> hottest content providers on the internet. a network operator who turns
> on ipv6 will see significant traffic. v6 is no longer an experiment or a
> toy, and its inevitability is no longer debatable.
>
> continuing a fee waiver to support something that has clearly got legs,
> can be argued to shift arin's cost burden onto non-ipv6 adopters, for no
> imaginable advantage in terms of the rate of v6 deployment.

Hi Paul,

You know that I have great respect for you. But it is because of
IPv6's eventual inevitability that I believe it entirely reasonable to
shift ARIN's cost burden on to non-IPv6 adopters until IPv6 has enough
oomph behind it to pay for itself. Which it doesn't today. And won't
for a while yet.

There are half a dozen credible reasons an organization may elect not
to pursue IPv6 this year. Why permit ARIN fees to be one of them?

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From paul at redbarn.org  Fri Nov  9 16:40:14 2012
From: paul at redbarn.org (paul vixie)
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 21:40:14 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGXVrhvva6FmAwo0=S=ODbCsytbPhm-er92pXpNrJfp14Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net> <8967.1351542207@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
	<ECC66AC4-0EBF-46D5-97F4-603D7A8BCD62@netconsonance.com>
	<9151.1351605200@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
	<67A9ACBD-D7BF-4B90-9285-EA4E59B627DD@netconsonance.com>
	<CAP-guGU2HAC=zZ=DoYQpPjUgdiZ0F=3FFMrzPFQz-ChCdfKXBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK-XZr+0aDqdOB0TrrC2dNb6Lko6578cwAN=7UJ8-QoiTH2gnQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAP-guGWZ1uJfuhEPQPPVzFh1bP7FL5_y7ayTMMp6x3q8jJBy4Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<509D6A7C.5050300@redbarn.org>
	<CAP-guGXVrhvva6FmAwo0=S=ODbCsytbPhm-er92pXpNrJfp14Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <509D783E.6020807@redbarn.org>

On 11/9/2012 9:19 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> ... it is because of IPv6's eventual inevitability that I believe it
> entirely reasonable to shift ARIN's cost burden on to non-IPv6
> adopters until IPv6 has enough oomph behind it to pay for itself.
> Which it doesn't today. And won't for a while yet. There are half a
> dozen credible reasons an organization may elect not to pursue IPv6
> this year. Why permit ARIN fees to be one of them?

ARIN has never structured its fees as a form of "sin tax" such that
people who do bad things (like not deploying IPv6) pay more. i'm not
saying we can't, i'm saying we havn't. if this consultation ends with a
clear consensus that we ought to do that, then we probably would. but i
would be surprised to see that result.

the fee waiver made sense to me in the years that we did it, because
ipv6 was in doubt. no longer.

paul

-- 
"I suspect I'm not known as a font of optimism." (VJS, 2012)



From bjohnson at drtel.com  Fri Nov  9 16:40:32 2012
From: bjohnson at drtel.com (Brian Johnson)
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 21:40:32 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <1520.1352225948@sandelman.ca>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A71A4@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<619DFCF3-DE52-451D-9553-4A9DEE330392@corp.arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A7304@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<1520.1352225948@sandelman.ca>
Message-ID: <F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62BB947@EX02.drtel.lan>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-consult-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-consult-
> bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 12:19 PM
> To: arin-consult at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change
> Consultation
> 
> 
> Brian Johnson <bjohnson at drtel.com> wrote:
>     >> > Under the new structure, the same situation would have the
>     >> XX-Small fee ($500). Is this correct?
>     >>
>     >> If the IPv4 block was /22, then it would be XX-Small ($500).
>     >> Since it is /21, the right category is X-Small (i.e. "Larger than
>     >> /22, up to and including /20"), and the revised fee is
>     >> $1000/annual.
> 
>     JC> Oops. I mistyped that and should have referenced a /22 and then
>     JC> I would have been correct.
> 
>     JC> Even so, under a IPv4 /21 or /20 (and/or an IPv6 /44 up to /36),
>     JC> the rate would be less than today by $250. Correct?
> 
> my understanding is:
> for v4/22 + v6/48, it would be $500+$500, so $250 less.
> but v4/21 + v6/48, it would be $1000+$500, I think.
> 

I believe this is incorrect.

You would pay the higher of the IPv6 or IPv4 fees by size. Also, you would not pay any ASN fee if you have number resources.

Using your examples:
for v4/22 + v6/48, it would be $500.
for v4/21 + v6/48, it would be $1000.

Board, et al... Please correct me if I am wrong.

Thank you.

- Brian

> --
> Michael Richardson
> -on the road-


From bill at herrin.us  Fri Nov  9 16:47:19 2012
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 16:47:19 -0500
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <509D783E.6020807@redbarn.org>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net> <8967.1351542207@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
	<ECC66AC4-0EBF-46D5-97F4-603D7A8BCD62@netconsonance.com>
	<9151.1351605200@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
	<67A9ACBD-D7BF-4B90-9285-EA4E59B627DD@netconsonance.com>
	<CAP-guGU2HAC=zZ=DoYQpPjUgdiZ0F=3FFMrzPFQz-ChCdfKXBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK-XZr+0aDqdOB0TrrC2dNb6Lko6578cwAN=7UJ8-QoiTH2gnQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAP-guGWZ1uJfuhEPQPPVzFh1bP7FL5_y7ayTMMp6x3q8jJBy4Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<509D6A7C.5050300@redbarn.org>
	<CAP-guGXVrhvva6FmAwo0=S=ODbCsytbPhm-er92pXpNrJfp14Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<509D783E.6020807@redbarn.org>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGVXSFPsMaFO6sz5fxBpN=pb7L2uuB1-6+xYu+D1UYvGsw@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 4:40 PM, paul vixie <paul at redbarn.org> wrote:
> ARIN has never structured its fees as a form of "sin tax" such that
> people who do bad things (like not deploying IPv6) pay more. i'm not
> saying we can't, i'm saying we havn't. if this consultation ends with a
> clear consensus that we ought to do that, then we probably would. but i
> would be surprised to see that result.

Hi Paul,

With due respect, I think it grossly overstates the case to suggest
that an IPv6 fee waiver as a "sin tax" on non-adopters. It's the
removal of one of the barriers to _prompt_ adoption. Nothing more,
nothing less.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From bill at herrin.us  Fri Nov  9 16:50:28 2012
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 16:50:28 -0500
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGVXSFPsMaFO6sz5fxBpN=pb7L2uuB1-6+xYu+D1UYvGsw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net> <8967.1351542207@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
	<ECC66AC4-0EBF-46D5-97F4-603D7A8BCD62@netconsonance.com>
	<9151.1351605200@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
	<67A9ACBD-D7BF-4B90-9285-EA4E59B627DD@netconsonance.com>
	<CAP-guGU2HAC=zZ=DoYQpPjUgdiZ0F=3FFMrzPFQz-ChCdfKXBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK-XZr+0aDqdOB0TrrC2dNb6Lko6578cwAN=7UJ8-QoiTH2gnQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAP-guGWZ1uJfuhEPQPPVzFh1bP7FL5_y7ayTMMp6x3q8jJBy4Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<509D6A7C.5050300@redbarn.org>
	<CAP-guGXVrhvva6FmAwo0=S=ODbCsytbPhm-er92pXpNrJfp14Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<509D783E.6020807@redbarn.org>
	<CAP-guGVXSFPsMaFO6sz5fxBpN=pb7L2uuB1-6+xYu+D1UYvGsw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGUGAJ8n2b=koq3k6exCF8tu=hEVKSg92bwHe6A+Ovv7og@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 4:47 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 4:40 PM, paul vixie <paul at redbarn.org> wrote:
>> ARIN has never structured its fees as a form of "sin tax" such that
>> people who do bad things (like not deploying IPv6) pay more. i'm not
>> saying we can't, i'm saying we havn't. if this consultation ends with a
>> clear consensus that we ought to do that, then we probably would. but i
>> would be surprised to see that result.
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> With due respect, I think it grossly overstates the case to suggest
> that an IPv6 fee waiver as a "sin tax" on non-adopters. It's the
> removal of one of the barriers to _prompt_ adoption. Nothing more,
> nothing less.

And can't we all agree that _prompt_ adoption would be far preferable
to the laggardly pace we've set so far?

IPv4 adoption finally hit explosive growth in 1995. Do you recall how
much an IPv4 registration cost?

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From jer at mia.net  Fri Nov  9 16:52:56 2012
From: jer at mia.net (Jeremy Anthony Kinsey)
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 15:52:56 -0600
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Pricing
Message-ID: <4720B6F1-80B5-47B4-9201-9E5436EF5ACF@mia.net>

I guess I was not subscribed to this list on the 26th when I sent an email which went to moderation and was never responded to.  Just realized that now..

Anyway, that being said I am curious about the borderline nature of the fee schedule. While I understand it and can see the logic with regards to the lowering/raising, I an interested to know how many "small to medium" ISP's fit in that "borderline" area where as they are just SLIGHTLY over that threshold and are being asked to double their payment. Meanwhile others are seeing a decrease?   

More to the point.  Two ISP's paying $4k each with one with the maximum allocation and one with nearly 1/3'rd of that total seems disproportionate.  While I realize there had to be some cut off, what percentage of those 505 caught with a near double increase in their fees are in this particular situation?


"We are consulting with the community regarding changes to the ARIN Fee
Schedule that are scheduled for implementation in January of 2013. The
changes to the fee schedule including an alignment of the IPv4 and IPv6
fee schedules for ISPs into single set of registration services plans
based on total resources held, introduction of with per address block and
per ASN maintenance fees for end-users, and addition of very low cost
category (e.g. XX-Small) for the smallest organizations."

From jcurran at arin.net  Sat Nov 10 23:11:13 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 04:11:13 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62BB947@EX02.drtel.lan>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A71A4@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<619DFCF3-DE52-451D-9553-4A9DEE330392@corp.arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A7304@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<1520.1352225948@sandelman.ca>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62BB947@EX02.drtel.lan>
Message-ID: <2814A277-4DAE-47EB-86E1-E02B2731626F@corp.arin.net>

On Nov 9, 2012, at 4:40 PM, Brian Johnson <bjohnson at drtel.com> wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-consult-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-consult-
>> bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
>> ...
>> my understanding is:
>> for v4/22 + v6/48, it would be $500+$500, so $250 less.
>> but v4/21 + v6/48, it would be $1000+$500, I think.
>> 
> 
> I believe this is incorrect.
> 
> You would pay the higher of the IPv6 or IPv4 fees by size. Also, you would not pay any ASN fee if you have number resources.
> 
> Using your examples:
> for v4/22 + v6/48, it would be $500.
> for v4/21 + v6/48, it would be $1000.
> 
> Board, et al... Please correct me if I am wrong.

Apologies for not catching this sooner...  You are correct, ISPs pay 
a single annual fee for the smallest category which accommodates both 
their IPv4 and IPv6 number resource holdings.  For an ISP which has
a /22 (or smaller) IPv4 and a /48 (or smaller) IPv6 resources, this is
the new XX-small category with a $500 annual fee.  

The full proposed registration services fee schedule is contained on page 
10 of the pdf presentation here - 
https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXX/PDF/thursday/curran_fee_schedule.pdf

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN




From mcr at sandelman.ca  Mon Nov  5 18:58:56 2012
From: mcr at sandelman.ca (Michael Richardson)
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 18:58:56 -0500
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A7304@EX02.drtel.lan>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A71A4@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<619DFCF3-DE52-451D-9553-4A9DEE330392@corp.arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A7304@EX02.drtel.lan>
Message-ID: <12497.1352159936@sandelman.ca>


Brian Johnson <bjohnson at drtel.com> wrote:
    >> > Under the new structure, the same situation would have the
    >> XX-Small fee ($500). Is this correct?
    >> 
    >> If the IPv4 block was /22, then it would be XX-Small ($500).
    >> Since it is /21, the right category is X-Small (i.e. "Larger than
    >> /22, up to and including /20"), and the revised fee is
    >> $1000/annual.

    JC> Oops. I mistyped that and should have referenced a /22 and then
    JC> I would have been correct.

    JC> Even so, under a IPv4 /21 or /20 (and/or an IPv6 /44 up to /36),
    JC> the rate would be less than today by $250. Correct?

for v4/22 + v6/48, it would be $500+$500, so $250 less.
but v4/21 + v6/48, it would be $1000+$500, I think.

-- 
Michael Richardson
-on the road-


From jcurran at arin.net  Mon Nov 12 10:55:36 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:55:36 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <12497.1352159936@sandelman.ca>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A71A4@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<619DFCF3-DE52-451D-9553-4A9DEE330392@corp.arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A7304@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<12497.1352159936@sandelman.ca>
Message-ID: <E0016FFA-BBDF-4777-A0F9-0B532C9FB6D8@corp.arin.net>

On Nov 5, 2012, at 6:58 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr at sandelman.ca> wrote:

> for v4/22 + v6/48, it would be $500+$500, so $250 less.
> but v4/21 + v6/48, it would be $1000+$500, I think.

As Brian Johnson and I indicated, you only pay one fee and it covers both 
IPv4 and IPv6 resources up to the limits of that category.

For an ISP which has both a /22 (or smaller) IPv4 and a /48 (or smaller), it 
would be category XX-Small with a $500 annual registration services fee. For
an ISP which has more resources in either category (up to /20 of IPv4 and/or 
up to a /36 of IPv6), then they would be X-Small with a $1000 annual 
registration services fee.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN





From babydr at baby-dragons.com  Mon Nov 12 16:59:58 2012
From: babydr at baby-dragons.com (Mr. James W. Laferriere)
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:59:58 -0900 (AKST)
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <E0016FFA-BBDF-4777-A0F9-0B532C9FB6D8@corp.arin.net>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A71A4@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<619DFCF3-DE52-451D-9553-4A9DEE330392@corp.arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A7304@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<12497.1352159936@sandelman.ca>
	<E0016FFA-BBDF-4777-A0F9-0B532C9FB6D8@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.01.1211121255080.9268@filesrv1.baby-dragons.com>

 	Hello John ,

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012, John Curran wrote:
> On Nov 5, 2012, at 6:58 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr at sandelman.ca> wrote:
>
>> for v4/22 + v6/48, it would be $500+$500, so $250 less.
>> but v4/21 + v6/48, it would be $1000+$500, I think.
>
> As Brian Johnson and I indicated, you only pay one fee and it covers both
> IPv4 and IPv6 resources up to the limits of that category.
>
> For an ISP which has both a /22 (or smaller) IPv4 and a /48 (or smaller), it
> would be category XX-Small with a $500 annual registration services fee. For
> an ISP which has more resources in either category (up to /20 of IPv4 and/or
> up to a /36 of IPv6), then they would be X-Small with a $1000 annual
> registration services fee.
> Thanks!
> /John
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
 	With the reduced fee's for an end user /24 (what looks to me as) $100 .
 	This would reduce my heart ache quite a bit .  I already have an ASN
 	(19274) for which I pay the $100 annual maintenance fee .

 	My question is what would my end user fee be for this combination , 
ipv4/24 & ASN be ?

 		Tia,  JimL

ps:	All of you who are & are married to or supporting a veteran ,  God bless 
you & Thank You .

-- 
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| James   W.   Laferriere | System    Techniques | Give me VMS     |
| Network&System Engineer | 3237     Holden Road |  Give me Linux  |
| babydr at baby-dragons.com | Fairbanks, AK. 99709 |   only  on  AXP |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+


From jcurran at arin.net  Mon Nov 12 17:10:01 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 22:10:01 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LNX.2.01.1211121255080.9268@filesrv1.baby-dragons.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A71A4@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<619DFCF3-DE52-451D-9553-4A9DEE330392@corp.arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A7304@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<12497.1352159936@sandelman.ca>
	<E0016FFA-BBDF-4777-A0F9-0B532C9FB6D8@corp.arin.net>,
	<alpine.LNX.2.01.1211121255080.9268@filesrv1.baby-dragons.com>
Message-ID: <A6082ABB-7DF7-4DCE-A425-110389062523@corp.arin.net>

On Nov 12, 2012, at 5:00 PM, "Mr. James W. Laferriere" <babydr at baby-dragons.com> wrote:

>  With the reduced fee's for an end user /24 (what looks to me as) $100 .
>    This would reduce my heart ache quite a bit .  I already have an ASN
>    (19274) for which I pay the $100 annual maintenance fee .
> 
>    My question is what would my end user fee be for this combination , ipv4/24 & ASN be ?

As proposed, there would be a $100/yr end-user maintenance 
fee for each of the IPv4 block and for each AS number (for a 
total of $200/year in your example)

There has been some discussion to include end-user maintenance 
for 1 IPv4 block, 1 IPv6 block, and 1 AS number for a single $100 
annual fee, and $100 for each additional resource.  If that change 
is adopted, your total would be $100/year.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



From owen at delong.com  Tue Nov 13 12:48:03 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 09:48:03 -0800
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <A6082ABB-7DF7-4DCE-A425-110389062523@corp.arin.net>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A71A4@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<619DFCF3-DE52-451D-9553-4A9DEE330392@corp.arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A7304@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<12497.1352159936@sandelman.ca>
	<E0016FFA-BBDF-4777-A0F9-0B532C9FB6D8@corp.arin.net>,
	<alpine.LNX.2.01.1211121255080.9268@filesrv1.baby-dragons.com>
	<A6082ABB-7DF7-4DCE-A425-110389062523@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <252A833F-2773-4B91-A768-88896789F47B@delong.com>


On Nov 12, 2012, at 14:10 , John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

> On Nov 12, 2012, at 5:00 PM, "Mr. James W. Laferriere" <babydr at baby-dragons.com> wrote:
> 
>> With the reduced fee's for an end user /24 (what looks to me as) $100 .
>>   This would reduce my heart ache quite a bit .  I already have an ASN
>>   (19274) for which I pay the $100 annual maintenance fee .
>> 
>>   My question is what would my end user fee be for this combination , ipv4/24 & ASN be ?
> 
> As proposed, there would be a $100/yr end-user maintenance 
> fee for each of the IPv4 block and for each AS number (for a 
> total of $200/year in your example)
> 
> There has been some discussion to include end-user maintenance 
> for 1 IPv4 block, 1 IPv6 block, and 1 AS number for a single $100 
> annual fee, and $100 for each additional resource.  If that change 
> is adopted, your total would be $100/year.


I also find it interesting that under the current proposed end-user restructuring,
a small multihomer that has a /23, a /24, and a /48 with an ASN would have
their fees quadruple from $100/year to $400/year while a very large corporate
legacy holder (e.g. Apple, HP, MIT) that still refuses to sign the LRSA or 
ANY RSA would have their fees remain at $0.

Perhaps it would be worth while to consider as part of this fee restructuring:

1.	Removing the fee exemption for legacy holders.
and/or
2.	Basing the fees on total address holdings rather than number of blocks.

Owen




From heather.schiller at verizon.com  Tue Nov 13 13:27:58 2012
From: heather.schiller at verizon.com (Schiller, Heather A)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:27:58 -0500
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <252A833F-2773-4B91-A768-88896789F47B@delong.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A71A4@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<619DFCF3-DE52-451D-9553-4A9DEE330392@corp.arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A7304@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<12497.1352159936@sandelman.ca>
	<E0016FFA-BBDF-4777-A0F9-0B532C9FB6D8@corp.arin.net>,
	<alpine.LNX.2.01.1211121255080.9268@filesrv1.baby-dragons.com>
	<A6082ABB-7DF7-4DCE-A425-110389062523@corp.arin.net>
	<252A833F-2773-4B91-A768-88896789F47B@delong.com>
Message-ID: <B9EBD2474913AD4A995B8C7B8BEF8C0E159A5E7616@FHDP1LUMXC7V43.us.one.verizon.com>


I'm pretty sure ARIN already uses the count of total addresses within an ORG as the basis for the fee?  For example, if an org has 4 non-contiguous /22's (a /20 worth of IP's) they bill at Small (/20-/19) 

I do think the wording could be improved.. Allocation or assignment size instead of "block size"

 --Heather 

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-consult-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-consult-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 12:48 PM
To: John Curran
Cc: arin-consult at arin.net
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation


On Nov 12, 2012, at 14:10 , John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

> On Nov 12, 2012, at 5:00 PM, "Mr. James W. Laferriere" <babydr at baby-dragons.com> wrote:
> 
>> With the reduced fee's for an end user /24 (what looks to me as) $100 .
>>   This would reduce my heart ache quite a bit .  I already have an ASN
>>   (19274) for which I pay the $100 annual maintenance fee .
>> 
>>   My question is what would my end user fee be for this combination , ipv4/24 & ASN be ?
> 
> As proposed, there would be a $100/yr end-user maintenance fee for 
> each of the IPv4 block and for each AS number (for a total of 
> $200/year in your example)
> 
> There has been some discussion to include end-user maintenance for 1 
> IPv4 block, 1 IPv6 block, and 1 AS number for a single $100 annual 
> fee, and $100 for each additional resource.  If that change is 
> adopted, your total would be $100/year.


I also find it interesting that under the current proposed end-user restructuring, a small multihomer that has a /23, a /24, and a /48 with an ASN would have their fees quadruple from $100/year to $400/year while a very large corporate legacy holder (e.g. Apple, HP, MIT) that still refuses to sign the LRSA or ANY RSA would have their fees remain at $0.

Perhaps it would be worth while to consider as part of this fee restructuring:

1.	Removing the fee exemption for legacy holders.
and/or
2.	Basing the fees on total address holdings rather than number of blocks.

Owen


_______________________________________________
ARIN-Consult
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing List (ARIN-consult at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.


From owen at delong.com  Tue Nov 13 14:19:06 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 11:19:06 -0800
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <B9EBD2474913AD4A995B8C7B8BEF8C0E159A5E7616@FHDP1LUMXC7V43.us.one.verizon.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A71A4@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<619DFCF3-DE52-451D-9553-4A9DEE330392@corp.arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A7304@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<12497.1352159936@sandelman.ca>
	<E0016FFA-BBDF-4777-A0F9-0B532C9FB6D8@corp.arin.net>,
	<alpine.LNX.2.01.1211121255080.9268@filesrv1.baby-dragons.com>
	<A6082ABB-7DF7-4DCE-A425-110389062523@corp.arin.net>
	<252A833F-2773-4B91-A768-88896789F47B@delong.com>
	<B9EBD2474913AD4A995B8C7B8BEF8C0E159A5E7616@FHDP1LUMXC7V43.us.one.verizon.com>
Message-ID: <18D23441-7E0A-484E-AD4F-B89198C040C2@delong.com>

Heather, that is for ISPs.

For end-users, the current fee is $100 no matter what you have unless you're a legacy holder that still refuses to sign any RSA in which case you pay $0.

In the proposed structure, end users would be charged $100 per record. $100 for an ASN and $100 for a /8 and $100 for a /24 and $100 for a /16 and $100 for a /22 and $100 for a /12 and $100 for an IPv6 /48 and $100 for an IPv6 /12.

(obviously no one organization is going to have all of those things, but, for each entry in whois, count up $100 and that's what you get charged as an end user under the current proposal).

Owen

On Nov 13, 2012, at 10:27 , "Schiller, Heather A" <heather.schiller at verizon.com> wrote:

> 
> I'm pretty sure ARIN already uses the count of total addresses within an ORG as the basis for the fee?  For example, if an org has 4 non-contiguous /22's (a /20 worth of IP's) they bill at Small (/20-/19) 
> 
> I do think the wording could be improved.. Allocation or assignment size instead of "block size"
> 
> --Heather 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-consult-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-consult-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 12:48 PM
> To: John Curran
> Cc: arin-consult at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
> 
> 
> On Nov 12, 2012, at 14:10 , John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Nov 12, 2012, at 5:00 PM, "Mr. James W. Laferriere" <babydr at baby-dragons.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> With the reduced fee's for an end user /24 (what looks to me as) $100 .
>>>  This would reduce my heart ache quite a bit .  I already have an ASN
>>>  (19274) for which I pay the $100 annual maintenance fee .
>>> 
>>>  My question is what would my end user fee be for this combination , ipv4/24 & ASN be ?
>> 
>> As proposed, there would be a $100/yr end-user maintenance fee for 
>> each of the IPv4 block and for each AS number (for a total of 
>> $200/year in your example)
>> 
>> There has been some discussion to include end-user maintenance for 1 
>> IPv4 block, 1 IPv6 block, and 1 AS number for a single $100 annual 
>> fee, and $100 for each additional resource.  If that change is 
>> adopted, your total would be $100/year.
> 
> 
> I also find it interesting that under the current proposed end-user restructuring, a small multihomer that has a /23, a /24, and a /48 with an ASN would have their fees quadruple from $100/year to $400/year while a very large corporate legacy holder (e.g. Apple, HP, MIT) that still refuses to sign the LRSA or ANY RSA would have their fees remain at $0.
> 
> Perhaps it would be worth while to consider as part of this fee restructuring:
> 
> 1.	Removing the fee exemption for legacy holders.
> and/or
> 2.	Basing the fees on total address holdings rather than number of blocks.
> 
> Owen
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Consult
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing List (ARIN-consult at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.



From jesse at la-broadband.com  Tue Nov 13 13:28:19 2012
From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:28:19 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <252A833F-2773-4B91-A768-88896789F47B@delong.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A71A4@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<619DFCF3-DE52-451D-9553-4A9DEE330392@corp.arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A7304@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<12497.1352159936@sandelman.ca>
	<E0016FFA-BBDF-4777-A0F9-0B532C9FB6D8@corp.arin.net>,
	<alpine.LNX.2.01.1211121255080.9268@filesrv1.baby-dragons.com>
	<A6082ABB-7DF7-4DCE-A425-110389062523@corp.arin.net>,
	<252A833F-2773-4B91-A768-88896789F47B@delong.com>
Message-ID: <FB3C8C42-C8D5-4C39-A247-933DA12BA8F7@la-broadband.com>

Here here, two items that would achieve what I've been asking, somewhat. I was saying total /48's as an example and Owen is saying total IPs. I think they are one in the same.  I was unaware their fees were $0. That's astonishing. 

Jesse Geddis
LA Broadband LLC

On Nov 13, 2012, at 9:50 AM, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> wrote:

> 
> On Nov 12, 2012, at 14:10 , John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Nov 12, 2012, at 5:00 PM, "Mr. James W. Laferriere" <babydr at baby-dragons.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> With the reduced fee's for an end user /24 (what looks to me as) $100 .
>>>  This would reduce my heart ache quite a bit .  I already have an ASN
>>>  (19274) for which I pay the $100 annual maintenance fee .
>>> 
>>>  My question is what would my end user fee be for this combination , ipv4/24 & ASN be ?
>> 
>> As proposed, there would be a $100/yr end-user maintenance 
>> fee for each of the IPv4 block and for each AS number (for a 
>> total of $200/year in your example)
>> 
>> There has been some discussion to include end-user maintenance 
>> for 1 IPv4 block, 1 IPv6 block, and 1 AS number for a single $100 
>> annual fee, and $100 for each additional resource.  If that change 
>> is adopted, your total would be $100/year.
> 
> 
> I also find it interesting that under the current proposed end-user restructuring,
> a small multihomer that has a /23, a /24, and a /48 with an ASN would have
> their fees quadruple from $100/year to $400/year while a very large corporate
> legacy holder (e.g. Apple, HP, MIT) that still refuses to sign the LRSA or 
> ANY RSA would have their fees remain at $0.
> 
> Perhaps it would be worth while to consider as part of this fee restructuring:
> 
> 1.    Removing the fee exemption for legacy holders.
> and/or
> 2.    Basing the fees on total address holdings rather than number of blocks.
> 
> Owen
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Consult
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing
> List (ARIN-consult at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services
> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.


From jesse at la-broadband.com  Tue Nov 13 13:41:03 2012
From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:41:03 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <B9EBD2474913AD4A995B8C7B8BEF8C0E159A5E7616@FHDP1LUMXC7V43.us.one.verizon.com>
Message-ID: <CCC7D3A4.1E10E%jesse@la-broadband.com>

Heather,

It is only loosely. There's a couple ways in which it veers way off that
I'm not sure is appropriate:
1. It has a 'cap' for fees and I don't think one should exist
2. It has a tier system that serves a purpose I'm unaware of. It seems at
best there should be a 'small' tier and an 'everyone else' that scales
directly with the size of their assignment.
3. Apparently the legacy holders pay no fees.

-- 
Jesse D. Geddis

LA Broadband LLC




On 11/13/12 10:27 AM, "Schiller, Heather A" <heather.schiller at verizon.com>
wrote:


I'm pretty sure ARIN already uses the count of total addresses within an
ORG as the basis for the fee?  For example, if an org has 4 non-contiguous
/22's (a /20 worth of IP's) they bill at Small (/20-/19)

I do think the wording could be improved.. Allocation or assignment size
instead of "block size"

 --Heather 

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-consult-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-consult-bounces at arin.net]
On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 12:48 PM
To: John Curran
Cc: arin-consult at arin.net
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change
Consultation


On Nov 12, 2012, at 14:10 , John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

> On Nov 12, 2012, at 5:00 PM, "Mr. James W. Laferriere"
><babydr at baby-dragons.com> wrote:
> 
>> With the reduced fee's for an end user /24 (what looks to me as) $100 .
>>   This would reduce my heart ache quite a bit .  I already have an ASN
>>   (19274) for which I pay the $100 annual maintenance fee .
>> 
>>   My question is what would my end user fee be for this combination ,
>>ipv4/24 & ASN be ?
> 
> As proposed, there would be a $100/yr end-user maintenance fee for
> each of the IPv4 block and for each AS number (for a total of
> $200/year in your example)
> 
> There has been some discussion to include end-user maintenance for 1
> IPv4 block, 1 IPv6 block, and 1 AS number for a single $100 annual
> fee, and $100 for each additional resource.  If that change is
> adopted, your total would be $100/year.


I also find it interesting that under the current proposed end-user
restructuring, a small multihomer that has a /23, a /24, and a /48 with an
ASN would have their fees quadruple from $100/year to $400/year while a
very large corporate legacy holder (e.g. Apple, HP, MIT) that still
refuses to sign the LRSA or ANY RSA would have their fees remain at $0.

Perhaps it would be worth while to consider as part of this fee
restructuring:

1.	Removing the fee exemption for legacy holders.
and/or
2.	Basing the fees on total address holdings rather than number of blocks.

Owen


_______________________________________________
ARIN-Consult
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
Consult Mailing List (ARIN-consult at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the
ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any
issues.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-Consult
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
Consult Mailing
List (ARIN-consult at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the
ARIN Member Services
Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.



From bjohnson at drtel.com  Tue Nov 13 16:45:17 2012
From: bjohnson at drtel.com (Brian Johnson)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 21:45:17 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <252A833F-2773-4B91-A768-88896789F47B@delong.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A71A4@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<619DFCF3-DE52-451D-9553-4A9DEE330392@corp.arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A7304@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<12497.1352159936@sandelman.ca>
	<E0016FFA-BBDF-4777-A0F9-0B532C9FB6D8@corp.arin.net>,
	<alpine.LNX.2.01.1211121255080.9268@filesrv1.baby-dragons.com>
	<A6082ABB-7DF7-4DCE-A425-110389062523@corp.arin.net>
	<252A833F-2773-4B91-A768-88896789F47B@delong.com>
Message-ID: <F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C3219@EX02.drtel.lan>

<SNIP>

> Perhaps it would be worth while to consider as part of this fee restructuring:
> 
> 1.	Removing the fee exemption for legacy holders.
> and/or

I'm not sure we can impose fees on legacy holders as they are not ARIN members and have no direct relationship with ARIN. They do have whois records that ARIN  maintains, but removing them to incentivize fee payment would be damaging to the rest of us.

> 2.	Basing the fees on total address holdings rather than number of
> blocks.
> 
> Owen
> 
<SNIP>

- Brian J


From owen at delong.com  Tue Nov 13 17:29:05 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 14:29:05 -0800
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C3219@EX02.drtel.lan>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A71A4@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<619DFCF3-DE52-451D-9553-4A9DEE330392@corp.arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A7304@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<12497.1352159936@sandelman.ca>
	<E0016FFA-BBDF-4777-A0F9-0B532C9FB6D8@corp.arin.net>
	<alpine.LNX.2.01.1211121255080.9268@filesrv1.baby-dragons.com>
	<A6082ABB-7DF7-4DCE-A425-110389062523@corp.arin.net>
	<252A833F-2773-4B91-A768-88896789F47B@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C3219@EX02.drtel.lan>
Message-ID: <D1B7A523-9ACE-4789-AAD4-56DDCAC4B8E6@delong.com>



Sent from my iPad

On Nov 13, 2012, at 1:45 PM, Brian Johnson <bjohnson at drtel.com> wrote:

> <SNIP>
> 
>> Perhaps it would be worth while to consider as part of this fee restructuring:
>> 
>> 1.    Removing the fee exemption for legacy holders.
>> and/or
> 
> I'm not sure we can impose fees on legacy holders as they are not ARIN members and have no direct relationship with ARIN. They do have whois records that ARIN  maintains, but removing them to incentivize fee payment would be damaging to the rest of us.
> 

We could keep them in whois and terminate their RDNS services, however.

We could, for example, possibly issue the addresses to brave (or desperate) souls willing to take on that risk. I wouldn't recommend this particular course of action, but, it is a course technically open to ARIN.

More importantly, I would prefer not to see ARIN start punishing those that signed the LRSA or RSA by subjecting them to increased fees while still giving those that did not a free ride as I think that clearly places the incentives in the very wrong place.

Owen



From mysidia at gmail.com  Tue Nov 13 20:31:43 2012
From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 19:31:43 -0600
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <D1B7A523-9ACE-4789-AAD4-56DDCAC4B8E6@delong.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A71A4@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<619DFCF3-DE52-451D-9553-4A9DEE330392@corp.arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A7304@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<12497.1352159936@sandelman.ca>
	<E0016FFA-BBDF-4777-A0F9-0B532C9FB6D8@corp.arin.net>
	<alpine.LNX.2.01.1211121255080.9268@filesrv1.baby-dragons.com>
	<A6082ABB-7DF7-4DCE-A425-110389062523@corp.arin.net>
	<252A833F-2773-4B91-A768-88896789F47B@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C3219@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<D1B7A523-9ACE-4789-AAD4-56DDCAC4B8E6@delong.com>
Message-ID: <CAAAwwbX1dA_rZBYzJAx-U++nfWvQsnFVC8gD3vr8P0B3YPkUKg@mail.gmail.com>

On 11/13/12, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

The Fee schedule the consultation is about doesn't say legacy holders
are not included -- so it's not a fee schedule question.

Legacy holder payment of the fees is really a separate matter.    If
legacy holders do pay fees,  then I see no reason for them to have a
separate fee schedule -- fees should be equal.

> We could keep them in whois and terminate their RDNS services, however.

It will break traceroutes involving their network by suppressing the
hostnames of their routers, and suppress server reverse lookups that
might be useful for diag or abuse reporting purposes.  BUT it won't
actually disrupt their use of the IP space, or stop them using the
IPs.       It may lead to proposals  to  remove RDNS responsibility
for legacy space from ARIN.

Terminating RDNS is no stronger a stick than terminating WHOIS.
The legacy holders don't necessarily care what ARIN puts in its database,
as they are  "well known" allocations;  that it's simply an indelible fact that
those organizations  operate those networks.

>From the perspective of those large networks, if ARIN were to remove entries
for active networks from their database;  it would simply mean that
ARIN is introducing  intentional omissions into the database,  and
seeking to obscure the unobscurable identity
of those networks.

> Owen
--
-JH


From jcurran at arin.net  Tue Nov 13 22:48:22 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 03:48:22 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <CAAAwwbX1dA_rZBYzJAx-U++nfWvQsnFVC8gD3vr8P0B3YPkUKg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A71A4@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<619DFCF3-DE52-451D-9553-4A9DEE330392@corp.arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A7304@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<12497.1352159936@sandelman.ca>
	<E0016FFA-BBDF-4777-A0F9-0B532C9FB6D8@corp.arin.net>
	<alpine.LNX.2.01.1211121255080.9268@filesrv1.baby-dragons.com>
	<A6082ABB-7DF7-4DCE-A425-110389062523@corp.arin.net>
	<252A833F-2773-4B91-A768-88896789F47B@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C3219@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<D1B7A523-9ACE-4789-AAD4-56DDCAC4B8E6@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbX1dA_rZBYzJAx-U++nfWvQsnFVC8gD3vr8P0B3YPkUKg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F3D5F3D9-0140-406C-9CC6-D5E55C17D56E@corp.arin.net>

On Nov 13, 2012, at 8:31 PM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:
> The Fee schedule the consultation is about doesn't say legacy holders
> are not included -- so it's not a fee schedule question.

Agreed.

To be clear, the proposed fee schedule has legacy address holders (who 
have opted to enter an LRSA with ARIN) paying the same fees as end-users.  
Some earlier versions of the LRSA cap any increase in fees to $25/year, 
and for those cases the fees billed will increase by $25 each year until 
fee billed matches an end-user with the same quantity of number resources.

ARIN has consistently provided basic registry services for all resource 
holders in the region, including legacy address block holders without 
charge, and the proposed revision to the fee schedule would not not alter
this practice.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



From jcurran at arin.net  Wed Nov 14 08:06:04 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 13:06:04 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] LRSA Information (was: Fee Schedule Change
	Consultation)
In-Reply-To: <F3D5F3D9-0140-406C-9CC6-D5E55C17D56E@corp.arin.net>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A71A4@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<619DFCF3-DE52-451D-9553-4A9DEE330392@corp.arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A7304@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<12497.1352159936@sandelman.ca>
	<E0016FFA-BBDF-4777-A0F9-0B532C9FB6D8@corp.arin.net>
	<alpine.LNX.2.01.1211121255080.9268@filesrv1.baby-dragons.com>
	<A6082ABB-7DF7-4DCE-A425-110389062523@corp.arin.net>
	<252A833F-2773-4B91-A768-88896789F47B@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C3219@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<D1B7A523-9ACE-4789-AAD4-56DDCAC4B8E6@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbX1dA_rZBYzJAx-U++nfWvQsnFVC8gD3vr8P0B3YPkUKg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F3D5F3D9-0140-406C-9CC6-D5E55C17D56E@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <8D4628F5-1C96-46B7-8534-FCC31A2FCE95@corp.arin.net>

On Nov 13, 2012, at 10:48 PM, John Curran <jcurran at corp.arin.net> wrote:
> 
> ARIN has consistently provided basic registry services for all resource 
> holders in the region, including legacy address block holders without 
> charge, and the proposed revision to the fee schedule would not not alter
> this practice.

I was asked privately by two folks, so figured it was best to respond to the 
list regarding "why would someone enter an LRSA if it means paying ARIN"...
While not strictly part of the consultation, understanding ARIN's practices
regarding legacy resource holders could be considered germane to the issue,
since the number of legacy resource holders entering into LRSA agreements 
does affect the organizational financials to some extent.

ARIN has provided basic registry services without charge to legacy resource 
holders in the region since inception, as this was an expectation at ARIN's 
formation and has been a position reaffirmed by the ARIN Board of Trustees 
over time.  These registry services include Whois publication, updates to 
the listed points-of-contact on number resources, and reverse DNS service.
While continued provision of these services to legacy resource holders at
no charge is not assured, it also needs to be recognized that the community
benefits from provision of these services in addition to the legacy holders.
Legacy resource holders may opt to contract for these registry services by
entering LRSA with ARIN and paying the end-user fees.  The LRSA provides 
specific contractual rights and obligations (the same ones that are in the 
standard RSA agreement) which some resource holders may find more desirable 
than receiving registry services via the status quo.

More information regarding the LRSA may be found here:
<https://www.arin.net/resources/legacy/index.html>

Statistics regarding LRSAs and resources covered by be found here:
<https://www.arin.net/knowledge/statistics/legacy.html>

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



From owen at delong.com  Wed Nov 14 10:18:35 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 07:18:35 -0800
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <F3D5F3D9-0140-406C-9CC6-D5E55C17D56E@corp.arin.net>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A71A4@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<619DFCF3-DE52-451D-9553-4A9DEE330392@corp.arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A7304@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<12497.1352159936@sandelman.ca>
	<E0016FFA-BBDF-4777-A0F9-0B532C9FB6D8@corp.arin.net>
	<alpine.LNX.2.01.1211121255080.9268@filesrv1.baby-dragons.com>
	<A6082ABB-7DF7-4DCE-A425-110389062523@corp.arin.net>
	<252A833F-2773-4B91-A768-88896789F47B@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C3219@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<D1B7A523-9ACE-4789-AAD4-56DDCAC4B8E6@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbX1dA_rZBYzJAx-U++nfWvQsnFVC8gD3vr8P0B3YPkUKg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F3D5F3D9-0140-406C-9CC6-D5E55C17D56E@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <D74BE3D4-59A2-47D0-A3CA-7610C6DFF490@delong.com>


On Nov 13, 2012, at 19:48 , John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

> On Nov 13, 2012, at 8:31 PM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The Fee schedule the consultation is about doesn't say legacy holders
>> are not included -- so it's not a fee schedule question.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> To be clear, the proposed fee schedule has legacy address holders (who 
> have opted to enter an LRSA with ARIN) paying the same fees as end-users.  
> Some earlier versions of the LRSA cap any increase in fees to $25/year, 
> and for those cases the fees billed will increase by $25 each year until 
> fee billed matches an end-user with the same quantity of number resources.

Right... As proposed, those of us that agreed to get with the program will be
unfairly penalized vs. those who have chosen to continue to opt out of the
ARIN process.

> ARIN has consistently provided basic registry services for all resource 
> holders in the region, including legacy address block holders without 
> charge, and the proposed revision to the fee schedule would not not alter
> this practice.

Exactly... If you continued to ignore ARIN, you continue to get a free ride, but
if you opted in based, in part, on the theory that your ARIN fees would not
be unreasonably or rapidly increased, now you get shafted (if the current
proposal is implemented).

Owen



From bjohnson at drtel.com  Wed Nov 14 10:52:45 2012
From: bjohnson at drtel.com (Brian Johnson)
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:52:45 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <D74BE3D4-59A2-47D0-A3CA-7610C6DFF490@delong.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A71A4@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<619DFCF3-DE52-451D-9553-4A9DEE330392@corp.arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A7304@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<12497.1352159936@sandelman.ca>
	<E0016FFA-BBDF-4777-A0F9-0B532C9FB6D8@corp.arin.net>
	<alpine.LNX.2.01.1211121255080.9268@filesrv1.baby-dragons.com>
	<A6082ABB-7DF7-4DCE-A425-110389062523@corp.arin.net>
	<252A833F-2773-4B91-A768-88896789F47B@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C3219@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<D1B7A523-9ACE-4789-AAD4-56DDCAC4B8E6@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbX1dA_rZBYzJAx-U++nfWvQsnFVC8gD3vr8P0B3YPkUKg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F3D5F3D9-0140-406C-9CC6-D5E55C17D56E@corp.arin.net>
	<D74BE3D4-59A2-47D0-A3CA-7610C6DFF490@delong.com>
Message-ID: <F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C5B6B@EX02.drtel.lan>

Owen,

I'm not sure what you really expect to happen here. Do we give away services to everyone so that they are the same as legacy holders... that doesn't work. Do we start charging legacy holders for their resources without an agreement from them... I can feel the lawyers prepping papers right now.

I will note that my understanding is that legacy holders will need to sign some kind of (L)RSA to get v6 space. They will then need to justify their assignment (at least the IPv6 assignment) to get space. Possibly they would have to "back justify" their legacy space? Maybe this is a way we can limp along with V4 longer?

I think that I would like ARIN to avoid legal issues when possible. I'm not sure if ARIN counsel would want to chime in on sending bills to legacy space holders who have not signed an agreement with ARIN. This may help me in my processing of this topic.

- Brian J.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-consult-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-consult-
> bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 9:19 AM
> To: John Curran
> Cc: arin-consult at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change
> Consultation
> 
> 
> On Nov 13, 2012, at 19:48 , John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> 
> > On Nov 13, 2012, at 8:31 PM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> The Fee schedule the consultation is about doesn't say legacy holders
> >> are not included -- so it's not a fee schedule question.
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > To be clear, the proposed fee schedule has legacy address holders (who
> > have opted to enter an LRSA with ARIN) paying the same fees as end-
> users.
> > Some earlier versions of the LRSA cap any increase in fees to $25/year,
> > and for those cases the fees billed will increase by $25 each year until
> > fee billed matches an end-user with the same quantity of number
> resources.
> 
> Right... As proposed, those of us that agreed to get with the program will be
> unfairly penalized vs. those who have chosen to continue to opt out of the
> ARIN process.
> 
> > ARIN has consistently provided basic registry services for all resource
> > holders in the region, including legacy address block holders without
> > charge, and the proposed revision to the fee schedule would not not alter
> > this practice.
> 
> Exactly... If you continued to ignore ARIN, you continue to get a free ride, but
> if you opted in based, in part, on the theory that your ARIN fees would not
> be unreasonably or rapidly increased, now you get shafted (if the current
> proposal is implemented).
> 
> Owen
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Consult
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
> Consult Mailing
> List (ARIN-consult at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN
> Member Services
> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.


From jcurran at arin.net  Wed Nov 14 10:59:47 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:59:47 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C5B6B@EX02.drtel.lan>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A71A4@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<619DFCF3-DE52-451D-9553-4A9DEE330392@corp.arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A7304@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<12497.1352159936@sandelman.ca>
	<E0016FFA-BBDF-4777-A0F9-0B532C9FB6D8@corp.arin.net>
	<alpine.LNX.2.01.1211121255080.9268@filesrv1.baby-dragons.com>
	<A6082ABB-7DF7-4DCE-A425-110389062523@corp.arin.net>
	<252A833F-2773-4B91-A768-88896789F47B@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C3219@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<D1B7A523-9ACE-4789-AAD4-56DDCAC4B8E6@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbX1dA_rZBYzJAx-U++nfWvQsnFVC8gD3vr8P0B3YPkUKg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F3D5F3D9-0140-406C-9CC6-D5E55C17D56E@corp.arin.net>
	<D74BE3D4-59A2-47D0-A3CA-7610C6DFF490@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C5B6B@EX02.drtel.lan>
Message-ID: <0FEA0ABC-C59B-4FCE-8061-D3330D549EBF@arin.net>

On Nov 14, 2012, at 10:52 AM, Brian Johnson <bjohnson at drtel.com> wrote:

> Owen,
> 
> I'm not sure what you really expect to happen here. Do we give away services to everyone so that they are the same as legacy holders... that doesn't work. Do we start charging legacy holders for their resources without an agreement from them... I can feel the lawyers prepping papers right now.
> 
> I will note that my understanding is that legacy holders will need to sign some kind of (L)RSA to get v6 space. They will then need to justify their assignment (at least the IPv6 assignment) to get space. Possibly they would have to "back justify" their legacy space? Maybe this is a way we can limp along with V4 longer?

IPv6 number resources are issued by ARIN under a standard RSA, and
the agreement can be independent of any existing number resources.

> I think that I would like ARIN to avoid legal issues when possible. I'm not sure if ARIN counsel would want to chime in on sending bills to legacy space holders who have not signed an agreement with ARIN. This may help me in my processing of this topic.

Changing the handling of legacy resource holders is a valid topic 
for the community to discuss, but let's do so either at meeting
or in response to a specific proposal submitted to the suggestion
process.  The current consultation on fee changes does not change
the present handling of legacy resource holders, so let's keep to
the merits of the proposed fee change in this discussion thread.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN




From bjohnson at drtel.com  Wed Nov 14 11:22:16 2012
From: bjohnson at drtel.com (Brian Johnson)
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:22:16 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <0FEA0ABC-C59B-4FCE-8061-D3330D549EBF@arin.net>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A71A4@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<619DFCF3-DE52-451D-9553-4A9DEE330392@corp.arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A7304@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<12497.1352159936@sandelman.ca>
	<E0016FFA-BBDF-4777-A0F9-0B532C9FB6D8@corp.arin.net>
	<alpine.LNX.2.01.1211121255080.9268@filesrv1.baby-dragons.com>
	<A6082ABB-7DF7-4DCE-A425-110389062523@corp.arin.net>
	<252A833F-2773-4B91-A768-88896789F47B@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C3219@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<D1B7A523-9ACE-4789-AAD4-56DDCAC4B8E6@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbX1dA_rZBYzJAx-U++nfWvQsnFVC8gD3vr8P0B3YPkUKg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F3D5F3D9-0140-406C-9CC6-D5E55C17D56E@corp.arin.net>
	<D74BE3D4-59A2-47D0-A3CA-7610C6DFF490@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C5B6B@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<0FEA0ABC-C59B-4FCE-8061-D3330D549EBF@arin.net>
Message-ID: <F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C5BDD@EX02.drtel.lan>

Thanks for clarifying John.

I'm fine with the fee changes as proposed.

- Brian J.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 10:00 AM
> To: Brian Johnson
> Cc: Owen DeLong; arin-consult at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change
> Consultation
> 
> On Nov 14, 2012, at 10:52 AM, Brian Johnson <bjohnson at drtel.com> wrote:
> 
> > Owen,
> >
> > I'm not sure what you really expect to happen here. Do we give away
> services to everyone so that they are the same as legacy holders... that
> doesn't work. Do we start charging legacy holders for their resources without
> an agreement from them... I can feel the lawyers prepping papers right now.
> >
> > I will note that my understanding is that legacy holders will need to sign
> some kind of (L)RSA to get v6 space. They will then need to justify their
> assignment (at least the IPv6 assignment) to get space. Possibly they would
> have to "back justify" their legacy space? Maybe this is a way we can limp
> along with V4 longer?
> 
> IPv6 number resources are issued by ARIN under a standard RSA, and
> the agreement can be independent of any existing number resources.
> 
> > I think that I would like ARIN to avoid legal issues when possible. I'm not
> sure if ARIN counsel would want to chime in on sending bills to legacy space
> holders who have not signed an agreement with ARIN. This may help me in
> my processing of this topic.
> 
> 
> Changing the handling of legacy resource holders is a valid topic
> for the community to discuss, but let's do so either at meeting
> or in response to a specific proposal submitted to the suggestion
> process.  The current consultation on fee changes does not change
> the present handling of legacy resource holders, so let's keep to
> the merits of the proposed fee change in this discussion thread.
> 
> Thanks!
> /John
> 
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
> 



From owen at delong.com  Wed Nov 14 11:30:07 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 08:30:07 -0800
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C5B6B@EX02.drtel.lan>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A71A4@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<619DFCF3-DE52-451D-9553-4A9DEE330392@corp.arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A7304@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<12497.1352159936@sandelman.ca>
	<E0016FFA-BBDF-4777-A0F9-0B532C9FB6D8@corp.arin.net>
	<alpine.LNX.2.01.1211121255080.9268@filesrv1.baby-dragons.com>
	<A6082ABB-7DF7-4DCE-A425-110389062523@corp.arin.net>
	<252A833F-2773-4B91-A768-88896789F47B@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C3219@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<D1B7A523-9ACE-4789-AAD4-56DDCAC4B8E6@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbX1dA_rZBYzJAx-U++nfWvQsnFVC8gD3vr8P0B3YPkUKg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F3D5F3D9-0140-406C-9CC6-D5E55C17D56E@corp.arin.net>
	<D74BE3D4-59A2-47D0-A3CA-7610C6DFF490@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C5B6B@EX02.drtel.lan>
Message-ID: <3E9A73B1-5CB9-46A6-8E8D-18CD4D1F52BB@delong.com>


On Nov 14, 2012, at 07:52 , Brian Johnson <bjohnson at drtel.com> wrote:

> Owen,
> 
> I'm not sure what you really expect to happen here. Do we give away services to everyone so that they are the same as legacy holders... that doesn't work. Do we start charging legacy holders for their resources without an agreement from them... I can feel the lawyers prepping papers right now.
> 

Several options...

1.	Discontinue services to legacy holders that don't start paying.
2.	Treat LRSA Signatories as a group that isn't subjected to the new fees.
3.	

> I will note that my understanding is that legacy holders will need to sign some kind of (L)RSA to get v6 space. They will then need to justify their assignment (at least the IPv6 assignment) to get space. Possibly they would have to "back justify" their legacy space? Maybe this is a way we can limp along with V4 longer?

As an example, a legacy holder with a /23 and a /24 of legacy IPv4 space and an ASN issued prior to ARIN formation pays $0.
If that legacy holder signs the LRSA, they start paying $100/year. If they don't, they continue to pay $0.

If they get IPv6 space, then, they have to sign the RSA for their IPv6 space and pay $100/year for that, but they are not required to sign the LRSA or RSA with regards to their IPv4 space. Under the current fee structure, they would pay $100/year whether or not they sign the LRSA for their IPv4 space.

Under the proposed fee structure, beginning with their 2013 billing, the one that did not sign the LRSA still pays $100/year only for their IPv6 space and continues to pay $0 for everything else. The one that chose to participate in the ARIN process and sign the LRSA, OTOH, receives a bill not for $0, not for $100, but for $400/year.

Now, there is a small exception to this... If that LRSA signature occurred early enough, they may only get charged either $125 or $225, depending on how one interprets the combination of RSA terms and LRSA terms with the proposed fee structure in 2013, with that fee continuing to go up $25/year each year until it reaches the $400/year in either 7 or 11 years, depending on how ARIN determines the starting point.

> I think that I would like ARIN to avoid legal issues when possible. I'm not sure if ARIN counsel would want to chime in on sending bills to legacy space holders who have not signed an agreement with ARIN. This may help me in my processing of this topic.

I would like ARIN to avoid legal issues too.

However, I also would like to avoid getting shafted in exchange for trying to be an upstanding member of the community.

Owen

> 
> - Brian J.
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-consult-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-consult-
>> bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 9:19 AM
>> To: John Curran
>> Cc: arin-consult at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change
>> Consultation
>> 
>> 
>> On Nov 13, 2012, at 19:48 , John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Nov 13, 2012, at 8:31 PM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The Fee schedule the consultation is about doesn't say legacy holders
>>>> are not included -- so it's not a fee schedule question.
>>> 
>>> Agreed.
>>> 
>>> To be clear, the proposed fee schedule has legacy address holders (who
>>> have opted to enter an LRSA with ARIN) paying the same fees as end-
>> users.
>>> Some earlier versions of the LRSA cap any increase in fees to $25/year,
>>> and for those cases the fees billed will increase by $25 each year until
>>> fee billed matches an end-user with the same quantity of number
>> resources.
>> 
>> Right... As proposed, those of us that agreed to get with the program will be
>> unfairly penalized vs. those who have chosen to continue to opt out of the
>> ARIN process.
>> 
>>> ARIN has consistently provided basic registry services for all resource
>>> holders in the region, including legacy address block holders without
>>> charge, and the proposed revision to the fee schedule would not not alter
>>> this practice.
>> 
>> Exactly... If you continued to ignore ARIN, you continue to get a free ride, but
>> if you opted in based, in part, on the theory that your ARIN fees would not
>> be unreasonably or rapidly increased, now you get shafted (if the current
>> proposal is implemented).
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> ARIN-Consult
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
>> Consult Mailing
>> List (ARIN-consult at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN
>> Member Services
>> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.



From bjohnson at drtel.com  Wed Nov 14 11:46:16 2012
From: bjohnson at drtel.com (Brian Johnson)
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:46:16 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <3E9A73B1-5CB9-46A6-8E8D-18CD4D1F52BB@delong.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A71A4@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<619DFCF3-DE52-451D-9553-4A9DEE330392@corp.arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A7304@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<12497.1352159936@sandelman.ca>
	<E0016FFA-BBDF-4777-A0F9-0B532C9FB6D8@corp.arin.net>
	<alpine.LNX.2.01.1211121255080.9268@filesrv1.baby-dragons.com>
	<A6082ABB-7DF7-4DCE-A425-110389062523@corp.arin.net>
	<252A833F-2773-4B91-A768-88896789F47B@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C3219@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<D1B7A523-9ACE-4789-AAD4-56DDCAC4B8E6@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbX1dA_rZBYzJAx-U++nfWvQsnFVC8gD3vr8P0B3YPkUKg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F3D5F3D9-0140-406C-9CC6-D5E55C17D56E@corp.arin.net>
	<D74BE3D4-59A2-47D0-A3CA-7610C6DFF490@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C5B6B@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<3E9A73B1-5CB9-46A6-8E8D-18CD4D1F52BB@delong.com>
Message-ID: <F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C5C24@EX02.drtel.lan>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 10:30 AM
> To: Brian Johnson
> Cc: John Curran; arin-consult at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change
> Consultation
> 
> 
> On Nov 14, 2012, at 07:52 , Brian Johnson <bjohnson at drtel.com> wrote:
> 
> > Owen,
> >
> > I'm not sure what you really expect to happen here. Do we give away
> services to everyone so that they are the same as legacy holders... that
> doesn't work. Do we start charging legacy holders for their resources without
> an agreement from them... I can feel the lawyers prepping papers right now.
> >
> 
> Several options...
> 
> 1.	Discontinue services to legacy holders that don't start paying.

How does this help the situation? The only "services" they get is WHOIS details, which is more of a service to you and me than to them.
 
> 2.	Treat LRSA Signatories as a group that isn't subjected to the new
> fees.

So now we have institutionalized legacy space holders in policy/process further. How do we unwind this later?

> 3.
> 
> > I will note that my understanding is that legacy holders will need to sign
> some kind of (L)RSA to get v6 space. They will then need to justify their
> assignment (at least the IPv6 assignment) to get space. Possibly they would
> have to "back justify" their legacy space? Maybe this is a way we can limp
> along with V4 longer?
> 
> As an example, a legacy holder with a /23 and a /24 of legacy IPv4 space and
> an ASN issued prior to ARIN formation pays $0.
> If that legacy holder signs the LRSA, they start paying $100/year. If they don't,
> they continue to pay $0.
> 
> If they get IPv6 space, then, they have to sign the RSA for their IPv6 space
> and pay $100/year for that, but they are not required to sign the LRSA or RSA
> with regards to their IPv4 space. Under the current fee structure, they would
> pay $100/year whether or not they sign the LRSA for their IPv4 space.
> 
> Under the proposed fee structure, beginning with their 2013 billing, the one
> that did not sign the LRSA still pays $100/year only for their IPv6 space and
> continues to pay $0 for everything else. The one that chose to participate in
> the ARIN process and sign the LRSA, OTOH, receives a bill not for $0, not for
> $100, but for $400/year.
> 
> Now, there is a small exception to this... If that LRSA signature occurred early
> enough, they may only get charged either $125 or $225, depending on how
> one interprets the combination of RSA terms and LRSA terms with the
> proposed fee structure in 2013, with that fee continuing to go up $25/year
> each year until it reaches the $400/year in either 7 or 11 years, depending on
> how ARIN determines the starting point.

Agree to all of the math. I'm in also in agreement that the legacy holders are now in the position of being "takers" from the system as they have public resources that are widely considered to be under-used. However, the fees being charged here are pretty minor in the grand scheme of things. Even the dramatic $400 dollars mentioned in the previous math comes down to less than a 20oz bottle of [pick your favorite soft drink] a day.

> 
> > I think that I would like ARIN to avoid legal issues when possible. I'm not
> sure if ARIN counsel would want to chime in on sending bills to legacy space
> holders who have not signed an agreement with ARIN. This may help me in
> my processing of this topic.
> 
> 
> I would like ARIN to avoid legal issues too.
> 
> However, I also would like to avoid getting shafted in exchange for trying to
> be an upstanding member of the community.

I do not agree that anyone is getting "shafted" and I think this type of verbiage does little to advance the topic. Also, you cannot force people outside a community to act as you wish, even if they have a less than positive impact on the community.

- Brian J.



From jesse at la-broadband.com  Wed Nov 14 12:08:42 2012
From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis)
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 17:08:42 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C5C24@EX02.drtel.lan>
Message-ID: <CCC90C3A.1E1E4%jesse@la-broadband.com>

Brian,

	The hyperbolic verbiage aside the point has been mentioned by many.
Whether it's all of us subsidizing, flat out, organizations responsible
for arguably some of the biggest waste of resources or smaller
organizations subsidizing larger organizations it's all the same.

	When you take a small who pays 2,250 to consume 8,000 IP's and compare
that to a large who pays $18k to consume a minimum of 262k ip's up to an
unlimited amount it seems massively disproportionate.

The large pays _at_most_ $0.14 per IP while the small pays $3.64 per IP.

The fees don't encourage efficient use of address space via a financial
stick. For example if I have a /14 and am requesting another /16 what the
heck do I care how efficiently it's used? Anything else I get assigned is
completely free.

The fees put the burden on the backs of smaller organizations to carry the
water for organizations responsible for the most waste.


-- 
Jesse D. Geddis

LA Broadband LLC





On 11/14/12 8:46 AM, "Brian Johnson" <bjohnson at drtel.com> wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 10:30 AM
> To: Brian Johnson
> Cc: John Curran; arin-consult at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change
> Consultation
> 
> 
> On Nov 14, 2012, at 07:52 , Brian Johnson <bjohnson at drtel.com> wrote:
> 
> > Owen,
> >
> > I'm not sure what you really expect to happen here. Do we give away
> services to everyone so that they are the same as legacy holders... that
> doesn't work. Do we start charging legacy holders for their resources
>without
> an agreement from them... I can feel the lawyers prepping papers right
>now.
> >
> 
> Several options...
> 
> 1.	Discontinue services to legacy holders that don't start paying.

How does this help the situation? The only "services" they get is WHOIS
details, which is more of a service to you and me than to them.
 
> 2.	Treat LRSA Signatories as a group that isn't subjected to the new
> fees.

So now we have institutionalized legacy space holders in policy/process
further. How do we unwind this later?

> 3.
> 
> > I will note that my understanding is that legacy holders will need to
>sign
> some kind of (L)RSA to get v6 space. They will then need to justify their
> assignment (at least the IPv6 assignment) to get space. Possibly they
>would
> have to "back justify" their legacy space? Maybe this is a way we can
>limp
> along with V4 longer?
> 
> As an example, a legacy holder with a /23 and a /24 of legacy IPv4 space
>and
> an ASN issued prior to ARIN formation pays $0.
> If that legacy holder signs the LRSA, they start paying $100/year. If
>they don't,
> they continue to pay $0.
> 
> If they get IPv6 space, then, they have to sign the RSA for their IPv6
>space
> and pay $100/year for that, but they are not required to sign the LRSA
>or RSA
> with regards to their IPv4 space. Under the current fee structure, they
>would
> pay $100/year whether or not they sign the LRSA for their IPv4 space.
> 
> Under the proposed fee structure, beginning with their 2013 billing, the
>one
> that did not sign the LRSA still pays $100/year only for their IPv6
>space and
> continues to pay $0 for everything else. The one that chose to
>participate in
> the ARIN process and sign the LRSA, OTOH, receives a bill not for $0,
>not for
> $100, but for $400/year.
> 
> Now, there is a small exception to this... If that LRSA signature
>occurred early
> enough, they may only get charged either $125 or $225, depending on how
> one interprets the combination of RSA terms and LRSA terms with the
> proposed fee structure in 2013, with that fee continuing to go up
>$25/year
> each year until it reaches the $400/year in either 7 or 11 years,
>depending on
> how ARIN determines the starting point.

Agree to all of the math. I'm in also in agreement that the legacy holders
are now in the position of being "takers" from the system as they have
public resources that are widely considered to be under-used. However, the
fees being charged here are pretty minor in the grand scheme of things.
Even the dramatic $400 dollars mentioned in the previous math comes down
to less than a 20oz bottle of [pick your favorite soft drink] a day.

> 
> > I think that I would like ARIN to avoid legal issues when possible.
>I'm not
> sure if ARIN counsel would want to chime in on sending bills to legacy
>space
> holders who have not signed an agreement with ARIN. This may help me in
> my processing of this topic.
> 
> 
> I would like ARIN to avoid legal issues too.
> 
> However, I also would like to avoid getting shafted in exchange for
>trying to
> be an upstanding member of the community.

I do not agree that anyone is getting "shafted" and I think this type of
verbiage does little to advance the topic. Also, you cannot force people
outside a community to act as you wish, even if they have a less than
positive impact on the community.

- Brian J.

_______________________________________________
ARIN-Consult
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
Consult Mailing
List (ARIN-consult at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the
ARIN Member Services
Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.



From farmer at umn.edu  Wed Nov 14 12:10:49 2012
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 11:10:49 -0600
Subject: [ARIN-consult] LRSA Information
In-Reply-To: <8D4628F5-1C96-46B7-8534-FCC31A2FCE95@corp.arin.net>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A71A4@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<619DFCF3-DE52-451D-9553-4A9DEE330392@corp.arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A7304@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<12497.1352159936@sandelman.ca>
	<E0016FFA-BBDF-4777-A0F9-0B532C9FB6D8@corp.arin.net>
	<alpine.LNX.2.01.1211121255080.9268@filesrv1.baby-dragons.com>
	<A6082ABB-7DF7-4DCE-A425-110389062523@corp.arin.net>
	<252A833F-2773-4B91-A768-88896789F47B@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C3219@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<D1B7A523-9ACE-4789-AAD4-56DDCAC4B8E6@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbX1dA_rZBYzJAx-U++nfWvQsnFVC8gD3vr8P0B3YPkUKg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F3D5F3D9-0140-406C-9CC6-D5E55C17D56E@corp.arin.net>
	<8D4628F5-1C96-46B7-8534-FCC31A2FCE95@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <50A3D099.5040605@umn.edu>

On 11/14/12 07:06 , John Curran wrote:
> On Nov 13, 2012, at 10:48 PM, John Curran <jcurran at corp.arin.net> wrote:
>>
>> ARIN has consistently provided basic registry services for all resource
>> holders in the region, including legacy address block holders without
>> charge, and the proposed revision to the fee schedule would not not alter
>> this practice.
>
> I was asked privately by two folks, so figured it was best to respond to the
> list regarding "why would someone enter an LRSA if it means paying ARIN"...

I will provide an answer to this question, at least from the perspective 
of a large legacy entity.  The University of Minnesota has 5 /16 (class 
Bs) and other miscellaneous number resources, that are critical to the 
day to day operations of the University, which is a $3 billion entity. 
 From a risk management point of view it is very much benefits the 
University to bring its Internet number resources under a modern 
contract regime with clear rights and responsibilities for both parties. 
  The lack of a clear contract rights and responsibilities are 
problematic and tenuous for both sides not just ARIN.

Furthermore, as the registry services that we rely on are modernized 
with technologies like RPKI and DNSSEC it is critically important to 
have an explicit contract as a basis for the trust relationship 
necessary to make these technologies work.

For at least a decade now network and Internet access have been equally 
business critical for the University as electricity, water, heating and 
cooling.  Especially with IPv4 run-out, it seems ill-advised for any 
significant entity to have resources for a critical infrastructure such 
as Internet Access to be dependent on little more than a hand-sake.

I hope that answers "why would someone enter an LRSA if it means paying 
ARIN", because it is necessary and provides value to the resource user.

-- 
================================================
David Farmer               Email: farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================


From jer at mia.net  Wed Nov 14 12:29:12 2012
From: jer at mia.net (Jeremy Anthony Kinsey)
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 11:29:12 -0600
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <CCC90C3A.1E1E4%jesse@la-broadband.com>
References: <CCC90C3A.1E1E4%jesse@la-broadband.com>
Message-ID: <6B7DD5BE-5E98-49AF-BEA2-35889773D3F6@mia.net>

Brian, it is disproportionate. 

My bill is doubling.   I've sent several emails to Arin and have yet to receive a response other than, "is your org id this?".

The lack of response is a bit disconcerting to say the least. 

On Nov 14, 2012, at 11:08 AM, Jesse D. Geddis <jesse at la-broadband.com> wrote:

> Brian,
> 
> 	The hyperbolic verbiage aside the point has been mentioned by many.
> Whether it's all of us subsidizing, flat out, organizations responsible
> for arguably some of the biggest waste of resources or smaller
> organizations subsidizing larger organizations it's all the same.
> 
> 	When you take a small who pays 2,250 to consume 8,000 IP's and compare
> that to a large who pays $18k to consume a minimum of 262k ip's up to an
> unlimited amount it seems massively disproportionate.
> 
> The large pays _at_most_ $0.14 per IP while the small pays $3.64 per IP.
> 
> The fees don't encourage efficient use of address space via a financial
> stick. For example if I have a /14 and am requesting another /16 what the
> heck do I care how efficiently it's used? Anything else I get assigned is
> completely free.
> 
> The fees put the burden on the backs of smaller organizations to carry the
> water for organizations responsible for the most waste.

Sounds a lot like the way our tax system works there Brian!

I cannot say I am pleased with the proposed fee schedule.  If not for the comic books and special election logos, conference and other elaborate and excessive and wasteful spending I'd say I would normally not disagree with logic.   Do I really need 3 snail mail letters to remind me to vote? 

However, I keep a copy of that comic on my desk to remind myself why there's a fee increase.

I apologize for the cynicism and mean no disrespect.  But I think Brian makes a valid point here that his being overlooked.    

I've read through the PDF that describes the revenue in over the years, but have yet to see anything that shows the revenue out.  I realize we're all thinking about the future down the road as it concerns the fee schedule and realize that at some point the revenue stream will level off. As it stands now, its still growing.  I'd be more concerned with cutting waste as a form of generating more revenue than boosting the fee schedule on one particular group.

As I understand it there are less than 500 or so of us that are seeing the increase. I just wonder how many others are middle of the road/border line like us?  We're just over the threshold and will have a doubling of our fees as a result.  I suppose if I did not have to make an annual payment it might be easier to mitigate the expense out of cash flow.  The lump sum and a doubling in these tough economic times is not going to be easy.




From jesse at la-broadband.com  Wed Nov 14 12:37:09 2012
From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis)
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 17:37:09 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <6B7DD5BE-5E98-49AF-BEA2-35889773D3F6@mia.net>
Message-ID: <CCC91570.1E20F%jesse@la-broadband.com>

I think you may have misread my response to brian as being from brian.


Our tax system actually works the opposite way as I pointed out in a
previous email. The top 5% pay more than half the total income taxes
collected in the US. But I'm not sure how relevant that is here as we're
discussing fees rather than taxes. Fees I think should be more directly
related to resources consumed.


On 11/14/12 9:29 AM, "Jeremy Anthony Kinsey" <jer at mia.net> wrote:

Brian, it is disproportionate.

My bill is doubling.   I've sent several emails to Arin and have yet to
receive a response other than, "is your org id this?".

The lack of response is a bit disconcerting to say the least.

On Nov 14, 2012, at 11:08 AM, Jesse D. Geddis <jesse at la-broadband.com>
wrote:

> Brian,
> 
> 	The hyperbolic verbiage aside the point has been mentioned by many.
> Whether it's all of us subsidizing, flat out, organizations responsible
> for arguably some of the biggest waste of resources or smaller
> organizations subsidizing larger organizations it's all the same.
> 
> 	When you take a small who pays 2,250 to consume 8,000 IP's and compare
> that to a large who pays $18k to consume a minimum of 262k ip's up to an
> unlimited amount it seems massively disproportionate.
> 
> The large pays _at_most_ $0.14 per IP while the small pays $3.64 per IP.
> 
> The fees don't encourage efficient use of address space via a financial
> stick. For example if I have a /14 and am requesting another /16 what the
> heck do I care how efficiently it's used? Anything else I get assigned is
> completely free.
> 
> The fees put the burden on the backs of smaller organizations to carry
>the
> water for organizations responsible for the most waste.

Sounds a lot like the way our tax system works there Brian!

I cannot say I am pleased with the proposed fee schedule.  If not for the
comic books and special election logos, conference and other elaborate and
excessive and wasteful spending I'd say I would normally not disagree with
logic.   Do I really need 3 snail mail letters to remind me to vote?

However, I keep a copy of that comic on my desk to remind myself why
there's a fee increase.

I apologize for the cynicism and mean no disrespect.  But I think Brian
makes a valid point here that his being overlooked.

I've read through the PDF that describes the revenue in over the years,
but have yet to see anything that shows the revenue out.  I realize we're
all thinking about the future down the road as it concerns the fee
schedule and realize that at some point the revenue stream will level off.
As it stands now, its still growing.  I'd be more concerned with cutting
waste as a form of generating more revenue than boosting the fee schedule
on one particular group.

As I understand it there are less than 500 or so of us that are seeing the
increase. I just wonder how many others are middle of the road/border line
like us?  We're just over the threshold and will have a doubling of our
fees as a result.  I suppose if I did not have to make an annual payment
it might be easier to mitigate the expense out of cash flow.  The lump sum
and a doubling in these tough economic times is not going to be easy.





From jer at mia.net  Wed Nov 14 12:44:15 2012
From: jer at mia.net (Jeremy Anthony Kinsey)
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 11:44:15 -0600
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <CCC91570.1E20F%jesse@la-broadband.com>
References: <CCC91570.1E20F%jesse@la-broadband.com>
Message-ID: <E76666E8-E2D9-4C81-9BE6-138584EA275D@mia.net>


On Nov 14, 2012, at 11:37 AM, "Jesse D. Geddis" <jesse at la-broadband.com> wrote:

> I think you may have misread my response to brian as being from brian.

Noticed that after I sent. Sorry about that.
> 
> 
> Our tax system actually works the opposite way as I pointed out in a
> previous email. The top 5% pay more than half the total income taxes
> collected in the US. But I'm not sure how relevant that is here as we're
> discussing fees rather than taxes. Fees I think should be more directly
> related to resources consumed.
> 

I think you answered your own question there:  

"Fees I think should be more directly related to resources consumed."




From bjohnson at drtel.com  Wed Nov 14 12:48:31 2012
From: bjohnson at drtel.com (Brian Johnson)
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 17:48:31 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <CCC90C3A.1E1E4%jesse@la-broadband.com>
References: <F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C5C24@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<CCC90C3A.1E1E4%jesse@la-broadband.com>
Message-ID: <F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C5CF2@EX02.drtel.lan>

I love the legacy holder "situation". We can disagree about legacy space holders perpetually.

For this argument, do not consider legacy holders. Is the fee structure fair otherwise?

- Brian J.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jesse D. Geddis [mailto:jesse at la-broadband.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 11:09 AM
> To: Brian Johnson; Owen DeLong
> Cc: arin-consult at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change
> Consultation
> 
> Brian,
> 
> 	The hyperbolic verbiage aside the point has been mentioned by
> many.
> Whether it's all of us subsidizing, flat out, organizations responsible
> for arguably some of the biggest waste of resources or smaller
> organizations subsidizing larger organizations it's all the same.
> 
> 	When you take a small who pays 2,250 to consume 8,000 IP's and
> compare
> that to a large who pays $18k to consume a minimum of 262k ip's up to an
> unlimited amount it seems massively disproportionate.
> 
> The large pays _at_most_ $0.14 per IP while the small pays $3.64 per IP.
> 
> The fees don't encourage efficient use of address space via a financial
> stick. For example if I have a /14 and am requesting another /16 what the
> heck do I care how efficiently it's used? Anything else I get assigned is
> completely free.
> 
> The fees put the burden on the backs of smaller organizations to carry the
> water for organizations responsible for the most waste.
> 
> 
> --
> Jesse D. Geddis
> 
> LA Broadband LLC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/14/12 8:46 AM, "Brian Johnson" <bjohnson at drtel.com> wrote:
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 10:30 AM
> > To: Brian Johnson
> > Cc: John Curran; arin-consult at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change
> > Consultation
> >
> >
> > On Nov 14, 2012, at 07:52 , Brian Johnson <bjohnson at drtel.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Owen,
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what you really expect to happen here. Do we give away
> > services to everyone so that they are the same as legacy holders... that
> > doesn't work. Do we start charging legacy holders for their resources
> >without
> > an agreement from them... I can feel the lawyers prepping papers right
> >now.
> > >
> >
> > Several options...
> >
> > 1.	Discontinue services to legacy holders that don't start paying.
> 
> How does this help the situation? The only "services" they get is WHOIS
> details, which is more of a service to you and me than to them.
> 
> > 2.	Treat LRSA Signatories as a group that isn't subjected to the new
> > fees.
> 
> So now we have institutionalized legacy space holders in policy/process
> further. How do we unwind this later?
> 
> > 3.
> >
> > > I will note that my understanding is that legacy holders will need to
> >sign
> > some kind of (L)RSA to get v6 space. They will then need to justify their
> > assignment (at least the IPv6 assignment) to get space. Possibly they
> >would
> > have to "back justify" their legacy space? Maybe this is a way we can
> >limp
> > along with V4 longer?
> >
> > As an example, a legacy holder with a /23 and a /24 of legacy IPv4 space
> >and
> > an ASN issued prior to ARIN formation pays $0.
> > If that legacy holder signs the LRSA, they start paying $100/year. If
> >they don't,
> > they continue to pay $0.
> >
> > If they get IPv6 space, then, they have to sign the RSA for their IPv6
> >space
> > and pay $100/year for that, but they are not required to sign the LRSA
> >or RSA
> > with regards to their IPv4 space. Under the current fee structure, they
> >would
> > pay $100/year whether or not they sign the LRSA for their IPv4 space.
> >
> > Under the proposed fee structure, beginning with their 2013 billing, the
> >one
> > that did not sign the LRSA still pays $100/year only for their IPv6
> >space and
> > continues to pay $0 for everything else. The one that chose to
> >participate in
> > the ARIN process and sign the LRSA, OTOH, receives a bill not for $0,
> >not for
> > $100, but for $400/year.
> >
> > Now, there is a small exception to this... If that LRSA signature
> >occurred early
> > enough, they may only get charged either $125 or $225, depending on how
> > one interprets the combination of RSA terms and LRSA terms with the
> > proposed fee structure in 2013, with that fee continuing to go up
> >$25/year
> > each year until it reaches the $400/year in either 7 or 11 years,
> >depending on
> > how ARIN determines the starting point.
> 
> Agree to all of the math. I'm in also in agreement that the legacy holders
> are now in the position of being "takers" from the system as they have
> public resources that are widely considered to be under-used. However, the
> fees being charged here are pretty minor in the grand scheme of things.
> Even the dramatic $400 dollars mentioned in the previous math comes down
> to less than a 20oz bottle of [pick your favorite soft drink] a day.
> 
> >
> > > I think that I would like ARIN to avoid legal issues when possible.
> >I'm not
> > sure if ARIN counsel would want to chime in on sending bills to legacy
> >space
> > holders who have not signed an agreement with ARIN. This may help me in
> > my processing of this topic.
> >
> >
> > I would like ARIN to avoid legal issues too.
> >
> > However, I also would like to avoid getting shafted in exchange for
> >trying to
> > be an upstanding member of the community.
> 
> I do not agree that anyone is getting "shafted" and I think this type of
> verbiage does little to advance the topic. Also, you cannot force people
> outside a community to act as you wish, even if they have a less than
> positive impact on the community.
> 
> - Brian J.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Consult
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
> Consult Mailing
> List (ARIN-consult at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the
> ARIN Member Services
> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.



From jesse at la-broadband.com  Wed Nov 14 12:48:47 2012
From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis)
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 17:48:47 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C5CF2@EX02.drtel.lan>
Message-ID: <CCC919A8.1E232%jesse@la-broadband.com>

Brian,

	I think I answered that question succinctly. No.


-- 
Jesse D. Geddis

LA Broadband LLC
AS 16602




On 11/14/12 9:48 AM, "Brian Johnson" <bjohnson at drtel.com> wrote:

I love the legacy holder "situation". We can disagree about legacy space
holders perpetually.

For this argument, do not consider legacy holders. Is the fee structure
fair otherwise?

- Brian J.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jesse D. Geddis [mailto:jesse at la-broadband.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 11:09 AM
> To: Brian Johnson; Owen DeLong
> Cc: arin-consult at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change
> Consultation
> 
> Brian,
> 
> 	The hyperbolic verbiage aside the point has been mentioned by
> many.
> Whether it's all of us subsidizing, flat out, organizations responsible
> for arguably some of the biggest waste of resources or smaller
> organizations subsidizing larger organizations it's all the same.
> 
> 	When you take a small who pays 2,250 to consume 8,000 IP's and
> compare
> that to a large who pays $18k to consume a minimum of 262k ip's up to an
> unlimited amount it seems massively disproportionate.
> 
> The large pays _at_most_ $0.14 per IP while the small pays $3.64 per IP.
> 
> The fees don't encourage efficient use of address space via a financial
> stick. For example if I have a /14 and am requesting another /16 what the
> heck do I care how efficiently it's used? Anything else I get assigned is
> completely free.
> 
> The fees put the burden on the backs of smaller organizations to carry
>the
> water for organizations responsible for the most waste.
> 
> 
> --
> Jesse D. Geddis
> 
> LA Broadband LLC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/14/12 8:46 AM, "Brian Johnson" <bjohnson at drtel.com> wrote:
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 10:30 AM
> > To: Brian Johnson
> > Cc: John Curran; arin-consult at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change
> > Consultation
> >
> >
> > On Nov 14, 2012, at 07:52 , Brian Johnson <bjohnson at drtel.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Owen,
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what you really expect to happen here. Do we give away
> > services to everyone so that they are the same as legacy holders...
>that
> > doesn't work. Do we start charging legacy holders for their resources
> >without
> > an agreement from them... I can feel the lawyers prepping papers right
> >now.
> > >
> >
> > Several options...
> >
> > 1.	Discontinue services to legacy holders that don't start paying.
> 
> How does this help the situation? The only "services" they get is WHOIS
> details, which is more of a service to you and me than to them.
> 
> > 2.	Treat LRSA Signatories as a group that isn't subjected to the new
> > fees.
> 
> So now we have institutionalized legacy space holders in policy/process
> further. How do we unwind this later?
> 
> > 3.
> >
> > > I will note that my understanding is that legacy holders will need to
> >sign
> > some kind of (L)RSA to get v6 space. They will then need to justify
>their
> > assignment (at least the IPv6 assignment) to get space. Possibly they
> >would
> > have to "back justify" their legacy space? Maybe this is a way we can
> >limp
> > along with V4 longer?
> >
> > As an example, a legacy holder with a /23 and a /24 of legacy IPv4
>space
> >and
> > an ASN issued prior to ARIN formation pays $0.
> > If that legacy holder signs the LRSA, they start paying $100/year. If
> >they don't,
> > they continue to pay $0.
> >
> > If they get IPv6 space, then, they have to sign the RSA for their IPv6
> >space
> > and pay $100/year for that, but they are not required to sign the LRSA
> >or RSA
> > with regards to their IPv4 space. Under the current fee structure, they
> >would
> > pay $100/year whether or not they sign the LRSA for their IPv4 space.
> >
> > Under the proposed fee structure, beginning with their 2013 billing,
>the
> >one
> > that did not sign the LRSA still pays $100/year only for their IPv6
> >space and
> > continues to pay $0 for everything else. The one that chose to
> >participate in
> > the ARIN process and sign the LRSA, OTOH, receives a bill not for $0,
> >not for
> > $100, but for $400/year.
> >
> > Now, there is a small exception to this... If that LRSA signature
> >occurred early
> > enough, they may only get charged either $125 or $225, depending on how
> > one interprets the combination of RSA terms and LRSA terms with the
> > proposed fee structure in 2013, with that fee continuing to go up
> >$25/year
> > each year until it reaches the $400/year in either 7 or 11 years,
> >depending on
> > how ARIN determines the starting point.
> 
> Agree to all of the math. I'm in also in agreement that the legacy
>holders
> are now in the position of being "takers" from the system as they have
> public resources that are widely considered to be under-used. However,
>the
> fees being charged here are pretty minor in the grand scheme of things.
> Even the dramatic $400 dollars mentioned in the previous math comes down
> to less than a 20oz bottle of [pick your favorite soft drink] a day.
> 
> >
> > > I think that I would like ARIN to avoid legal issues when possible.
> >I'm not
> > sure if ARIN counsel would want to chime in on sending bills to legacy
> >space
> > holders who have not signed an agreement with ARIN. This may help me in
> > my processing of this topic.
> >
> >
> > I would like ARIN to avoid legal issues too.
> >
> > However, I also would like to avoid getting shafted in exchange for
> >trying to
> > be an upstanding member of the community.
> 
> I do not agree that anyone is getting "shafted" and I think this type of
> verbiage does little to advance the topic. Also, you cannot force people
> outside a community to act as you wish, even if they have a less than
> positive impact on the community.
> 
> - Brian J.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Consult
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
> Consult Mailing
> List (ARIN-consult at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the
> ARIN Member Services
> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.




From bjohnson at drtel.com  Wed Nov 14 12:50:17 2012
From: bjohnson at drtel.com (Brian Johnson)
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 17:50:17 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] LRSA Information
In-Reply-To: <50A3D099.5040605@umn.edu>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A71A4@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<619DFCF3-DE52-451D-9553-4A9DEE330392@corp.arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A7304@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<12497.1352159936@sandelman.ca>
	<E0016FFA-BBDF-4777-A0F9-0B532C9FB6D8@corp.arin.net>
	<alpine.LNX.2.01.1211121255080.9268@filesrv1.baby-dragons.com>
	<A6082ABB-7DF7-4DCE-A425-110389062523@corp.arin.net>
	<252A833F-2773-4B91-A768-88896789F47B@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C3219@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<D1B7A523-9ACE-4789-AAD4-56DDCAC4B8E6@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbX1dA_rZBYzJAx-U++nfWvQsnFVC8gD3vr8P0B3YPkUKg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F3D5F3D9-0140-406C-9CC6-D5E55C17D56E@corp.arin.net>
	<8D4628F5-1C96-46B7-8534-FCC31A2FCE95@corp.arin.net>
	<50A3D099.5040605@umn.edu>
Message-ID: <F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C5D31@EX02.drtel.lan>

Interesting perspective. Thanks David

- Brian J.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-consult-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-consult-
> bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of David Farmer
> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 11:11 AM
> To: arin-consult at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] LRSA Information
> 
> On 11/14/12 07:06 , John Curran wrote:
> > On Nov 13, 2012, at 10:48 PM, John Curran <jcurran at corp.arin.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> ARIN has consistently provided basic registry services for all resource
> >> holders in the region, including legacy address block holders without
> >> charge, and the proposed revision to the fee schedule would not not alter
> >> this practice.
> >
> > I was asked privately by two folks, so figured it was best to respond to the
> > list regarding "why would someone enter an LRSA if it means paying
> ARIN"...
> 
> I will provide an answer to this question, at least from the perspective
> of a large legacy entity.  The University of Minnesota has 5 /16 (class
> Bs) and other miscellaneous number resources, that are critical to the
> day to day operations of the University, which is a $3 billion entity.
>  From a risk management point of view it is very much benefits the
> University to bring its Internet number resources under a modern
> contract regime with clear rights and responsibilities for both parties.
>   The lack of a clear contract rights and responsibilities are
> problematic and tenuous for both sides not just ARIN.
> 
> Furthermore, as the registry services that we rely on are modernized
> with technologies like RPKI and DNSSEC it is critically important to
> have an explicit contract as a basis for the trust relationship
> necessary to make these technologies work.
> 
> For at least a decade now network and Internet access have been equally
> business critical for the University as electricity, water, heating and
> cooling.  Especially with IPv4 run-out, it seems ill-advised for any
> significant entity to have resources for a critical infrastructure such
> as Internet Access to be dependent on little more than a hand-sake.
> 
> I hope that answers "why would someone enter an LRSA if it means paying
> ARIN", because it is necessary and provides value to the resource user.
> 
> --
> ================================================
> David Farmer               Email: farmer at umn.edu
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
> ================================================
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Consult
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
> Consult Mailing
> List (ARIN-consult at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN
> Member Services
> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.


From bjohnson at drtel.com  Wed Nov 14 13:09:41 2012
From: bjohnson at drtel.com (Brian Johnson)
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 18:09:41 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <CCC919A8.1E232%jesse@la-broadband.com>
References: <F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C5CF2@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<CCC919A8.1E232%jesse@la-broadband.com>
Message-ID: <F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C5D75@EX02.drtel.lan>

For clarity, is it more or less fair than the old fee schedule? Why?

- Brian J.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jesse D. Geddis [mailto:jesse at la-broadband.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 11:49 AM
> To: Brian Johnson; Owen DeLong
> Cc: arin-consult at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change
> Consultation
> 
> Brian,
> 
> 	I think I answered that question succinctly. No.
> 
> 
> --
> Jesse D. Geddis
> 
> LA Broadband LLC
> AS 16602
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/14/12 9:48 AM, "Brian Johnson" <bjohnson at drtel.com> wrote:
> 
> I love the legacy holder "situation". We can disagree about legacy space
> holders perpetually.
> 
> For this argument, do not consider legacy holders. Is the fee structure
> fair otherwise?
> 
> - Brian J.
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jesse D. Geddis [mailto:jesse at la-broadband.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 11:09 AM
> > To: Brian Johnson; Owen DeLong
> > Cc: arin-consult at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change
> > Consultation
> >
> > Brian,
> >
> > 	The hyperbolic verbiage aside the point has been mentioned by
> > many.
> > Whether it's all of us subsidizing, flat out, organizations responsible
> > for arguably some of the biggest waste of resources or smaller
> > organizations subsidizing larger organizations it's all the same.
> >
> > 	When you take a small who pays 2,250 to consume 8,000 IP's and
> > compare
> > that to a large who pays $18k to consume a minimum of 262k ip's up to an
> > unlimited amount it seems massively disproportionate.
> >
> > The large pays _at_most_ $0.14 per IP while the small pays $3.64 per IP.
> >
> > The fees don't encourage efficient use of address space via a financial
> > stick. For example if I have a /14 and am requesting another /16 what the
> > heck do I care how efficiently it's used? Anything else I get assigned is
> > completely free.
> >
> > The fees put the burden on the backs of smaller organizations to carry
> >the
> > water for organizations responsible for the most waste.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jesse D. Geddis
> >
> > LA Broadband LLC
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 11/14/12 8:46 AM, "Brian Johnson" <bjohnson at drtel.com> wrote:
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 10:30 AM
> > > To: Brian Johnson
> > > Cc: John Curran; arin-consult at arin.net
> > > Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change
> > > Consultation
> > >
> > >
> > > On Nov 14, 2012, at 07:52 , Brian Johnson <bjohnson at drtel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Owen,
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure what you really expect to happen here. Do we give away
> > > services to everyone so that they are the same as legacy holders...
> >that
> > > doesn't work. Do we start charging legacy holders for their resources
> > >without
> > > an agreement from them... I can feel the lawyers prepping papers right
> > >now.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Several options...
> > >
> > > 1.	Discontinue services to legacy holders that don't start paying.
> >
> > How does this help the situation? The only "services" they get is WHOIS
> > details, which is more of a service to you and me than to them.
> >
> > > 2.	Treat LRSA Signatories as a group that isn't subjected to the new
> > > fees.
> >
> > So now we have institutionalized legacy space holders in policy/process
> > further. How do we unwind this later?
> >
> > > 3.
> > >
> > > > I will note that my understanding is that legacy holders will need to
> > >sign
> > > some kind of (L)RSA to get v6 space. They will then need to justify
> >their
> > > assignment (at least the IPv6 assignment) to get space. Possibly they
> > >would
> > > have to "back justify" their legacy space? Maybe this is a way we can
> > >limp
> > > along with V4 longer?
> > >
> > > As an example, a legacy holder with a /23 and a /24 of legacy IPv4
> >space
> > >and
> > > an ASN issued prior to ARIN formation pays $0.
> > > If that legacy holder signs the LRSA, they start paying $100/year. If
> > >they don't,
> > > they continue to pay $0.
> > >
> > > If they get IPv6 space, then, they have to sign the RSA for their IPv6
> > >space
> > > and pay $100/year for that, but they are not required to sign the LRSA
> > >or RSA
> > > with regards to their IPv4 space. Under the current fee structure, they
> > >would
> > > pay $100/year whether or not they sign the LRSA for their IPv4 space.
> > >
> > > Under the proposed fee structure, beginning with their 2013 billing,
> >the
> > >one
> > > that did not sign the LRSA still pays $100/year only for their IPv6
> > >space and
> > > continues to pay $0 for everything else. The one that chose to
> > >participate in
> > > the ARIN process and sign the LRSA, OTOH, receives a bill not for $0,
> > >not for
> > > $100, but for $400/year.
> > >
> > > Now, there is a small exception to this... If that LRSA signature
> > >occurred early
> > > enough, they may only get charged either $125 or $225, depending on
> how
> > > one interprets the combination of RSA terms and LRSA terms with the
> > > proposed fee structure in 2013, with that fee continuing to go up
> > >$25/year
> > > each year until it reaches the $400/year in either 7 or 11 years,
> > >depending on
> > > how ARIN determines the starting point.
> >
> > Agree to all of the math. I'm in also in agreement that the legacy
> >holders
> > are now in the position of being "takers" from the system as they have
> > public resources that are widely considered to be under-used. However,
> >the
> > fees being charged here are pretty minor in the grand scheme of things.
> > Even the dramatic $400 dollars mentioned in the previous math comes
> down
> > to less than a 20oz bottle of [pick your favorite soft drink] a day.
> >
> > >
> > > > I think that I would like ARIN to avoid legal issues when possible.
> > >I'm not
> > > sure if ARIN counsel would want to chime in on sending bills to legacy
> > >space
> > > holders who have not signed an agreement with ARIN. This may help me
> in
> > > my processing of this topic.
> > >
> > >
> > > I would like ARIN to avoid legal issues too.
> > >
> > > However, I also would like to avoid getting shafted in exchange for
> > >trying to
> > > be an upstanding member of the community.
> >
> > I do not agree that anyone is getting "shafted" and I think this type of
> > verbiage does little to advance the topic. Also, you cannot force people
> > outside a community to act as you wish, even if they have a less than
> > positive impact on the community.
> >
> > - Brian J.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ARIN-Consult
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
> > Consult Mailing
> > List (ARIN-consult at arin.net).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the
> > ARIN Member Services
> > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 



From jcurran at arin.net  Wed Nov 14 14:27:41 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:27:41 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <E76666E8-E2D9-4C81-9BE6-138584EA275D@mia.net>
References: <CCC91570.1E20F%jesse@la-broadband.com>
	<E76666E8-E2D9-4C81-9BE6-138584EA275D@mia.net>
Message-ID: <461FB267-C701-4677-A12D-29CD54D12968@corp.arin.net>

On Nov 14, 2012, at 12:44 PM, Jeremy Anthony Kinsey <jer at mia.net>
 wrote:

> "Fees I think should be more directly related to resources consumed."

Be very carefully what you wish for...

The vast majority of organizations (end-user or ISP) making use of ARIN 
services do not need to contact the registration services helpdesk nor 
the financial team in any given year, they don't attend the twice annual
meetings, and they may not even participate in the number resource policy
development process.

They simply wish to make use of their number resources, to be shown as
the listed resource holder in the registry, and to have reverse DNS work.

As it turns out, the actual effort related to providing those services is 
_not_ proportional to the number of IP addresses, but rather to the address 
block entry itself.  (Folks should be very thankful for such, since if there 
ever were any costs actual proportional to number of addresses, no one 
would ever be able to afford to be issued an IPv6 address block... :-)

So, the reality is that each issued IPv4 and IPv6 block (and to some 
extent each issued AS number) imputes very similar costs on ARIN as an
organization.  Note also that if we really wanted to be fair regarding
costs, we should treat ISPs via the same model as end-users, and the 
annual maintenance fees per block would be higher due to the lack of 
the indirect subsidy of these costs by the ISP members, and the costs
for a typical ISP would drop significantly.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
 


From owen at delong.com  Wed Nov 14 14:42:48 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 11:42:48 -0800
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <461FB267-C701-4677-A12D-29CD54D12968@corp.arin.net>
References: <CCC91570.1E20F%jesse@la-broadband.com>
	<E76666E8-E2D9-4C81-9BE6-138584EA275D@mia.net>
	<461FB267-C701-4677-A12D-29CD54D12968@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <CC94A303-901D-4578-AD4C-1D7E2F3B9750@delong.com>


On Nov 14, 2012, at 11:27 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

> On Nov 14, 2012, at 12:44 PM, Jeremy Anthony Kinsey <jer at mia.net>
> wrote:
> 
>> "Fees I think should be more directly related to resources consumed."
> 
> Be very carefully what you wish for...
> 
> The vast majority of organizations (end-user or ISP) making use of ARIN 
> services do not need to contact the registration services helpdesk nor 
> the financial team in any given year, they don't attend the twice annual
> meetings, and they may not even participate in the number resource policy
> development process.
> 
> They simply wish to make use of their number resources, to be shown as
> the listed resource holder in the registry, and to have reverse DNS work.
> 
> As it turns out, the actual effort related to providing those services is 
> _not_ proportional to the number of IP addresses, but rather to the address 
> block entry itself.  (Folks should be very thankful for such, since if there 
> ever were any costs actual proportional to number of addresses, no one 
> would ever be able to afford to be issued an IPv6 address block... :-)
> 

Permit me to rephrase Mr. Kinsey's suggestion?

Perhaps they should be proportional to the fraction of total address pool
consumed.

Owen



From jer at mia.net  Wed Nov 14 14:49:05 2012
From: jer at mia.net (Jeremy Anthony Kinsey)
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 13:49:05 -0600
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <CC94A303-901D-4578-AD4C-1D7E2F3B9750@delong.com>
References: <CCC91570.1E20F%jesse@la-broadband.com>
	<E76666E8-E2D9-4C81-9BE6-138584EA275D@mia.net>
	<461FB267-C701-4677-A12D-29CD54D12968@corp.arin.net>
	<CC94A303-901D-4578-AD4C-1D7E2F3B9750@delong.com>
Message-ID: <62F82E32-3D31-4DC2-9838-001E005A7835@mia.net>


On Nov 14, 2012, at 1:42 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

> 
> On Nov 14, 2012, at 11:27 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Nov 14, 2012, at 12:44 PM, Jeremy Anthony Kinsey <jer at mia.net>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> "Fees I think should be more directly related to resources consumed."
>> 
>> Be very carefully what you wish for...
>> 
>> The vast majority of organizations (end-user or ISP) making use of ARIN 
>> services do not need to contact the registration services helpdesk nor 
>> the financial team in any given year, they don't attend the twice annual
>> meetings, and they may not even participate in the number resource policy
>> development process.
>> 
>> They simply wish to make use of their number resources, to be shown as
>> the listed resource holder in the registry, and to have reverse DNS work.
>> 
>> As it turns out, the actual effort related to providing those services is 
>> _not_ proportional to the number of IP addresses, but rather to the address 
>> block entry itself.  (Folks should be very thankful for such, since if there 
>> ever were any costs actual proportional to number of addresses, no one 
>> would ever be able to afford to be issued an IPv6 address block... :-)
>> 
> 
> Permit me to rephrase Mr. Kinsey's suggestion?
> 
> Perhaps they should be proportional to the fraction of total address pool
> consumed.
> 
> Owen
> 
I do not recall making such a suggestion. 

Note the QUOTES.... And the context.

There's obviously more than one reason I never feel compelled to enter a discussion here. 




From jcurran at arin.net  Wed Nov 14 14:52:33 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:52:33 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <461FB267-C701-4677-A12D-29CD54D12968@corp.arin.net>
References: <CCC91570.1E20F%jesse@la-broadband.com>
	<E76666E8-E2D9-4C81-9BE6-138584EA275D@mia.net>
	<461FB267-C701-4677-A12D-29CD54D12968@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <D5666C1F-BE2F-4836-AAAE-CAC784D2474F@arin.net>

On Nov 14, 2012, at 2:27 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

> Be very carefully what you wish for...

(and apparently one should also be very careful using spell checkers... :-)

> As it turns out, the actual effort related to providing those services is 
> _not_ proportional to the number of IP addresses, but rather to the address 
> block entry itself.  (Folks should be very thankful for such, since if there 
> ever were any costs actual proportional to number of addresses, no one 
> would ever be able to afford to be issued an IPv6 address block... :-)

FYI - For folks interested in ARIN's costs based on a functional (as opposed
to the typical departmental budget model), I presented a breakdown at the ARIN 
Philly meeting -
 <https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXVIII/PDF/friday/curran_cost_breakdown.pdf>

> So, the reality is that each issued IPv4 and IPv6 block (and to some 
> extent each issued AS number) imputes very similar costs on ARIN as an
> organization.  Note also that if we really wanted to be fair regarding
> costs, we should treat ISPs via the same model as end-users, and the 
> annual maintenance fees per block would be higher due to the lack of 
> the indirect subsidy of these costs by the ISP members, and the costs
> for a typical ISP would drop significantly.

One reason that having disproportionate costs on the ISPs (to the benefit
of end-users) is that ISPs are more likely to obtain some benefit from our 
significant registry development efforts (consisting of both the policy
development process as well as the software changes to support same) and
our Internet governance outreach activities.  While it is not a direct
alignment of fees to costs/benefits, it is a reasonable correlation and
avoids the introduction of numerous fees that would be necessary if we
tried to directly align the fees with the costs/benefits received.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



From jer at mia.net  Wed Nov 14 14:56:44 2012
From: jer at mia.net (Jeremy Anthony Kinsey)
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 13:56:44 -0600
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <D5666C1F-BE2F-4836-AAAE-CAC784D2474F@arin.net>
References: <CCC91570.1E20F%jesse@la-broadband.com>
	<E76666E8-E2D9-4C81-9BE6-138584EA275D@mia.net>
	<461FB267-C701-4677-A12D-29CD54D12968@corp.arin.net>
	<D5666C1F-BE2F-4836-AAAE-CAC784D2474F@arin.net>
Message-ID: <BB461F37-19A9-4210-9893-1F04C53E5B07@mia.net>


On Nov 14, 2012, at 1:52 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

> On Nov 14, 2012, at 2:27 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> 
>> Be very carefully what you wish for...
> 
> (and apparently one should also be very careful using spell checkers... :-)

Did not even noticed to tell you the truth.
> 
>> As it turns out, the actual effort related to providing those services is 
>> _not_ proportional to the number of IP addresses, but rather to the address 
>> block entry itself.  (Folks should be very thankful for such, since if there 
>> ever were any costs actual proportional to number of addresses, no one 
>> would ever be able to afford to be issued an IPv6 address block... :-)
> 
> FYI - For folks interested in ARIN's costs based on a functional (as opposed
> to the typical departmental budget model), I presented a breakdown at the ARIN 
> Philly meeting -
> <https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXVIII/PDF/friday/curran_cost_breakdown.pdf>
> 
That was all I was looking for and would have been helpful to have it included in the proposed fee schedule PDF.

> 
Thanks.




From jcurran at arin.net  Wed Nov 14 15:07:58 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 20:07:58 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <BB461F37-19A9-4210-9893-1F04C53E5B07@mia.net>
References: <CCC91570.1E20F%jesse@la-broadband.com>
	<E76666E8-E2D9-4C81-9BE6-138584EA275D@mia.net>
	<461FB267-C701-4677-A12D-29CD54D12968@corp.arin.net>
	<D5666C1F-BE2F-4836-AAAE-CAC784D2474F@arin.net>
	<BB461F37-19A9-4210-9893-1F04C53E5B07@mia.net>
Message-ID: <AD009D14-C791-48EA-AC27-A50E04E820A2@arin.net>

On Nov 14, 2012, at 2:56 PM, Jeremy Anthony Kinsey <jer at mia.net> wrote:

> On Nov 14, 2012, at 1:52 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>> FYI - For folks interested in ARIN's costs based on a functional (as opposed
>> to the typical departmental budget model), I presented a breakdown at the ARIN 
>> Philly meeting -
>> <https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXVIII/PDF/friday/curran_cost_breakdown.pdf>
> 
> That was all I was looking for and would have been helpful to have it included in the proposed fee schedule PDF.


Apologies... I posted it to this list on 29 October after the consultation
went out, but it could have been included (as background material) in actual 
announcement.

Thanks for the feedback!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



From jer at mia.net  Wed Nov 14 15:14:55 2012
From: jer at mia.net (Jeremy Anthony Kinsey)
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:14:55 -0600
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <AD009D14-C791-48EA-AC27-A50E04E820A2@arin.net>
References: <CCC91570.1E20F%jesse@la-broadband.com>
	<E76666E8-E2D9-4C81-9BE6-138584EA275D@mia.net>
	<461FB267-C701-4677-A12D-29CD54D12968@corp.arin.net>
	<D5666C1F-BE2F-4836-AAAE-CAC784D2474F@arin.net>
	<BB461F37-19A9-4210-9893-1F04C53E5B07@mia.net>
	<AD009D14-C791-48EA-AC27-A50E04E820A2@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CD6AA387-445C-439F-B6FF-BC503A1749CB@mia.net>

Again, not a problem. I missed that because I was likely not subscribed at that time. 
While I'd love to be more informed, unfortunately running other aspects of a small business can sometimes eat up more time than I'd like.

On Nov 14, 2012, at 2:07 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

> On Nov 14, 2012, at 2:56 PM, Jeremy Anthony Kinsey <jer at mia.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Nov 14, 2012, at 1:52 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>>> FYI - For folks interested in ARIN's costs based on a functional (as opposed
>>> to the typical departmental budget model), I presented a breakdown at the ARIN 
>>> Philly meeting -
>>> <https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXVIII/PDF/friday/curran_cost_breakdown.pdf>
>> 
>> That was all I was looking for and would have been helpful to have it included in the proposed fee schedule PDF.
> 
> 
> Apologies... I posted it to this list on 29 October after the consultation
> went out, but it could have been included (as background material) in actual 
> announcement.
> 
> Thanks for the feedback!
> /John
> 
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
> 
> 


Regards,
Jeremy Anthony Kinsey

Bella Mia, Inc. 
Quality Web Hosting and
Dedicated Servers since 1997

Hosting: http://hostinglizard.com
Servers http://www.hostdrive.com
Tel: 262-248-6759 Fax: 262-248-6959



From jesse at la-broadband.com  Wed Nov 14 13:11:36 2012
From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis)
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 18:11:36 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C5D75@EX02.drtel.lan>
Message-ID: <CCC91E97.1E23D%jesse@la-broadband.com>

Brian,

	I'm not sure what the relevance of that is as it isn't the question
before us. The question before us is regarding the current proposal. I
think you can find the answer to that, however, in the content of my email
where you could have also found the answer to the question you last asked
;)


-- 
Jesse D. Geddis

LA Broadband LLC





On 11/14/12 10:09 AM, "Brian Johnson" <bjohnson at drtel.com> wrote:

For clarity, is it more or less fair than the old fee schedule? Why?

- Brian J.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jesse D. Geddis [mailto:jesse at la-broadband.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 11:49 AM
> To: Brian Johnson; Owen DeLong
> Cc: arin-consult at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change
> Consultation
> 
> Brian,
> 
> 	I think I answered that question succinctly. No.
> 
> 
> --
> Jesse D. Geddis
> 
> LA Broadband LLC
> AS 16602
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/14/12 9:48 AM, "Brian Johnson" <bjohnson at drtel.com> wrote:
> 
> I love the legacy holder "situation". We can disagree about legacy space
> holders perpetually.
> 
> For this argument, do not consider legacy holders. Is the fee structure
> fair otherwise?
> 
> - Brian J.
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jesse D. Geddis [mailto:jesse at la-broadband.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 11:09 AM
> > To: Brian Johnson; Owen DeLong
> > Cc: arin-consult at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change
> > Consultation
> >
> > Brian,
> >
> > 	The hyperbolic verbiage aside the point has been mentioned by
> > many.
> > Whether it's all of us subsidizing, flat out, organizations responsible
> > for arguably some of the biggest waste of resources or smaller
> > organizations subsidizing larger organizations it's all the same.
> >
> > 	When you take a small who pays 2,250 to consume 8,000 IP's and
> > compare
> > that to a large who pays $18k to consume a minimum of 262k ip's up to
>an
> > unlimited amount it seems massively disproportionate.
> >
> > The large pays _at_most_ $0.14 per IP while the small pays $3.64 per
>IP.
> >
> > The fees don't encourage efficient use of address space via a financial
> > stick. For example if I have a /14 and am requesting another /16 what
>the
> > heck do I care how efficiently it's used? Anything else I get assigned
>is
> > completely free.
> >
> > The fees put the burden on the backs of smaller organizations to carry
> >the
> > water for organizations responsible for the most waste.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jesse D. Geddis
> >
> > LA Broadband LLC
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 11/14/12 8:46 AM, "Brian Johnson" <bjohnson at drtel.com> wrote:
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 10:30 AM
> > > To: Brian Johnson
> > > Cc: John Curran; arin-consult at arin.net
> > > Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change
> > > Consultation
> > >
> > >
> > > On Nov 14, 2012, at 07:52 , Brian Johnson <bjohnson at drtel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Owen,
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure what you really expect to happen here. Do we give away
> > > services to everyone so that they are the same as legacy holders...
> >that
> > > doesn't work. Do we start charging legacy holders for their resources
> > >without
> > > an agreement from them... I can feel the lawyers prepping papers
>right
> > >now.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Several options...
> > >
> > > 1.	Discontinue services to legacy holders that don't start paying.
> >
> > How does this help the situation? The only "services" they get is WHOIS
> > details, which is more of a service to you and me than to them.
> >
> > > 2.	Treat LRSA Signatories as a group that isn't subjected to the new
> > > fees.
> >
> > So now we have institutionalized legacy space holders in policy/process
> > further. How do we unwind this later?
> >
> > > 3.
> > >
> > > > I will note that my understanding is that legacy holders will need
>to
> > >sign
> > > some kind of (L)RSA to get v6 space. They will then need to justify
> >their
> > > assignment (at least the IPv6 assignment) to get space. Possibly they
> > >would
> > > have to "back justify" their legacy space? Maybe this is a way we can
> > >limp
> > > along with V4 longer?
> > >
> > > As an example, a legacy holder with a /23 and a /24 of legacy IPv4
> >space
> > >and
> > > an ASN issued prior to ARIN formation pays $0.
> > > If that legacy holder signs the LRSA, they start paying $100/year. If
> > >they don't,
> > > they continue to pay $0.
> > >
> > > If they get IPv6 space, then, they have to sign the RSA for their
>IPv6
> > >space
> > > and pay $100/year for that, but they are not required to sign the
>LRSA
> > >or RSA
> > > with regards to their IPv4 space. Under the current fee structure,
>they
> > >would
> > > pay $100/year whether or not they sign the LRSA for their IPv4 space.
> > >
> > > Under the proposed fee structure, beginning with their 2013 billing,
> >the
> > >one
> > > that did not sign the LRSA still pays $100/year only for their IPv6
> > >space and
> > > continues to pay $0 for everything else. The one that chose to
> > >participate in
> > > the ARIN process and sign the LRSA, OTOH, receives a bill not for $0,
> > >not for
> > > $100, but for $400/year.
> > >
> > > Now, there is a small exception to this... If that LRSA signature
> > >occurred early
> > > enough, they may only get charged either $125 or $225, depending on
> how
> > > one interprets the combination of RSA terms and LRSA terms with the
> > > proposed fee structure in 2013, with that fee continuing to go up
> > >$25/year
> > > each year until it reaches the $400/year in either 7 or 11 years,
> > >depending on
> > > how ARIN determines the starting point.
> >
> > Agree to all of the math. I'm in also in agreement that the legacy
> >holders
> > are now in the position of being "takers" from the system as they have
> > public resources that are widely considered to be under-used. However,
> >the
> > fees being charged here are pretty minor in the grand scheme of things.
> > Even the dramatic $400 dollars mentioned in the previous math comes
> down
> > to less than a 20oz bottle of [pick your favorite soft drink] a day.
> >
> > >
> > > > I think that I would like ARIN to avoid legal issues when possible.
> > >I'm not
> > > sure if ARIN counsel would want to chime in on sending bills to
>legacy
> > >space
> > > holders who have not signed an agreement with ARIN. This may help me
> in
> > > my processing of this topic.
> > >
> > >
> > > I would like ARIN to avoid legal issues too.
> > >
> > > However, I also would like to avoid getting shafted in exchange for
> > >trying to
> > > be an upstanding member of the community.
> >
> > I do not agree that anyone is getting "shafted" and I think this type
>of
> > verbiage does little to advance the topic. Also, you cannot force
>people
> > outside a community to act as you wish, even if they have a less than
> > positive impact on the community.
> >
> > - Brian J.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ARIN-Consult
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
> > Consult Mailing
> > List (ARIN-consult at arin.net).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the
> > ARIN Member Services
> > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 




From jesse at la-broadband.com  Wed Nov 14 15:01:33 2012
From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis)
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 20:01:33 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <62F82E32-3D31-4DC2-9838-001E005A7835@mia.net>
Message-ID: <CCC9364C.1E247%jesse@la-broadband.com>

John,

	While these assertions may be true I haven't seen any supporting data
published as I've asked specifically what does it cost to serve X customer
on average vs X customer. As far as what an IPv6 allocation would cost and
whether or not it would be affordable I think this may be a misnomer. What
I've asked is if you were to take the total projected revenue generated
for IPv6 next year based on current and projected allocations what would
that fee be if it were broken up into blocks of /48 or /32 or whatever.
You indicated that would make the /48 fee effectively zero for most end
users. I think this brings up an interesting point.

1. The argument I'm hearing over and over here is that folks want to
reduce the cost of entry level ipv6 allocations for end users and non
profits etc etc etc. This would achieve that according to you.
2. Another argument I'm hearing over and over here is that these fees both
current and proposed disproportionately favor a small number large
organizations at the expense of everyone else. This would address that.

I have a feeling it can be done cost neutral for ARIN given ARIN can use
their revenue for 2011 and divide it up based on untiered. Or 2 tiered
(small and everyone else, since it does cost something to bill and spam
people billing and spamming could be removed for the small/tiny and it be
made free or close to free) resource allocation rather then the current
arbitrary model. I'm very interested in what those fees would look like.


-- 
Jesse D. Geddis

LA Broadband LLC
AS 16602




On 11/14/12 11:49 AM, "Jeremy Anthony Kinsey" <jer at mia.net> wrote:


On Nov 14, 2012, at 1:42 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

> 
> On Nov 14, 2012, at 11:27 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Nov 14, 2012, at 12:44 PM, Jeremy Anthony Kinsey <jer at mia.net>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> "Fees I think should be more directly related to resources consumed."
>> 
>> Be very carefully what you wish for...
>> 
>> The vast majority of organizations (end-user or ISP) making use of ARIN
>> services do not need to contact the registration services helpdesk nor
>> the financial team in any given year, they don't attend the twice annual
>> meetings, and they may not even participate in the number resource
>>policy
>> development process.
>> 
>> They simply wish to make use of their number resources, to be shown as
>> the listed resource holder in the registry, and to have reverse DNS
>>work.
>> 
>> As it turns out, the actual effort related to providing those services
>>is 
>> _not_ proportional to the number of IP addresses, but rather to the
>>address 
>> block entry itself.  (Folks should be very thankful for such, since if
>>there 
>> ever were any costs actual proportional to number of addresses, no one
>> would ever be able to afford to be issued an IPv6 address block... :-)
>> 
> 
> Permit me to rephrase Mr. Kinsey's suggestion?
> 
> Perhaps they should be proportional to the fraction of total address pool
> consumed.
> 
> Owen
> 
I do not recall making such a suggestion.

Note the QUOTES.... And the context.

There's obviously more than one reason I never feel compelled to enter a
discussion here. 





From jesse at la-broadband.com  Wed Nov 14 15:47:43 2012
From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis)
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 20:47:43 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <D5666C1F-BE2F-4836-AAAE-CAC784D2474F@arin.net>
References: <CCC91570.1E20F%jesse@la-broadband.com>
	<E76666E8-E2D9-4C81-9BE6-138584EA275D@mia.net>
	<461FB267-C701-4677-A12D-29CD54D12968@corp.arin.net>,
	<D5666C1F-BE2F-4836-AAAE-CAC784D2474F@arin.net>
Message-ID: <20627500-B2D0-4E2B-A42D-D99BBEE8827D@la-broadband.com>

John,

I'm confused. How could paying almost 300x more per IP be construed as benefiting smaller organisations?

Jesse Geddis
LA Broadband LLC
ASN 16602

On Nov 14, 2012, at 12:45 PM, "John Curran" <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

> On Nov 14, 2012, at 2:27 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> 
>> Be very carefully what you wish for...
> 
> (and apparently one should also be very careful using spell checkers... :-)
> 
>> As it turns out, the actual effort related to providing those services is 
>> _not_ proportional to the number of IP addresses, but rather to the address 
>> block entry itself.  (Folks should be very thankful for such, since if there 
>> ever were any costs actual proportional to number of addresses, no one 
>> would ever be able to afford to be issued an IPv6 address block... :-)
> 
> FYI - For folks interested in ARIN's costs based on a functional (as opposed
> to the typical departmental budget model), I presented a breakdown at the ARIN 
> Philly meeting -
> <https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXVIII/PDF/friday/curran_cost_breakdown.pdf>
> 
>> So, the reality is that each issued IPv4 and IPv6 block (and to some 
>> extent each issued AS number) imputes very similar costs on ARIN as an
>> organization.  Note also that if we really wanted to be fair regarding
>> costs, we should treat ISPs via the same model as end-users, and the 
>> annual maintenance fees per block would be higher due to the lack of 
>> the indirect subsidy of these costs by the ISP members, and the costs
>> for a typical ISP would drop significantly.
> 
> One reason that having disproportionate costs on the ISPs (to the benefit
> of end-users) is that ISPs are more likely to obtain some benefit from our 
> significant registry development efforts (consisting of both the policy
> development process as well as the software changes to support same) and
> our Internet governance outreach activities.  While it is not a direct
> alignment of fees to costs/benefits, it is a reasonable correlation and
> avoids the introduction of numerous fees that would be necessary if we
> tried to directly align the fees with the costs/benefits received.
> 
> FYI,
> /John
> 
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
> 


From john at comfortconsulting.com  Wed Nov 14 16:10:36 2012
From: john at comfortconsulting.com (John Comfort)
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 13:10:36 -0800
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <20627500-B2D0-4E2B-A42D-D99BBEE8827D@la-broadband.com>
References: <CCC91570.1E20F%jesse@la-broadband.com>
	<E76666E8-E2D9-4C81-9BE6-138584EA275D@mia.net>
	<461FB267-C701-4677-A12D-29CD54D12968@corp.arin.net>
	<D5666C1F-BE2F-4836-AAAE-CAC784D2474F@arin.net>
	<20627500-B2D0-4E2B-A42D-D99BBEE8827D@la-broadband.com>
Message-ID: <CALFvOQObFmVbpo6K0bPXQcVdTqk+xDvGBHR6dX12s28K5FMkhQ@mail.gmail.com>

It seems to me that Jesse is the only one considering the smaller
organizations and the exponential increase in fees over time. With the
additional costs per year, does ARIN intend on providing more services in
addition to IP allocation assistance? Or will ARIN continue with the
status-quo? In other words, how will ARIN really add *benefit* to the SMB
market by instituting this new fee structure?

I see three items with this fee schedule: force the reduction of IPv4 space
allocation requests; penalize organizations with a large number of
smaller IPv4 blocks; encourage organizations to request larger IPv6 blocks
to reduce the number of purchased blocks thus reducing the price-per-year
costs. Why should I order a /40? I might as well order a /32!

Unless ARIN provides some kind of benefit, only the large ISPs seem to
benefit by locking customers into the ISP's own IP blocks due to cost. I
was under the impression that the IPv6 space gave "unlimited" number of
address space, and thus it would be "cheaper" (supply and demand ring a
bell??). But this looks like a monopolistic move to increase prices with no
apparent change in real customer-driven services. How does this encourage
the move to IPv6?

John



On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Jesse D. Geddis <jesse at la-broadband.com>wrote:

> John,
>
> I'm confused. How could paying almost 300x more per IP be construed as
> benefiting smaller organisations?
>
> Jesse Geddis
> LA Broadband LLC
> ASN 16602
>
> On Nov 14, 2012, at 12:45 PM, "John Curran" <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 14, 2012, at 2:27 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Be very carefully what you wish for...
> >
> > (and apparently one should also be very careful using spell checkers...
> :-)
> >
> >> As it turns out, the actual effort related to providing those services
> is
> >> _not_ proportional to the number of IP addresses, but rather to the
> address
> >> block entry itself.  (Folks should be very thankful for such, since if
> there
> >> ever were any costs actual proportional to number of addresses, no one
> >> would ever be able to afford to be issued an IPv6 address block... :-)
> >
> > FYI - For folks interested in ARIN's costs based on a functional (as
> opposed
> > to the typical departmental budget model), I presented a breakdown at
> the ARIN
> > Philly meeting -
> > <
> https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXVIII/PDF/friday/curran_cost_breakdown.pdf
> >
> >
> >> So, the reality is that each issued IPv4 and IPv6 block (and to some
> >> extent each issued AS number) imputes very similar costs on ARIN as an
> >> organization.  Note also that if we really wanted to be fair regarding
> >> costs, we should treat ISPs via the same model as end-users, and the
> >> annual maintenance fees per block would be higher due to the lack of
> >> the indirect subsidy of these costs by the ISP members, and the costs
> >> for a typical ISP would drop significantly.
> >
> > One reason that having disproportionate costs on the ISPs (to the benefit
> > of end-users) is that ISPs are more likely to obtain some benefit from
> our
> > significant registry development efforts (consisting of both the policy
> > development process as well as the software changes to support same) and
> > our Internet governance outreach activities.  While it is not a direct
> > alignment of fees to costs/benefits, it is a reasonable correlation and
> > avoids the introduction of numerous fees that would be necessary if we
> > tried to directly align the fees with the costs/benefits received.
> >
> > FYI,
> > /John
> >
> > John Curran
> > President and CEO
> > ARIN
> >
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Consult
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
> Consult Mailing
> List (ARIN-consult at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the
> ARIN Member Services
> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20121114/24c445ad/attachment.html>

From jcurran at arin.net  Wed Nov 14 16:38:43 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 21:38:43 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <CALFvOQObFmVbpo6K0bPXQcVdTqk+xDvGBHR6dX12s28K5FMkhQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CCC91570.1E20F%jesse@la-broadband.com>
	<E76666E8-E2D9-4C81-9BE6-138584EA275D@mia.net>
	<461FB267-C701-4677-A12D-29CD54D12968@corp.arin.net>
	<D5666C1F-BE2F-4836-AAAE-CAC784D2474F@arin.net>
	<20627500-B2D0-4E2B-A42D-D99BBEE8827D@la-broadband.com>
	<CALFvOQObFmVbpo6K0bPXQcVdTqk+xDvGBHR6dX12s28K5FMkhQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <23B6DE47-9571-4C2E-BD06-6F73C14031DC@corp.arin.net>

On Nov 14, 2012, at 4:10 PM, John Comfort <john at comfortconsulting.com>
 wrote:

> It seems to me that Jesse is the only one considering the smaller organizations and the exponential increase in fees over time. With the additional costs per year, does ARIN intend on providing more services in addition to IP allocation assistance? Or will ARIN continue with the status-quo? In other words, how will ARIN really add *benefit* to the SMB market by instituting this new fee structure?

Note that there is not a proposed increase over time; this is a single change
for end-user fees for per-block annual maintenance fees as opposed to the
present single $100 annual maintenance fee for an unlimited number of registry 
objects.

With respect to services offered, ARIN has indeed increased registry services 
in recent years, including enhancements to the online interface, additional of
DNSSEC support for reverse DNS zones, and resource certification via RPKI.  

> I see three items with this fee schedule: force the reduction of IPv4 space allocation requests;

For end-users, we refer to these as "IPv4 assignment requests", and while they
might go down because of the additional $100 of annual maintenance that results
of receiving one, most organizations that qualify for additional space may find 
that a reasonable tradeoff in light of the upcoming depletion of ARIN's available
pool and very limited ability to receive additional assignments.

> penalize organizations with a large number of smaller IPv4 blocks;

I believe that "penalize" is not quite the intent, as much as making end-user
organizations with a large number of smaller IPv4 blocks pay to reflect their
greater costs.

> encourage organizations to request larger IPv6 blocks to reduce the number of purchased blocks thus reducing the price-per-year costs. Why should I order a /40? I might as well order a /32!

(You should probably request whatever block you qualify for...)
 
> Unless ARIN provides some kind of benefit, only the large ISPs seem to benefit by locking customers into the ISP's own IP blocks due to cost. I was under the impression that the IPv6 space gave "unlimited" number of address space, and thus it would be "cheaper" (supply and demand ring a bell??). But this looks like a monopolistic move to increase prices with no apparent change in real customer-driven services. How does this encourage the move to IPv6?

It has been proposed that a single IPv4 block, single IPv6 block, and an ASN be 
included in the $100 annual maintenance fee; such a change to the proposal would
mean that obtaining IPv6 would not entail any incremental fee for any organization
with an AS # or IPv4 today.  Would that address your concern stated above?

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



From jcurran at arin.net  Wed Nov 14 16:53:02 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 21:53:02 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <20627500-B2D0-4E2B-A42D-D99BBEE8827D@la-broadband.com>
References: <CCC91570.1E20F%jesse@la-broadband.com>
	<E76666E8-E2D9-4C81-9BE6-138584EA275D@mia.net>
	<461FB267-C701-4677-A12D-29CD54D12968@corp.arin.net>,
	<D5666C1F-BE2F-4836-AAAE-CAC784D2474F@arin.net>
	<20627500-B2D0-4E2B-A42D-D99BBEE8827D@la-broadband.com>
Message-ID: <22939C3F-71A6-4640-97B1-7BC365649D54@arin.net>

On Nov 14, 2012, at 3:47 PM, "Jesse D. Geddis" <jesse at la-broadband.com>
 wrote:

> John,
> 
> I'm confused. How could paying almost 300x more per IP be construed as benefiting smaller organisations?

Jesse - 

Looking at things on a per-IP basis does not reflect actual costs
in any meaningful manner and may indeed result in ample confusion.

We can try if you wish:  Presently, end-users pay $100 for annual
maintenance for an unlimited number of IPv4 blocks, so the fee per
IP is highly variable based on size and number of blocks held.

Under the proposed fee structure, the annual maintenance fee is 
$100 per IPv4 block per year, which means that it is $0.39 per IP 
address for an organization with a /24 IPv4 block, $.00153 per IP 
address per year for a /16 IPv4 block, etc.  With IPv6, the same 
math applies, but divide the fees by 2 to the 96th power...

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN




From jesse at la-broadband.com  Wed Nov 14 16:19:42 2012
From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis)
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 21:19:42 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <CALFvOQObFmVbpo6K0bPXQcVdTqk+xDvGBHR6dX12s28K5FMkhQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CCC91570.1E20F%jesse@la-broadband.com>
	<E76666E8-E2D9-4C81-9BE6-138584EA275D@mia.net>
	<461FB267-C701-4677-A12D-29CD54D12968@corp.arin.net>
	<D5666C1F-BE2F-4836-AAAE-CAC784D2474F@arin.net>
	<20627500-B2D0-4E2B-A42D-D99BBEE8827D@la-broadband.com>,
	<CALFvOQObFmVbpo6K0bPXQcVdTqk+xDvGBHR6dX12s28K5FMkhQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <03A24B2A-270E-4531-B0A5-194A9E140A81@la-broadband.com>

John,

Actually, what I've suggested (and many others have suggested in various forms) wouldn't increase fees exponentially. It should reduce them. There's no reason fees can't be reduced year over year as more orgs are paying into it. In other words ARIN can keep the revenue the same year over year by reducing fees year over year.

As far as penalising organisations with non-contiguous blocks the fact that they are non-contiguous is not a factor in a model that is directly tied to the total resources assigned. In other words whether you have 1 /16 or its equivalent in /22's the fee is the same. The difference, of course, is you wouldn't have organisations with tens of millions of IPs paying the same annual rate as an organisation with 250k. I think this is absurd.

The rest of your email was based on the same misreading I addressed above so I'll leave them alone.

Jesse Geddis
LA Broadband LLC


On Nov 14, 2012, at 1:10 PM, "John Comfort" <john at comfortconsulting.com<mailto:john at comfortconsulting.com>> wrote:

It seems to me that Jesse is the only one considering the smaller organizations and the exponential increase in fees over time. With the additional costs per year, does ARIN intend on providing more services in addition to IP allocation assistance? Or will ARIN continue with the status-quo? In other words, how will ARIN really add *benefit* to the SMB market by instituting this new fee structure?

I see three items with this fee schedule: force the reduction of IPv4 space allocation requests; penalize organizations with a large number of smaller IPv4 blocks; encourage organizations to request larger IPv6 blocks to reduce the number of purchased blocks thus reducing the price-per-year costs. Why should I order a /40? I might as well order a /32!

Unless ARIN provides some kind of benefit, only the large ISPs seem to benefit by locking customers into the ISP's own IP blocks due to cost. I was under the impression that the IPv6 space gave "unlimited" number of address space, and thus it would be "cheaper" (supply and demand ring a bell??). But this looks like a monopolistic move to increase prices with no apparent change in real customer-driven services. How does this encourage the move to IPv6?

John



On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Jesse D. Geddis <jesse at la-broadband.com<mailto:jesse at la-broadband.com>> wrote:
John,

I'm confused. How could paying almost 300x more per IP be construed as benefiting smaller organisations?

Jesse Geddis
LA Broadband LLC
ASN 16602

On Nov 14, 2012, at 12:45 PM, "John Curran" <jcurran at arin.net<mailto:jcurran at arin.net>> wrote:

> On Nov 14, 2012, at 2:27 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net<mailto:jcurran at arin.net>> wrote:
>
>> Be very carefully what you wish for...
>
> (and apparently one should also be very careful using spell checkers... :-)
>
>> As it turns out, the actual effort related to providing those services is
>> _not_ proportional to the number of IP addresses, but rather to the address
>> block entry itself.  (Folks should be very thankful for such, since if there
>> ever were any costs actual proportional to number of addresses, no one
>> would ever be able to afford to be issued an IPv6 address block... :-)
>
> FYI - For folks interested in ARIN's costs based on a functional (as opposed
> to the typical departmental budget model), I presented a breakdown at the ARIN
> Philly meeting -
> <https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXVIII/PDF/friday/curran_cost_breakdown.pdf>
>
>> So, the reality is that each issued IPv4 and IPv6 block (and to some
>> extent each issued AS number) imputes very similar costs on ARIN as an
>> organization.  Note also that if we really wanted to be fair regarding
>> costs, we should treat ISPs via the same model as end-users, and the
>> annual maintenance fees per block would be higher due to the lack of
>> the indirect subsidy of these costs by the ISP members, and the costs
>> for a typical ISP would drop significantly.
>
> One reason that having disproportionate costs on the ISPs (to the benefit
> of end-users) is that ISPs are more likely to obtain some benefit from our
> significant registry development efforts (consisting of both the policy
> development process as well as the software changes to support same) and
> our Internet governance outreach activities.  While it is not a direct
> alignment of fees to costs/benefits, it is a reasonable correlation and
> avoids the introduction of numerous fees that would be necessary if we
> tried to directly align the fees with the costs/benefits received.
>
> FYI,
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>
_______________________________________________
ARIN-Consult
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing
List (ARIN-consult at arin.net<mailto:ARIN-consult at arin.net>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services
Help Desk at info at arin.net<mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.

_______________________________________________
ARIN-Consult
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing
List (ARIN-consult at arin.net<mailto:ARIN-consult at arin.net>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services
Help Desk at 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-consult/attachments/20121114/cc65d03c/attachment.html>

From jcurran at arin.net  Wed Nov 14 20:28:00 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 01:28:00 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <CCC9364C.1E247%jesse@la-broadband.com>
References: <CCC9364C.1E247%jesse@la-broadband.com>
Message-ID: <5CBC7129-BAB2-453D-8CFD-43B36D9AC733@arin.net>

On Nov 14, 2012, at 3:01 PM, "Jesse D. Geddis" <jesse at la-broadband.com>
 wrote:

> John,
> 
> 	While these assertions may be true I haven't seen any supporting data
> published as I've asked specifically what does it cost to serve X customer
> on average vs X customer. 

Jesse - 

  There are no statistics regarding costs per customer size category;
  the cost breakdown information that we do have I have sent to the 
  list previously. Note that presently the majority of ARIN's costs 
  are covered by recurring IPv4 registration service fees for ISPs,
  as noted in the consultation slide deck on page 14, the total revenue
  for all end-user IPv4 and IPv6 maintenance fees is expected to be 
  less than $1M of our approximately $15M annual budget.  

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



From mysidia at gmail.com  Wed Nov 14 23:14:03 2012
From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess)
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 22:14:03 -0600
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <3E9A73B1-5CB9-46A6-8E8D-18CD4D1F52BB@delong.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A71A4@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<619DFCF3-DE52-451D-9553-4A9DEE330392@corp.arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A7304@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<12497.1352159936@sandelman.ca>
	<E0016FFA-BBDF-4777-A0F9-0B532C9FB6D8@corp.arin.net>
	<alpine.LNX.2.01.1211121255080.9268@filesrv1.baby-dragons.com>
	<A6082ABB-7DF7-4DCE-A425-110389062523@corp.arin.net>
	<252A833F-2773-4B91-A768-88896789F47B@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C3219@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<D1B7A523-9ACE-4789-AAD4-56DDCAC4B8E6@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbX1dA_rZBYzJAx-U++nfWvQsnFVC8gD3vr8P0B3YPkUKg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F3D5F3D9-0140-406C-9CC6-D5E55C17D56E@corp.arin.net>
	<D74BE3D4-59A2-47D0-A3CA-7610C6DFF490@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C5B6B@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<3E9A73B1-5CB9-46A6-8E8D-18CD4D1F52BB@delong.com>
Message-ID: <CAAAwwbVfxh6V4Bx-cpQGNHktMDPAtAvPC82Otahe=jCkSgy2NQ@mail.gmail.com>

On 11/14/12, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> On Nov 14, 2012, at 07:52 , Brian Johnson <bjohnson at drtel.com> wrote:
[snip]
> 1.	Discontinue services to legacy holders that don't start paying.

There is another possibility...   don't discontinue anything to
non-LRSA signees, but retain the usage "tracking" data necessary to
calculate a fee assessment amount for legacy holders who have not
paid, according to the ordinary fee schedule,  all past unpaid fees
since a certain date,  plus compound interest at prime rate plus 5%
over that period.    Require payment of the tracked amount, and signed
RSA, before any resources can be transferred in or out,  or new
resources can be  requested.

In this manner,  legacy holders  are still assessed the fees.
If they fail or refuse to pay, they are not denied   "legacy services".

There are no consequences until they need to transfer resources in or out,
or obtain new resources from ARIN  (e.g. IPv6 resources or additional AS number)


> 2.	Treat LRSA Signatories as a group that isn't subjected to the new fees.
--
-JH


From paul at redbarn.org  Wed Nov 14 23:44:40 2012
From: paul at redbarn.org (paul vixie)
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 04:44:40 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] LRSA Information
In-Reply-To: <50A3D099.5040605@umn.edu>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A71A4@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<619DFCF3-DE52-451D-9553-4A9DEE330392@corp.arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A7304@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<12497.1352159936@sandelman.ca>
	<E0016FFA-BBDF-4777-A0F9-0B532C9FB6D8@corp.arin.net>
	<alpine.LNX.2.01.1211121255080.9268@filesrv1.baby-dragons.com>
	<A6082ABB-7DF7-4DCE-A425-110389062523@corp.arin.net>
	<252A833F-2773-4B91-A768-88896789F47B@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C3219@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<D1B7A523-9ACE-4789-AAD4-56DDCAC4B8E6@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbX1dA_rZBYzJAx-U++nfWvQsnFVC8gD3vr8P0B3YPkUKg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F3D5F3D9-0140-406C-9CC6-D5E55C17D56E@corp.arin.net>
	<8D4628F5-1C96-46B7-8534-FCC31A2FCE95@corp.arin.net>
	<50A3D099.5040605@umn.edu>
Message-ID: <50A47338.4030605@redbarn.org>

On 11/14/2012 5:10 PM, David Farmer wrote:
> ... "why would someone enter an LRSA if it means paying ARIN"...
>
> I will provide an answer to this question, at least from the
> perspective of a large legacy entity.  The University of Minnesota has
> 5 /16 (class Bs) and other miscellaneous number resources, that are
> critical to the day to day operations of the University, which is a $3
> billion entity. From a risk management point of view it is very much
> benefits the University to bring its Internet number resources under a
> modern contract regime with clear rights and responsibilities for both
> parties.  The lack of a clear contract rights and responsibilities are
> problematic and tenuous for both sides not just ARIN.
>
> ...

that was also $dayjob's (ISC's) take on the matter, and we put all of
our legacy resources under LRSA as soon as that agreement became available.

of special note: signing the LRSA does not diminish one's right to
participate in the transfer market. anyone who is holding out against
signing the LRSA because 'they may want to sell some day' is misinformed.

paul


From owen at delong.com  Thu Nov 15 13:54:39 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:54:39 -0800
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <CAAAwwbVfxh6V4Bx-cpQGNHktMDPAtAvPC82Otahe=jCkSgy2NQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A71A4@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<619DFCF3-DE52-451D-9553-4A9DEE330392@corp.arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A7304@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<12497.1352159936@sandelman.ca>
	<E0016FFA-BBDF-4777-A0F9-0B532C9FB6D8@corp.arin.net>
	<alpine.LNX.2.01.1211121255080.9268@filesrv1.baby-dragons.com>
	<A6082ABB-7DF7-4DCE-A425-110389062523@corp.arin.net>
	<252A833F-2773-4B91-A768-88896789F47B@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C3219@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<D1B7A523-9ACE-4789-AAD4-56DDCAC4B8E6@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbX1dA_rZBYzJAx-U++nfWvQsnFVC8gD3vr8P0B3YPkUKg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F3D5F3D9-0140-406C-9CC6-D5E55C17D56E@corp.arin.net>
	<D74BE3D4-59A2-47D0-A3CA-7610C6DFF490@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C5B6B@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<3E9A73B1-5CB9-46A6-8E8D-18CD4D1F52BB@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbVfxh6V4Bx-cpQGNHktMDPAtAvPC82Otahe=jCkSgy2NQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E794579D-4F0C-4614-8987-7DA9A674E708@delong.com>

I actually like this. I support this proposal.

Owen

On Nov 14, 2012, at 20:14 , Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 11/14/12, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 14, 2012, at 07:52 , Brian Johnson <bjohnson at drtel.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>> 1.	Discontinue services to legacy holders that don't start paying.
> 
> There is another possibility...   don't discontinue anything to
> non-LRSA signees, but retain the usage "tracking" data necessary to
> calculate a fee assessment amount for legacy holders who have not
> paid, according to the ordinary fee schedule,  all past unpaid fees
> since a certain date,  plus compound interest at prime rate plus 5%
> over that period.    Require payment of the tracked amount, and signed
> RSA, before any resources can be transferred in or out,  or new
> resources can be  requested.
> 
> In this manner,  legacy holders  are still assessed the fees.
> If they fail or refuse to pay, they are not denied   "legacy services".
> 
> There are no consequences until they need to transfer resources in or out,
> or obtain new resources from ARIN  (e.g. IPv6 resources or additional AS number)
> 
> 
>> 2.	Treat LRSA Signatories as a group that isn't subjected to the new fees.
> --
> -JH



From owen at delong.com  Thu Nov 15 13:50:57 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:50:57 -0800
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <23B6DE47-9571-4C2E-BD06-6F73C14031DC@corp.arin.net>
References: <CCC91570.1E20F%jesse@la-broadband.com>
	<E76666E8-E2D9-4C81-9BE6-138584EA275D@mia.net>
	<461FB267-C701-4677-A12D-29CD54D12968@corp.arin.net>
	<D5666C1F-BE2F-4836-AAAE-CAC784D2474F@arin.net>
	<20627500-B2D0-4E2B-A42D-D99BBEE8827D@la-broadband.com>
	<CALFvOQObFmVbpo6K0bPXQcVdTqk+xDvGBHR6dX12s28K5FMkhQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<23B6DE47-9571-4C2E-BD06-6F73C14031DC@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <769578E9-DD9B-4273-B8EC-AB004769CF7A@delong.com>


On Nov 14, 2012, at 13:38 , John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

> On Nov 14, 2012, at 4:10 PM, John Comfort <john at comfortconsulting.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> It seems to me that Jesse is the only one considering the smaller organizations and the exponential increase in fees over time. With the additional costs per year, does ARIN intend on providing more services in addition to IP allocation assistance? Or will ARIN continue with the status-quo? In other words, how will ARIN really add *benefit* to the SMB market by instituting this new fee structure?
> 
> Note that there is not a proposed increase over time; this is a single change
> for end-user fees for per-block annual maintenance fees as opposed to the
> present single $100 annual maintenance fee for an unlimited number of registry 
> objects.
> 
> With respect to services offered, ARIN has indeed increased registry services 
> in recent years, including enhancements to the online interface, additional of
> DNSSEC support for reverse DNS zones, and resource certification via RPKI.  
> 

Many of these "enhancements" could also be characterized as making the interface
more convenient for ARIN while simultaneously making it more difficult for small
consulting firms to work with their SMB enterprise and ISP clients on ARIN
interactions.

>> penalize organizations with a large number of smaller IPv4 blocks;
> 
> I believe that "penalize" is not quite the intent, as much as making end-user
> organizations with a large number of smaller IPv4 blocks pay to reflect their
> greater costs.
> 

Intent or not, it is the net effect. Even an organization with a small number
of blocks, say 2 IPv4 blocks an IPv6 block and an ASN goes from $100/year
to $400/year, making their fees 4000% larger in a single year.

Owen



From owen at delong.com  Thu Nov 15 14:11:14 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 11:11:14 -0800
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [ARIN-Suggestions] New ACSP Suggestion 2012.22 -
	ADDITIONAL DETAIL IN NRPM CHANGE LOG
In-Reply-To: <50A52A26.1060402@arin.net>
References: <50A52A26.1060402@arin.net>
Message-ID: <F9FBDBDA-7B9C-4E6A-8990-46556D639D5D@delong.com>

I support this suggestion.

Owen

On Nov 15, 2012, at 09:45 , ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:

> A new suggestion was received through the ACSP, and was assigned number  2012.22 upon receipt of confirmation.
> 
> 
> The text of the Suggestion is available at: https://www.arin.net/participate/acsp/suggestions/2012-22.html
> 
> ARIN will issue an initial response within 10 business days.Regards,
> 
> Communications and Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> 
> ***
> Suggestion:
> 
> The NRPM Change log ( https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm_changelog.html ) is an excellent record of the changes in the NRPM over time. Most changes are caused by the implementation of Draft Policies, and the related Draft Policies for each change, in addition to the sections changed, are recorded for each change and the Draft Policies may be reviewed to provide more detailed context regarding the change in question.
> 
> However, in the case of editorial changes there is no additional context provided, only a listing of the sections changed. Future, editorial changes should provide a reference explaining the details of the change and possibly the rationale or motivation for the editorial change for historical reference.
> 
> If possible, previous editorial changes should be updated with such information as well. Thanks.
> _______________________________________________
> arin-suggestions mailing list
> arin-suggestions at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-suggestions

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20121115/14f384ce/attachment.html>

From patrick at klos.com  Thu Nov 15 14:13:59 2012
From: patrick at klos.com (Patrick Klos)
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:13:59 -0500
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <769578E9-DD9B-4273-B8EC-AB004769CF7A@delong.com>
References: <CCC91570.1E20F%jesse@la-broadband.com>	<E76666E8-E2D9-4C81-9BE6-138584EA275D@mia.net>	<461FB267-C701-4677-A12D-29CD54D12968@corp.arin.net>	<D5666C1F-BE2F-4836-AAAE-CAC784D2474F@arin.net>	<20627500-B2D0-4E2B-A42D-D99BBEE8827D@la-broadband.com>	<CALFvOQObFmVbpo6K0bPXQcVdTqk+xDvGBHR6dX12s28K5FMkhQ@mail.gmail.com>	<23B6DE47-9571-4C2E-BD06-6F73C14031DC@corp.arin.net>
	<769578E9-DD9B-4273-B8EC-AB004769CF7A@delong.com>
Message-ID: <50A53EF7.3080608@klos.com>

Owen DeLong wrote:
> Intent or not, it is the net effect. Even an organization with a small number
> of blocks, say 2 IPv4 blocks an IPv6 block and an ASN goes from $100/year
> to $400/year, making their fees 4000% larger in a single year.
>   
Isn't going from $100/year to $400/year an increase of only 300%?

Patrick



From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Nov 15 15:08:21 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 20:08:21 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <50A53EF7.3080608@klos.com>
References: <CCC91570.1E20F%jesse@la-broadband.com>
	<E76666E8-E2D9-4C81-9BE6-138584EA275D@mia.net>
	<461FB267-C701-4677-A12D-29CD54D12968@corp.arin.net>
	<D5666C1F-BE2F-4836-AAAE-CAC784D2474F@arin.net>
	<20627500-B2D0-4E2B-A42D-D99BBEE8827D@la-broadband.com>
	<CALFvOQObFmVbpo6K0bPXQcVdTqk+xDvGBHR6dX12s28K5FMkhQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<23B6DE47-9571-4C2E-BD06-6F73C14031DC@corp.arin.net>
	<769578E9-DD9B-4273-B8EC-AB004769CF7A@delong.com>
	<50A53EF7.3080608@klos.com>
Message-ID: <D5B385E6-C31E-4E7F-A300-7B7DD5157A04@arin.net>

On Nov 15, 2012, at 2:13 PM, Patrick Klos <patrick at klos.com> wrote:

> Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Intent or not, it is the net effect. Even an organization with a small number
>> of blocks, say 2 IPv4 blocks an IPv6 block and an ASN goes from $100/year
>> to $400/year, making their fees 4000% larger in a single year.
>>  
> Isn't going from $100/year to $400/year an increase of only 300%?

It would be a 300% increase from $100.  Note that we've also discussed charging 
only for the additional IPv4 blocks, IPv6 blocks, and ASNs beyond the first one
(effectively providing maintenance for 1 IPv4 block, 1 IPv6 block and 1 ASN for 
$100/yr) and this would mean that the organization presumed above would pay $200/yr,
or a 100% increase from $100/year currently.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN




From bill at herrin.us  Thu Nov 15 16:12:26 2012
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:12:26 -0500
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <E794579D-4F0C-4614-8987-7DA9A674E708@delong.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A71A4@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<619DFCF3-DE52-451D-9553-4A9DEE330392@corp.arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A7304@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<12497.1352159936@sandelman.ca>
	<E0016FFA-BBDF-4777-A0F9-0B532C9FB6D8@corp.arin.net>
	<alpine.LNX.2.01.1211121255080.9268@filesrv1.baby-dragons.com>
	<A6082ABB-7DF7-4DCE-A425-110389062523@corp.arin.net>
	<252A833F-2773-4B91-A768-88896789F47B@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C3219@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<D1B7A523-9ACE-4789-AAD4-56DDCAC4B8E6@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbX1dA_rZBYzJAx-U++nfWvQsnFVC8gD3vr8P0B3YPkUKg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F3D5F3D9-0140-406C-9CC6-D5E55C17D56E@corp.arin.net>
	<D74BE3D4-59A2-47D0-A3CA-7610C6DFF490@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C5B6B@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<3E9A73B1-5CB9-46A6-8E8D-18CD4D1F52BB@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbVfxh6V4Bx-cpQGNHktMDPAtAvPC82Otahe=jCkSgy2NQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<E794579D-4F0C-4614-8987-7DA9A674E708@delong.com>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGUzKUf7+WN7UCSmLgGzVPmeEowQUqRo+6p10p6q=RDuHw@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> I actually like this. I support this proposal.

As do I with two caveats:

1. Don't describe it as "unpaid fees," describe it as an "accrued
transfer fee for registrations not held under a registration services
agreement" or something similarly neutral. Negative words like
"unpaid" imply a penalty and this isn't supposed to be a penalty for
anyone.

2. Don't refuse to interact with a registrant on matters unrelated to
the legacy registration. Tell a legacy registrant he can't have IPv6
addresses unless he first signs over his IPv4 addresses and you make
that registrant's choice an easy one: no IPv6 this year.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


> On Nov 14, 2012, at 20:14 , Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/14/12, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 14, 2012, at 07:52 , Brian Johnson <bjohnson at drtel.com> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> 1.   Discontinue services to legacy holders that don't start paying.
>>
>> There is another possibility...   don't discontinue anything to
>> non-LRSA signees, but retain the usage "tracking" data necessary to
>> calculate a fee assessment amount for legacy holders who have not
>> paid, according to the ordinary fee schedule,  all past unpaid fees
>> since a certain date,  plus compound interest at prime rate plus 5%
>> over that period.    Require payment of the tracked amount, and signed
>> RSA, before any resources can be transferred in or out,  or new
>> resources can be  requested.
>>
>> In this manner,  legacy holders  are still assessed the fees.
>> If they fail or refuse to pay, they are not denied   "legacy services".
>>
>> There are no consequences until they need to transfer resources in or out,
>> or obtain new resources from ARIN  (e.g. IPv6 resources or additional AS number)
>>
>>
>>> 2.   Treat LRSA Signatories as a group that isn't subjected to the new fees.




-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From owen at delong.com  Thu Nov 15 16:31:26 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 13:31:26 -0800
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGUzKUf7+WN7UCSmLgGzVPmeEowQUqRo+6p10p6q=RDuHw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A71A4@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<619DFCF3-DE52-451D-9553-4A9DEE330392@corp.arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A7304@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<12497.1352159936@sandelman.ca>
	<E0016FFA-BBDF-4777-A0F9-0B532C9FB6D8@corp.arin.net>
	<alpine.LNX.2.01.1211121255080.9268@filesrv1.baby-dragons.com>
	<A6082ABB-7DF7-4DCE-A425-110389062523@corp.arin.net>
	<252A833F-2773-4B91-A768-88896789F47B@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C3219@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<D1B7A523-9ACE-4789-AAD4-56DDCAC4B8E6@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbX1dA_rZBYzJAx-U++nfWvQsnFVC8gD3vr8P0B3YPkUKg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F3D5F3D9-0140-406C-9CC6-D5E55C17D56E@corp.arin.net>
	<D74BE3D4-59A2-47D0-A3CA-7610C6DFF490@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C5B6B@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<3E9A73B1-5CB9-46A6-8E8D-18CD4D1F52BB@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbVfxh6V4Bx-cpQGNHktMDPAtAvPC82Otahe=jCkSgy2NQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<E794579D-4F0C-4614-8987-7DA9A674E708@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGUzKUf7+WN7UCSm!
	LgGzVPmeEowQUqRo+6p10p6q=RDuHw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6467FCAA-12DE-4A58-A32E-3EBE6EFF43C5@delong.com>


On Nov 15, 2012, at 13:12 , William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> I actually like this. I support this proposal.
> 
> As do I with two caveats:
> 
> 1. Don't describe it as "unpaid fees," describe it as an "accrued
> transfer fee for registrations not held under a registration services
> agreement" or something similarly neutral. Negative words like
> "unpaid" imply a penalty and this isn't supposed to be a penalty for
> anyone.
> 

I'm neutral on this.

> 2. Don't refuse to interact with a registrant on matters unrelated to
> the legacy registration. Tell a legacy registrant he can't have IPv6
> addresses unless he first signs over his IPv4 addresses and you make
> that registrant's choice an easy one: no IPv6 this year.

Agreed, but, I would say do not issue additional ASN or IPv4 resources
without first resolving the fee and contract issue on the existing resources.

Owen


> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> 
> 
>> On Nov 14, 2012, at 20:14 , Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 11/14/12, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 14, 2012, at 07:52 , Brian Johnson <bjohnson at drtel.com> wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>> 1.   Discontinue services to legacy holders that don't start paying.
>>> 
>>> There is another possibility...   don't discontinue anything to
>>> non-LRSA signees, but retain the usage "tracking" data necessary to
>>> calculate a fee assessment amount for legacy holders who have not
>>> paid, according to the ordinary fee schedule,  all past unpaid fees
>>> since a certain date,  plus compound interest at prime rate plus 5%
>>> over that period.    Require payment of the tracked amount, and signed
>>> RSA, before any resources can be transferred in or out,  or new
>>> resources can be  requested.
>>> 
>>> In this manner,  legacy holders  are still assessed the fees.
>>> If they fail or refuse to pay, they are not denied   "legacy services".
>>> 
>>> There are no consequences until they need to transfer resources in or out,
>>> or obtain new resources from ARIN  (e.g. IPv6 resources or additional AS number)
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 2.   Treat LRSA Signatories as a group that isn't subjected to the new fees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004



From bill at herrin.us  Thu Nov 15 17:08:05 2012
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 17:08:05 -0500
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <6467FCAA-12DE-4A58-A32E-3EBE6EFF43C5@delong.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A71A4@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<619DFCF3-DE52-451D-9553-4A9DEE330392@corp.arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A7304@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<12497.1352159936@sandelman.ca>
	<E0016FFA-BBDF-4777-A0F9-0B532C9FB6D8@corp.arin.net>
	<alpine.LNX.2.01.1211121255080.9268@filesrv1.baby-dragons.com>
	<A6082ABB-7DF7-4DCE-A425-110389062523@corp.arin.net>
	<252A833F-2773-4B91-A768-88896789F47B@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C3219@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<D1B7A523-9ACE-4789-AAD4-56DDCAC4B8E6@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbX1dA_rZBYzJAx-U++nfWvQsnFVC8gD3vr8P0B3YPkUKg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F3D5F3D9-0140-406C-9CC6-D5E55C17D56E@corp.arin.net>
	<D74BE3D4-59A2-47D0-A3CA-7610C6DFF490@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C5B6B@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<3E9A73B1-5CB9-46A6-8E8D-18CD4D1F52BB@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbVfxh6V4Bx-cpQGNHktMDPAtAvPC82Otahe=jCkSgy2NQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<E794579D-4F0C-4614-8987-7DA9A674E708@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGUzKUf7+WN7UCSmLgGzVPmeEowQUqRo+6p10p6q=RDuHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<6467FCAA-12DE-4A58-A32E-3EBE6EFF43C5@delong.com>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGWBqk21Nt9F2wwsOySzCva3GgRiZNcwtOTOwbTYnfiE0w@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> On Nov 15, 2012, at 13:12 , William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

>> 2. Don't refuse to interact with a registrant on matters unrelated to
>> the legacy registration. Tell a legacy registrant he can't have IPv6
>> addresses unless he first signs over his IPv4 addresses and you make
>> that registrant's choice an easy one: no IPv6 this year.
>
> Agreed, but, I would say do not issue additional ASN or IPv4 resources
> without first resolving the fee and contract issue on the existing resources.

Unless there's a much better reason than "waah, those guys are still
getting the free ride we promised them 15 years ago," I'd say: let
sleeping giants lie. ARIN has important fights to win for us, against
governments who want to do asinine things with Internet management.
Why pick an extra fight with the legacy registrants?

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From springer at inlandnet.com  Thu Nov 15 18:35:51 2012
From: springer at inlandnet.com (John Springer)
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:35:51 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGWBqk21Nt9F2wwsOySzCva3GgRiZNcwtOTOwbTYnfiE0w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<E0016FFA-BBDF-4777-A0F9-0B532C9FB6D8@corp.arin.net>
	<alpine.LNX.2.01.1211121255080.9268@filesrv1.baby-dragons.com>
	<A6082ABB-7DF7-4DCE-A425-110389062523@corp.arin.net>
	<252A833F-2773-4B91-A768-88896789F47B@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C3219@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<D1B7A523-9ACE-4789-AAD4-56DDCAC4B8E6@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbX1dA_rZBYzJAx-U++nfWvQsnFVC8gD3vr8P0B3YPkUKg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F3D5F3D9-0140-406C-9CC6-D5E55C17D56E@corp.arin.net>
	<D74BE3D4-59A2-47D0-A3CA-7610C6DFF490@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C5B6B@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<3E9A73B1-5CB9-46A6-8E8D-18CD4D1F52BB@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbVfxh6V4Bx-cpQGNHktMDPAtAvPC82Otahe=jCkSgy2NQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<E794579D-4F0C-4614-8987-7DA9A674E708@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGUzKUf7+WN7UCSmLgGzVPmeEowQUqRo+6p10p6q=RDuHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<6467FCAA-12DE-4A58-A32E-3EBE6EFF43C5@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGWBqk21Nt9F2wwsOySzCva3GgRiZNcwtOTOwbTYnfiE0w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20121115152518.R14740@mail.inlandnet.com>

Hi Bill,

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012, William Herrin wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 15, 2012, at 13:12 , William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>
>>> 2. Don't refuse to interact with a registrant on matters unrelated to
>>> the legacy registration. Tell a legacy registrant he can't have IPv6
>>> addresses unless he first signs over his IPv4 addresses and you make
>>> that registrant's choice an easy one: no IPv6 this year.
>>
>> Agreed, but, I would say do not issue additional ASN or IPv4 resources
>> without first resolving the fee and contract issue on the existing resources.
>
> Unless there's a much better reason than "waah, those guys are still
> getting the free ride we promised them 15 years ago," I'd say: let
> sleeping giants lie. ARIN has important fights to win for us, against
> governments who want to do asinine things with Internet management.
> Why pick an extra fight with the legacy registrants?

Amen! Let's not.

John Springer


From owen at delong.com  Thu Nov 15 19:46:11 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:46:11 -0800
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <20121115152518.R14740@mail.inlandnet.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<E0016FFA-BBDF-4777-A0F9-0B532C9FB6D8@corp.arin.net>
	<alpine.LNX.2.01.1211121255080.9268@filesrv1.baby-dragons.com>
	<A6082ABB-7DF7-4DCE-A425-110389062523@corp.arin.net>
	<252A833F-2773-4B91-A768-88896789F47B@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C3219@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<D1B7A523-9ACE-4789-AAD4-56DDCAC4B8E6@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbX1dA_rZBYzJAx-U++nfWvQsnFVC8gD3vr8P0B3YPkUKg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F3D5F3D9-0140-406C-9CC6-D5E55C17D56E@corp.arin.net>
	<D74BE3D4-59A2-47D0-A3CA-7610C6DFF490@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C5B6B@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<3E9A73B1-5CB9-46A6-8E8D-18CD4D1F52BB@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbVfxh6V4Bx-cpQGNHktMDPAtAvPC82Otahe=jCkSgy2NQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<E794579D-4F0C-4614-8987-7DA9A674E708@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGUzKUf7+WN7UCSmLgGzVPmeEowQUqRo+6p10p6q=RDuHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<6467FCAA-12DE-4A58-A32E-3EBE6EFF43C5@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGWBqk21Nt9F2wwsOySzCva3GgRiZNcwtOTOwbTYnfiE0w@mail.gmail.com>
	<20121115152518.R14740@mail.inlandn! et.com>
Message-ID: <4BE8522B-2670-4B0A-B447-F08535A51286@delong.com>

Then as part of the restructure, let's let those that were suckered into signing
LRSAs thinking:

	A) Fees wouldn't be rapidly increased on us and probably wouldn't be
		increased other than incremental cost adjustments.
	B) It didn't make much difference since it was part of the $100 we were
		going to be paying for our non-legacy resources anyway.

For whom this proposal is a complete and abrupt turning of the tables
opt out of either the fee increase or the LRSA (without de-registration)
and go back to not having a contract and continuing to enjoy the free
ride.

Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, the current state of the current proposal
is ARIN picking a fight with the legacy holders that fell for the LRSA.

Owen

On Nov 15, 2012, at 15:35 , John Springer <springer at inlandnet.com> wrote:

> Hi Bill,
> 
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012, William Herrin wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 15, 2012, at 13:12 , William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>> 
>>>> 2. Don't refuse to interact with a registrant on matters unrelated to
>>>> the legacy registration. Tell a legacy registrant he can't have IPv6
>>>> addresses unless he first signs over his IPv4 addresses and you make
>>>> that registrant's choice an easy one: no IPv6 this year.
>>> 
>>> Agreed, but, I would say do not issue additional ASN or IPv4 resources
>>> without first resolving the fee and contract issue on the existing resources.
>> 
>> Unless there's a much better reason than "waah, those guys are still
>> getting the free ride we promised them 15 years ago," I'd say: let
>> sleeping giants lie. ARIN has important fights to win for us, against
>> governments who want to do asinine things with Internet management.
>> Why pick an extra fight with the legacy registrants?
> 
> Amen! Let's not.
> 
> John Springer



From farmer at umn.edu  Thu Nov 15 19:56:00 2012
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:56:00 -0600
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <20121115152518.R14740@mail.inlandnet.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<E0016FFA-BBDF-4777-A0F9-0B532C9FB6D8@corp.arin.net>
	<alpine.LNX.2.01.1211121255080.9268@filesrv1.baby-dragons.com>
	<A6082ABB-7DF7-4DCE-A425-110389062523@corp.arin.net>
	<252A833F-2773-4B91-A768-88896789F47B@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C3219@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<D1B7A523-9ACE-4789-AAD4-56DDCAC4B8E6@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbX1dA_rZBYzJAx-U++nfWvQsnFVC8gD3vr8P0B3YPkUKg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F3D5F3D9-0140-406C-9CC6-D5E55C17D56E@corp.arin.net>
	<D74BE3D4-59A2-47D0-A3CA-7610C6DFF490@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C5B6B@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<3E9A73B1-5CB9-46A6-8E8D-18CD4D1F52BB@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbVfxh6V4Bx-cpQGNHktMDPAtAvPC82Otahe=jCkSgy2NQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<E794579D-4F0C-4614-8987-7DA9A674E708@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGUzKUf7+WN7UCSmLgGzVPmeEowQUqRo+6p10p6q=RDuHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<6467FCAA-12DE-4A58-A32E-3EBE6EFF43C5@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGWBqk21Nt9F2wwsOySzCva3GgRiZNcwtOTOwbTYnfiE0w@mail.gmail.com>
	<20121115152518.R14740@mail.inlandne t.com>
Message-ID: <50A58F20.6090809@umn.edu>

On 11/15/12 17:35 , John Springer wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012, William Herrin wrote:
...
>> Unless there's a much better reason than "waah, those guys are still
>> getting the free ride we promised them 15 years ago," I'd say: let
>> sleeping giants lie. ARIN has important fights to win for us, against
>> governments who want to do asinine things with Internet management.
>> Why pick an extra fight with the legacy registrants?
>
> Amen! Let's not.
>
> John Springer

I'm reluctant to do anything that could even be perceived as a barrier 
for IPv6 adoption.  But, ARIN should be proactive and explicitly offer 
the LRSA when an organization with legacy resources that is applying for 
their IPv6 block.  In this case, they are likely using the fact that 
they have legacy IPv4 as justification for their IPv6 block.  They are 
going to have to sign an RSA for their IPv6 anyway, and the LRSA is 
virtually identical.  It could even be a two for one with their lawyers, 
its really that close.

I think ARIN needs be very proactive on this issue in general, maybe 
even to the point of being a little pushy.  Bringing up the LRSA anytime 
they have business interactions with organizations that have legacy 
resources, especially any business that requires an updated RSA be 
signed anyway.  Maybe even offer to wave the first years maintenance fee 
for legacy resources when they sign a LRSA and are conducting other 
business with ARIN at the same time.

I don't support a requirement to sign the LRSA, at least at this time, 
maybe someday.  However, I see nothing wrong with some strong up selling 
by ARIN, "Would You Like Fries with That". :)

-- 
================================================
David Farmer               Email: farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================


From bill at herrin.us  Thu Nov 15 20:32:14 2012
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 20:32:14 -0500
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <4BE8522B-2670-4B0A-B447-F08535A51286@delong.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<E0016FFA-BBDF-4777-A0F9-0B532C9FB6D8@corp.arin.net>
	<alpine.LNX.2.01.1211121255080.9268@filesrv1.baby-dragons.com>
	<A6082ABB-7DF7-4DCE-A425-110389062523@corp.arin.net>
	<252A833F-2773-4B91-A768-88896789F47B@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C3219@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<D1B7A523-9ACE-4789-AAD4-56DDCAC4B8E6@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbX1dA_rZBYzJAx-U++nfWvQsnFVC8gD3vr8P0B3YPkUKg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F3D5F3D9-0140-406C-9CC6-D5E55C17D56E@corp.arin.net>
	<D74BE3D4-59A2-47D0-A3CA-7610C6DFF490@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C5B6B@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<3E9A73B1-5CB9-46A6-8E8D-18CD4D1F52BB@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbVfxh6V4Bx-cpQGNHktMDPAtAvPC82Otahe=jCkSgy2NQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<E794579D-4F0C-4614-8987-7DA9A674E708@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGUzKUf7+WN7UCSmLgGzVPmeEowQUqRo+6p10p6q=RDuHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<6467FCAA-12DE-4A58-A32E-3EBE6EFF43C5@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGWBqk21Nt9F2wwsOySzCva3GgRiZNcwtOTOwbTYnfiE0w@mail.gmail.com>
	<20121115152518.R14740@mail.inlandnet.com>
	<4BE8522B-2670-4B0A-B447-F08535A51286@delong.com>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGU=G22nYNiWrnz8jBUKyjA9w-S--4J4CoUyD+OMRSFgfA@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, the current state of the current proposal
> is ARIN picking a fight with the legacy holders that fell for the LRSA.

Hi Owen,

What fight? A regular RSA signatory can walk in to court, validly
claim contract of adhesion and then make the pitch that some portion
of the contract should be voided for unconscionability with adhesion
weighting the claim in his favor. An LRSA signatory doesn't even have
that: it isn't a contract of adhesion when nothing is denied him for
electing not to sign it.

If you sign the LRSA and come to dislike how ARIN's policies evolve,
you have no meaningful recourse. No fight to be fought.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From jcurran at arin.net  Fri Nov 16 07:14:35 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 12:14:35 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGU=G22nYNiWrnz8jBUKyjA9w-S--4J4CoUyD+OMRSFgfA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<E0016FFA-BBDF-4777-A0F9-0B532C9FB6D8@corp.arin.net>
	<alpine.LNX.2.01.1211121255080.9268@filesrv1.baby-dragons.com>
	<A6082ABB-7DF7-4DCE-A425-110389062523@corp.arin.net>
	<252A833F-2773-4B91-A768-88896789F47B@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C3219@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<D1B7A523-9ACE-4789-AAD4-56DDCAC4B8E6@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbX1dA_rZBYzJAx-U++nfWvQsnFVC8gD3vr8P0B3YPkUKg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F3D5F3D9-0140-406C-9CC6-D5E55C17D56E@corp.arin.net>
	<D74BE3D4-59A2-47D0-A3CA-7610C6DFF490@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C5B6B@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<3E9A73B1-5CB9-46A6-8E8D-18CD4D1F52BB@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbVfxh6V4Bx-cpQGNHktMDPAtAvPC82Otahe=jCkSgy2NQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<E794579D-4F0C-4614-8987-7DA9A674E708@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGUzKUf7+WN7UCSmLgGzVPmeEowQUqRo+6p10p6q=RDuHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<6467FCAA-12DE-4A58-A32E-3EBE6EFF43C5@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGWBqk21Nt9F2wwsOySzCva3GgRiZNcwtOTOwbTYnfiE0w@mail.gmail.com>
	<20121115152518.R14740@mail.inlandnet.com>
	<4BE8522B-2670-4B0A-B447-F08535A51286@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGU=G22nYNiWrnz8jBUKyjA9w-S--4J4CoUyD+OMRSFgfA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <474DA42D-5F9D-43FA-9FEA-39F52B392665@corp.arin.net>

On Nov 15, 2012, at 8:32 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

> If you sign the LRSA and come to dislike how ARIN's policies evolve,
> you have no meaningful recourse. 

You also have participating in the policy development process to explain
your views on these policy matters to others, and participating in the 
ARIN governance process through the election of the ARIN Advisory Council
and ARIN Board of Trustees.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN





From msalim at localweb.com  Fri Nov 16 09:18:31 2012
From: msalim at localweb.com (Mike A. Salim)
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 09:18:31 -0500
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<A9BFC83C1CDECA4DB4E13D7CC86C47A51BDC395C@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
Message-ID: <F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801F3F042@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>

Greetings:

1) We have an IPv4 /20 and an IPv6 /32.  According to the new fee schedule, we will be X-small for IPv4 ($1000) but Small for IPv6 ($2000).  Since the /32 was assigned to us by ARIN when this was the smallest allocation that ARIN was allocating, we hope we will be considered X-Small for both IPv4 and IPv6

2) In addition to the IPv4 /20 and IPv6 /We also have one AS number.  What will our total fee be under this new proposed schedule?  It is not clear to me.  Will we have to pay $500 for the AS#, $1000 for IPv4, and $2000 for IPv6 (or $1000 for IPv6 assuming our IPv6 /32 is grandfathered as X-Small for IPv6)?  Or is there a different package fee for orgs who have this combination of allocations?

Best regards
Mike

A. Michael Salim
VP and Chief Technology Officer,
American Data Technology, Inc.
PO Box 12892
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
P: (919)544-4101 x101
F: (919)544-5345
E: msalim at localweb.com
W: http://www.localweb.com

PRIVACY NOTIFICATION:  This e-mail message, including any attachments, is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). It may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. Unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

??Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. 

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-announce-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-announce-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of ARIN
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 4:18 PM
To: arin-announce at arin.net
Subject: [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation

We are consulting with the community regarding changes to the ARIN Fee Schedule that are scheduled for implementation in January of 2013. The changes to the fee schedule including an alignment of the IPv4 and IPv6 fee schedules for ISPs into single set of registration services plans based on total resources held, introduction of with per address block and per ASN maintenance fees for end-users, and addition of very low cost category (e.g. XX-Small) for the smallest organizations.

Please view the proposed fee schedule at:

https://www.arin.net/fees/proposed_fee_schedule.html

In addition, a presentation was given on this proposed fee schedule today, and the slides are available at:

PDF:
https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXX/PDF/thursday/cur
ran_fee_schedule.pdf

PPTX:
https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXX/PPT/thursday/cur
ran_fee_schedule.pptx

Please provide comments to arin-consult at arin.net. You can subscribe to this mailing list at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult.

Discussion on arin-consult at arin.net will close on 26 November 2012 (30 days). ARIN seeks feedback through community input, so your comments are important. If you have any questions, please contact us at info at arin.net.

Regards,

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)




_______________________________________________
ARIN-Announce
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Announce Mailing List (ARIN-announce at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-announce
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

From jer at mia.net  Fri Nov 16 09:23:52 2012
From: jer at mia.net (Jeremy Anthony Kinsey)
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 08:23:52 -0600
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801F3F042@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<A9BFC83C1CDECA4DB4E13D7CC86C47A51BDC395C@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801F3F042@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
Message-ID: <AC417EA6-4417-4460-800E-965D0EAAB327@mia.net>

I sent a similar question privately to billing, never received a response.
Hopefully you have better luck.


On Nov 16, 2012, at 8:18 AM, Mike A. Salim wrote:

> Greetings:
> 
> 1) We have an IPv4 /20 and an IPv6 /32.  According to the new fee schedule, we will be X-small for IPv4 ($1000) but Small for IPv6 ($2000).  Since the /32 was assigned to us by ARIN when this was the smallest allocation that ARIN was allocating, we hope we will be considered X-Small for both IPv4 and IPv6
> 
> 2) In addition to the IPv4 /20 and IPv6 /We also have one AS number.  What will our total fee be under this new proposed schedule?  It is not clear to me.  Will we have to pay $500 for the AS#, $1000 for IPv4, and $2000 for IPv6 (or $1000 for IPv6 assuming our IPv6 /32 is grandfathered as X-Small for IPv6)?  Or is there a different package fee for orgs who have this combination of allocations?
> 
> Best regards
> Mike
> 
> A. Michael Salim
> VP and Chief Technology Officer,
> American Data Technology, Inc.
> PO Box 12892
> Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
> P: (919)544-4101 x101
> F: (919)544-5345
> E: msalim at localweb.com
> W: http://www.localweb.com
> 
> PRIVACY NOTIFICATION:  This e-mail message, including any attachments, is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). It may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. Unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
> 
> ??Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-announce-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-announce-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of ARIN
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 4:18 PM
> To: arin-announce at arin.net
> Subject: [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
> 
> We are consulting with the community regarding changes to the ARIN Fee Schedule that are scheduled for implementation in January of 2013. The changes to the fee schedule including an alignment of the IPv4 and IPv6 fee schedules for ISPs into single set of registration services plans based on total resources held, introduction of with per address block and per ASN maintenance fees for end-users, and addition of very low cost category (e.g. XX-Small) for the smallest organizations.
> 
> Please view the proposed fee schedule at:
> 
> https://www.arin.net/fees/proposed_fee_schedule.html
> 
> In addition, a presentation was given on this proposed fee schedule today, and the slides are available at:
> 
> PDF:
> https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXX/PDF/thursday/cur
> ran_fee_schedule.pdf
> 
> PPTX:
> https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXX/PPT/thursday/cur
> ran_fee_schedule.pptx
> 
> Please provide comments to arin-consult at arin.net. You can subscribe to this mailing list at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult.
> 
> Discussion on arin-consult at arin.net will close on 26 November 2012 (30 days). ARIN seeks feedback through community input, so your comments are important. If you have any questions, please contact us at info at arin.net.




From owen at delong.com  Fri Nov 16 10:20:03 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 07:20:03 -0800
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGU=G22nYNiWrnz8jBUKyjA9w-S--4J4CoUyD+OMRSFgfA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<E0016FFA-BBDF-4777-A0F9-0B532C9FB6D8@corp.arin.net>
	<alpine.LNX.2.01.1211121255080.9268@filesrv1.baby-dragons.com>
	<A6082ABB-7DF7-4DCE-A425-110389062523@corp.arin.net>
	<252A833F-2773-4B91-A768-88896789F47B@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C3219@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<D1B7A523-9ACE-4789-AAD4-56DDCAC4B8E6@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbX1dA_rZBYzJAx-U++nfWvQsnFVC8gD3vr8P0B3YPkUKg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F3D5F3D9-0140-406C-9CC6-D5E55C17D56E@corp.arin.net>
	<D74BE3D4-59A2-47D0-A3CA-7610C6DFF490@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C5B6B@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<3E9A73B1-5CB9-46A6-8E8D-18CD4D1F52BB@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbVfxh6V4Bx-cpQGNHktMDPAtAvPC82Otahe=jCkSgy2NQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<E794579D-4F0C-4614-8987-7DA9A674E708@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGUzKUf7+WN7UCSmLgGzVPmeEowQUqRo+6p10p6q=RDuHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<6467FCAA-12DE-4A58-A32E-3EBE6EFF43C5@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGWBqk21Nt9F2wwsOySzCva3GgRiZNcwtOTOwbTYnfiE0w@mail.gmail.com>
	<20121115152518.R14740@mail.inlandn!
	et.com> <4BE8522B-2670-4B0A-B447-F08535A51286@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGU=G22nYNiWrnz8jBUKyjA9w-S--4J4CoUyD+OMRSFgfA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C2F4549B-06F8-4D4D-9438-548E5B07D4BF@delong.com>


On Nov 15, 2012, at 17:32 , William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, the current state of the current proposal
>> is ARIN picking a fight with the legacy holders that fell for the LRSA.
> 
> Hi Owen,
> 
> What fight? A regular RSA signatory can walk in to court, validly
> claim contract of adhesion and then make the pitch that some portion
> of the contract should be voided for unconscionability with adhesion
> weighting the claim in his favor. An LRSA signatory doesn't even have
> that: it isn't a contract of adhesion when nothing is denied him for
> electing not to sign it.
> 
> If you sign the LRSA and come to dislike how ARIN's policies evolve,
> you have no meaningful recourse. No fight to be fought.
> 

I have no problem with the policies.

The proposed fee increases, OTOH...

Owen



From owen at delong.com  Fri Nov 16 10:25:36 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 07:25:36 -0800
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <4BE8522B-2670-4B0A-B447-F08535A51286@delong.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<E0016FFA-BBDF-4777-A0F9-0B532C9FB6D8@corp.arin.net>
	<alpine.LNX.2.01.1211121255080.9268@filesrv1.baby-dragons.com>
	<A6082ABB-7DF7-4DCE-A425-110389062523@corp.arin.net>
	<252A833F-2773-4B91-A768-88896789F47B@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C3219@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<D1B7A523-9ACE-4789-AAD4-56DDCAC4B8E6@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbX1dA_rZBYzJAx-U++nfWvQsnFVC8gD3vr8P0B3YPkUKg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F3D5F3D9-0140-406C-9CC6-D5E55C17D56E@corp.arin.net>
	<D74BE3D4-59A2-47D0-A3CA-7610C6DFF490@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C5B6B@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<3E9A73B1-5CB9-46A6-8E8D-18CD4D1F52BB@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbVfxh6V4Bx-cpQGNHktMDPAtAvPC82Otahe=jCkSgy2NQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<E794579D-4F0C-4614-8987-7DA9A674E708@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGUzKUf7+WN7UCSmLgGzVPmeEowQUqRo+6p10p6q=RDuHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<6467FCAA-12DE-4A58-A32E-3EBE6EFF43C5@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGWBqk21Nt9F2wwsOySzCva3GgRiZNcwtOTOwbTYnfiE0w@mail.gmail.com>
	<20121115152518.R14740@mail.inlandn!
	! et.com> <4BE8522B-2670-4B0A-B447-F08535A51286@delong.com>
Message-ID: <03A38A86-FBFD-4B24-A4B9-F25E18C1177B@delong.com>

It has been brought to my attention that I should make something clear here...

My thoughts on this subject are my own. They do not represent ARIN or the ARIN AC.

The fact that I am a member of the AC does not in any way affect or influence my
statements and nothing I have said is in any way intended to represent the thoughts,
beliefs or opinions of anyone other than myself personally as an individual.

Owen

On Nov 15, 2012, at 16:46 , Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

> Then as part of the restructure, let's let those that were suckered into signing
> LRSAs thinking:
> 
> 	A) Fees wouldn't be rapidly increased on us and probably wouldn't be
> 		increased other than incremental cost adjustments.
> 	B) It didn't make much difference since it was part of the $100 we were
> 		going to be paying for our non-legacy resources anyway.
> 
> For whom this proposal is a complete and abrupt turning of the tables
> opt out of either the fee increase or the LRSA (without de-registration)
> and go back to not having a contract and continuing to enjoy the free
> ride.
> 
> Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, the current state of the current proposal
> is ARIN picking a fight with the legacy holders that fell for the LRSA.
> 
> Owen
> 
> On Nov 15, 2012, at 15:35 , John Springer <springer at inlandnet.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Bill,
>> 
>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012, William Herrin wrote:
>> 
>>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 15, 2012, at 13:12 , William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> 2. Don't refuse to interact with a registrant on matters unrelated to
>>>>> the legacy registration. Tell a legacy registrant he can't have IPv6
>>>>> addresses unless he first signs over his IPv4 addresses and you make
>>>>> that registrant's choice an easy one: no IPv6 this year.
>>>> 
>>>> Agreed, but, I would say do not issue additional ASN or IPv4 resources
>>>> without first resolving the fee and contract issue on the existing resources.
>>> 
>>> Unless there's a much better reason than "waah, those guys are still
>>> getting the free ride we promised them 15 years ago," I'd say: let
>>> sleeping giants lie. ARIN has important fights to win for us, against
>>> governments who want to do asinine things with Internet management.
>>> Why pick an extra fight with the legacy registrants?
>> 
>> Amen! Let's not.
>> 
>> John Springer
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Consult
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing
> List (ARIN-consult at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services
> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.



From owen at delong.com  Fri Nov 16 10:27:08 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 07:27:08 -0800
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <474DA42D-5F9D-43FA-9FEA-39F52B392665@corp.arin.net>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<E0016FFA-BBDF-4777-A0F9-0B532C9FB6D8@corp.arin.net>
	<alpine.LNX.2.01.1211121255080.9268@filesrv1.baby-dragons.com>
	<A6082ABB-7DF7-4DCE-A425-110389062523@corp.arin.net>
	<252A833F-2773-4B91-A768-88896789F47B@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C3219@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<D1B7A523-9ACE-4789-AAD4-56DDCAC4B8E6@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbX1dA_rZBYzJAx-U++nfWvQsnFVC8gD3vr8P0B3YPkUKg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F3D5F3D9-0140-406C-9CC6-D5E55C17D56E@corp.arin.net>
	<D74BE3D4-59A2-47D0-A3CA-7610C6DFF490@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C5B6B@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<3E9A73B1-5CB9-46A6-8E8D-18CD4D1F52BB@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbVfxh6V4Bx-cpQGNHktMDPAtAvPC82Otahe=jCkSgy2NQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<E794579D-4F0C-4614-8987-7DA9A674E708@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGUzKUf7+WN7UCSmLgGzVPmeEowQUqRo+6p10p6q=RDuHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<6467FCAA-12DE-4A58-A32E-3EBE6EFF43C5@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGWBqk21Nt9F2wwsOySzCva3GgRiZNcwtOTOwbTYnfiE0w@mail.gmail.com>
	<20121115152518.R14740@mail.inlandn!
	et.com> <4BE8522B-2670-4B0A-B447-F08535A51286@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGU=G22nYNiWrnz8jBUKyjA9w-S--4J4CoUyD+OMRSFgfA@mail.gmail.com>
	<474DA42D-5F9D-43FA-9FEA-39F52B392665@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <1589B845-B1C0-4A51-BA52-A3817C1B630A@delong.com>

The policy development process does not have any input into or affect on fees.

The electoral process is available only to subscriber members. It is not available
to end-user resource holders unless they pay an additional $500/year for membership.

Owen

On Nov 16, 2012, at 04:14 , John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

> On Nov 15, 2012, at 8:32 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> 
>> If you sign the LRSA and come to dislike how ARIN's policies evolve,
>> you have no meaningful recourse. 
> 
> You also have participating in the policy development process to explain
> your views on these policy matters to others, and participating in the 
> ARIN governance process through the election of the ARIN Advisory Council
> and ARIN Board of Trustees.
> 
> FYI,
> /John
> 
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Consult
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing
> List (ARIN-consult at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services
> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.



From jcurran at arin.net  Fri Nov 16 10:54:49 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 15:54:49 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <C2F4549B-06F8-4D4D-9438-548E5B07D4BF@delong.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<E0016FFA-BBDF-4777-A0F9-0B532C9FB6D8@corp.arin.net>
	<alpine.LNX.2.01.1211121255080.9268@filesrv1.baby-dragons.com>
	<A6082ABB-7DF7-4DCE-A425-110389062523@corp.arin.net>
	<252A833F-2773-4B91-A768-88896789F47B@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C3219@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<D1B7A523-9ACE-4789-AAD4-56DDCAC4B8E6@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbX1dA_rZBYzJAx-U++nfWvQsnFVC8gD3vr8P0B3YPkUKg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F3D5F3D9-0140-406C-9CC6-D5E55C17D56E@corp.arin.net>
	<D74BE3D4-59A2-47D0-A3CA-7610C6DFF490@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C5B6B@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<3E9A73B1-5CB9-46A6-8E8D-18CD4D1F52BB@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbVfxh6V4Bx-cpQGNHktMDPAtAvPC82Otahe=jCkSgy2NQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<E794579D-4F0C-4614-8987-7DA9A674E708@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGUzKUf7+WN7UCSmLgGzVPmeEowQUqRo+6p10p6q=RDuHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<6467FCAA-12DE-4A58-A32E-3EBE6EFF43C5@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGWBqk21Nt9F2wwsOySzCva3GgRiZNcwtOTOwbTYnfiE0w@mail.gmail.com>
	<20121115152518.R14740@mail.inlandn! et.com>
	<4BE8522B-2670-4B0A-B447-F08535A51286@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGU=G22nYNiWrnz8jBUKyjA9w-S--4J4CoUyD+OMRSFgfA@mail.gmail.com>
	<C2F4549B-06F8-4D4D-9438-548E5B07D4BF@delong.com>
Message-ID: <3ECED6E9-E351-482B-82B2-10EDDDB5D4D8@corp.arin.net>

On Nov 16, 2012, at 10:20 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
 wrote:

> I have no problem with the policies.
> 
> The proposed fee increases, OTOH...

Owen - 
 
 As I understand it, you do not support changing from a single 
 $100 end-user maintenance fee for unlimited number of resources 
 to having a $100 maintenance fee per resource, is that correct?

 If the proposed fees were modified (as has also been discussed)
 such that the first $100 maintenance fee covered 1 IPv4 prefix,
 1 IPv6 prefix, and 1 AS number, would you then be in support?

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



From bill at herrin.us  Fri Nov 16 11:08:42 2012
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:08:42 -0500
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <C2F4549B-06F8-4D4D-9438-548E5B07D4BF@delong.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<E0016FFA-BBDF-4777-A0F9-0B532C9FB6D8@corp.arin.net>
	<alpine.LNX.2.01.1211121255080.9268@filesrv1.baby-dragons.com>
	<A6082ABB-7DF7-4DCE-A425-110389062523@corp.arin.net>
	<252A833F-2773-4B91-A768-88896789F47B@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C3219@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<D1B7A523-9ACE-4789-AAD4-56DDCAC4B8E6@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbX1dA_rZBYzJAx-U++nfWvQsnFVC8gD3vr8P0B3YPkUKg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F3D5F3D9-0140-406C-9CC6-D5E55C17D56E@corp.arin.net>
	<D74BE3D4-59A2-47D0-A3CA-7610C6DFF490@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C5B6B@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<3E9A73B1-5CB9-46A6-8E8D-18CD4D1F52BB@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbVfxh6V4Bx-cpQGNHktMDPAtAvPC82Otahe=jCkSgy2NQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<E794579D-4F0C-4614-8987-7DA9A674E708@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGUzKUf7+WN7UCSmLgGzVPmeEowQUqRo+6p10p6q=RDuHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<6467FCAA-12DE-4A58-A32E-3EBE6EFF43C5@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGWBqk21Nt9F2wwsOySzCva3GgRiZNcwtOTOwbTYnfiE0w@mail.gmail.com>
	<4BE8522B-2670-4B0A-B447-F08535A51286@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGU=G22nYNiWrnz8jBUKyjA9w-S--4J4CoUyD+OMRSFgfA@mail.gmail.com>
	<C2F4549B-06F8-4D4D-9438-548E5B07D4BF@delong.com>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGU620iD0SUTPr74Cn8BKXkn9AoTg0Ks1HUZf=ZR=nAbUQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> On Nov 15, 2012, at 17:32 , William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>> Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, the current state of the current proposal
>>> is ARIN picking a fight with the legacy holders that fell for the LRSA.
>>
>> What fight?
>> If you sign the LRSA and come to dislike how ARIN's policies evolve,
>> you have no meaningful recourse. No fight to be fought.
>
> I have no problem with the policies.
>
> The proposed fee increases, OTOH...

...are also directed by Board-approved policy. Just not the "Internet
number" policies discussed on the PPML.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From owen at delong.com  Fri Nov 16 11:10:42 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 08:10:42 -0800
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <3ECED6E9-E351-482B-82B2-10EDDDB5D4D8@corp.arin.net>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<E0016FFA-BBDF-4777-A0F9-0B532C9FB6D8@corp.arin.net>
	<alpine.LNX.2.01.1211121255080.9268@filesrv1.baby-dragons.com>
	<A6082ABB-7DF7-4DCE-A425-110389062523@corp.arin.net>
	<252A833F-2773-4B91-A768-88896789F47B@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C3219@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<D1B7A523-9ACE-4789-AAD4-56DDCAC4B8E6@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbX1dA_rZBYzJAx-U++nfWvQsnFVC8gD3vr8P0B3YPkUKg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F3D5F3D9-0140-406C-9CC6-D5E55C17D56E@corp.arin.net>
	<D74BE3D4-59A2-47D0-A3CA-7610C6DFF490@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C5B6B@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<3E9A73B1-5CB9-46A6-8E8D-18CD4D1F52BB@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbVfxh6V4Bx-cpQGNHktMDPAtAvPC82Otahe=jCkSgy2NQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<E794579D-4F0C-4614-8987-7DA9A674E708@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGUzKUf7+WN7UCSmLgGzVPmeEowQUqRo+6p10p6q=RDuHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<6467FCAA-12DE-4A58-A32E-3EBE6EFF43C5@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGWBqk21Nt9F2wwsOySzCva3GgRiZNcwtOTOwbTYnfiE0w@mail.gmail.com>
	<20121115152518.R14740@mail.inlandn!
	! et.com> <4BE8522B-2670-4B0A-B447-F08535A51286@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGU=G22nYNiWrnz8jBUKyjA9w-S--4J4CoUyD+OMRSFgfA@mail.gmail.com>
	<C2F4549B-06F8-4D4D-9438-548E5B07D4BF@delong.com>
	<3ECED6E9-E351-482B-82B2-10EDDDB5D4D8@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <4A4F9B57-A3AA-47AB-8EA3-B86CC5377433@delong.com>

That would be more palatable, but, I would like to see us consider doing more to get a greater portion of end-users that are currently not paying fees at all contributing to the fee pool prior to giving a 100% or more fee increase to anyone.

The proposed modification below would still be a 100% increase in fees for me and even more for many other organizations that have multiple IPv4 records as a result of slow start and other policies which prevented them from getting the space they needed in a single transaction.

Originally, I didn't consider that a major issue because I was told by the RSHD representative in Dallas that I would be able to do an amnesty request under LRSA and have the replacement space covered by that same LRSA. However, when I attempted to actually do so, my request was approved on the condition of signing a current RSA and not the LRSA. Since the current RSA would remove any protections present in my LRSA against future fee increases, that's somewhat untenable.

So, if amnesty requests can be performed such that the replacement single record can be maintained under the same RSA or LRSA as the original space, then I have no objection to the proposed fees modified as you describe below. However, without that possibility, I believe that the proposed fee restructuring is still disproportionately detrimental to LRSA signatories and violates the spirit of what I was told by ARIN prior to signing the LRSA.

Owen

On Nov 16, 2012, at 07:54 , John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

> On Nov 16, 2012, at 10:20 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> I have no problem with the policies.
>> 
>> The proposed fee increases, OTOH...
> 
> Owen - 
> 
> As I understand it, you do not support changing from a single 
> $100 end-user maintenance fee for unlimited number of resources 
> to having a $100 maintenance fee per resource, is that correct?
> 
> If the proposed fees were modified (as has also been discussed)
> such that the first $100 maintenance fee covered 1 IPv4 prefix,
> 1 IPv6 prefix, and 1 AS number, would you then be in support?
> 
> Thanks,
> /John
> 
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN



From jer at mia.net  Fri Nov 16 13:50:24 2012
From: jer at mia.net (Jeremy Anthony Kinsey)
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 12:50:24 -0600
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <C2F4549B-06F8-4D4D-9438-548E5B07D4BF@delong.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<E0016FFA-BBDF-4777-A0F9-0B532C9FB6D8@corp.arin.net>
	<alpine.LNX.2.01.1211121255080.9268@filesrv1.baby-dragons.com>
	<A6082ABB-7DF7-4DCE-A425-110389062523@corp.arin.net>
	<252A833F-2773-4B91-A768-88896789F47B@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C3219@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<D1B7A523-9ACE-4789-AAD4-56DDCAC4B8E6@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbX1dA_rZBYzJAx-U++nfWvQsnFVC8gD3vr8P0B3YPkUKg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F3D5F3D9-0140-406C-9CC6-D5E55C17D56E@corp.arin.net>
	<D74BE3D4-59A2-47D0-A3CA-7610C6DFF490@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C5B6B@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<3E9A73B1-5CB9-46A6-8E8D-18CD4D1F52BB@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbVfxh6V4Bx-cpQGNHktMDPAtAvPC82Otahe=jCkSgy2NQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<E794579D-4F0C-4614-8987-7DA9A674E708@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGUzKUf7+WN7UCSmLgGzVPmeEowQUqRo+6p10p6q=RDuHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<6467FCAA-12DE-4A58-A32E-3EBE6EFF43C5@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGWBqk21Nt9F2wwsOySzCva3GgRiZNcwtOTOwbTYnfiE0w@mail.gmail.com>
	<20121115152518.R14740@mail.inlandn!
	et.com> <4BE8522B-2670-4B0A-B447-F08535A51286@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGU=G22nYNiWrnz8jBUKyjA9w-S--4J4CoUyD+OMRSFgfA@mail.gmail.com>
	<C2F4549B-06F8-4D4D-9438-548E5B07D4BF@delong.com>
Message-ID: <23E5B0D3-3164-4846-9690-DD3F37AC6AA8@mia.net>


On Nov 16, 2012, at 9:20 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

> 
> On Nov 15, 2012, at 17:32 , William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>> Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, the current state of the current proposal
>>> is ARIN picking a fight with the legacy holders that fell for the LRSA.
>> 
>> Hi Owen,
>> 
>> What fight? A regular RSA signatory can walk in to court, validly
>> claim contract of adhesion and then make the pitch that some portion
>> of the contract should be voided for unconscionability with adhesion
>> weighting the claim in his favor. An LRSA signatory doesn't even have
>> that: it isn't a contract of adhesion when nothing is denied him for
>> electing not to sign it.
>> 
>> If you sign the LRSA and come to dislike how ARIN's policies evolve,
>> you have no meaningful recourse. No fight to be fought.
>> 
> 
> I have no problem with the policies.
> 
> The proposed fee increases, OTOH...
> 
Owen, just out of curiosity, are you going to see an increase?





From jer at mia.net  Fri Nov 16 13:58:41 2012
From: jer at mia.net (Jeremy Anthony Kinsey)
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 12:58:41 -0600
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <4A4F9B57-A3AA-47AB-8EA3-B86CC5377433@delong.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<E0016FFA-BBDF-4777-A0F9-0B532C9FB6D8@corp.arin.net>
	<alpine.LNX.2.01.1211121255080.9268@filesrv1.baby-dragons.com>
	<A6082ABB-7DF7-4DCE-A425-110389062523@corp.arin.net>
	<252A833F-2773-4B91-A768-88896789F47B@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C3219@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<D1B7A523-9ACE-4789-AAD4-56DDCAC4B8E6@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbX1dA_rZBYzJAx-U++nfWvQsnFVC8gD3vr8P0B3YPkUKg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F3D5F3D9-0140-406C-9CC6-D5E55C17D56E@corp.arin.net>
	<D74BE3D4-59A2-47D0-A3CA-7610C6DFF490@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C5B6B@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<3E9A73B1-5CB9-46A6-8E8D-18CD4D1F52BB@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbVfxh6V4Bx-cpQGNHktMDPAtAvPC82Otahe=jCkSgy2NQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<E794579D-4F0C-4614-8987-7DA9A674E708@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGUzKUf7+WN7UCSmLgGzVPmeEowQUqRo+6p10p6q=RDuHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<6467FCAA-12DE-4A58-A32E-3EBE6EFF43C5@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGWBqk21Nt9F2wwsOySzCva3GgRiZNcwtOTOwbTYnfiE0w@mail.gmail.com>
	<20121115152518.R14740@mail.inlandn!
	! et.com> <4BE8522B-2670-4B0A-B447-F08535A51286@delong.com>
	<CAP-guGU=G22nYNiWrnz8jBUKyjA9w-S--4J4CoUyD+OMRSFgfA@mail.gmail.com>
	<C2F4549B-06F8-4D4D-9438-548E5B07D4BF@delong.com>
	<3ECED6E9-E351-482B-82B2-10EDDDB5D4D8@corp.arin.net>
	<4A4F9B57-A3AA-47AB-8EA3-B86CC5377433@delong.com>
Message-ID: <7FAA7BB3-A291-4E5F-A693-854CAF1FFBBB@mia.net>


On Nov 16, 2012, at 10:10 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

> That would be more palatable, but, I would like to see us consider doing more to get a greater portion of end-users that are currently not paying fees at all contributing to the fee pool prior to giving a 100% or more fee increase to anyone.

This I am in agreement with.

Look, I am all for paying what would be perceived as a fair and equitable share of the load.

But when I am right at the borderline threshold and see a doubling in my costs, but am receiving a full 1/3 less of the resources that someone else is paying the same amount, it just does not make good business sense to me.  

Further to that end it is utterly ridiculous to think that a legacy holder pays nothing for even more; boggles my mind.  I fail to see how asking for a legacy holder to share part of the load is anything but beneficial to all in the end.  
> 
> The proposed modification below would still be a 100% increase in fees for me and even more for many other organizations that have multiple IPv4 records as a result of slow start and other policies which prevented them from getting the space they needed in a single transaction.

Ditto.  If not for the extremely punitive and difficult entry barriers some years ago, we'd probably not be in this situation.  
> 
> Originally, I didn't consider that a major issue because I was told by the RSHD representative in Dallas that I would be able to do an amnesty request under LRSA and have the replacement space covered by that same LRSA. However, when I attempted to actually do so, my request was approved on the condition of signing a current RSA and not the LRSA. Since the current RSA would remove any protections present in my LRSA against future fee increases, that's somewhat untenable.
> 
> So, if amnesty requests can be performed such that the replacement single record can be maintained under the same RSA or LRSA as the original space, then I have no objection to the proposed fees modified as you describe below. However, without that possibility, I believe that the proposed fee restructuring is still disproportionately detrimental to LRSA signatories and violates the spirit of what I was told by ARIN prior to signing the LRSA.
> 

I would argue it is more detrimental to those that are borderline when it comes to the proposed limits.  I have no other vendor structuring their pricing such that some that consume a slight bit more of the same resources than others see an increase, while those that consume more see little or no change.  

I'd be biased if I did not say I am concerned that my costs are going to double.  But equally biased IMO are those that have NO PROBLEMs what so ever with the proposed fee structure will see NO change in their fees.





From jesse at la-broadband.com  Thu Nov 15 16:37:15 2012
From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis)
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 21:37:15 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGUzKUf7+WN7UCSmLgGzVPmeEowQUqRo+6p10p6q=RDuHw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A71A4@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<619DFCF3-DE52-451D-9553-4A9DEE330392@corp.arin.net>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62A7304@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<12497.1352159936@sandelman.ca>
	<E0016FFA-BBDF-4777-A0F9-0B532C9FB6D8@corp.arin.net>
	<alpine.LNX.2.01.1211121255080.9268@filesrv1.baby-dragons.com>
	<A6082ABB-7DF7-4DCE-A425-110389062523@corp.arin.net>
	<252A833F-2773-4B91-A768-88896789F47B@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C3219@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<D1B7A523-9ACE-4789-AAD4-56DDCAC4B8E6@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbX1dA_rZBYzJAx-U++nfWvQsnFVC8gD3vr8P0B3YPkUKg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F3D5F3D9-0140-406C-9CC6-D5E55C17D56E@corp.arin.net>
	<D74BE3D4-59A2-47D0-A3CA-7610C6DFF490@delong.com>
	<F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62C5B6B@EX02.drtel.lan>
	<3E9A73B1-5CB9-46A6-8E8D-18CD4D1F52BB@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbVfxh6V4Bx-cpQGNHktMDPAtAvPC82Otahe=jCkSgy2NQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<E794579D-4F0C-4614-8987-7DA9A674E708@delong.com>,
	<CAP-guGUzKUf7+WN7UCSmLgGzVPmeEowQUqRo+6p10p6q=RDuHw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <59F10F70-4457-4C9F-97C0-113E2E9400FF@la-broadband.com>

Of course, your #2 is quite humorous in light of the fact that this whole thread was started regarding how to leverage fees to *encourage* IPv6 adoption. Now you folks are talking about withholding it from some of the largest holders of IPv4 address space. Way to come full circle...

Jesse Geddis
LA Broadband LLC

On Nov 15, 2012, at 1:12 PM, "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> I actually like this. I support this proposal.
> 
> As do I with two caveats:
> 
> 1. Don't describe it as "unpaid fees," describe it as an "accrued
> transfer fee for registrations not held under a registration services
> agreement" or something similarly neutral. Negative words like
> "unpaid" imply a penalty and this isn't supposed to be a penalty for
> anyone.
> 
> 2. Don't refuse to interact with a registrant on matters unrelated to
> the legacy registration. Tell a legacy registrant he can't have IPv6
> addresses unless he first signs over his IPv4 addresses and you make
> that registrant's choice an easy one: no IPv6 this year.
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> 
> 
>> On Nov 14, 2012, at 20:14 , Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 11/14/12, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 14, 2012, at 07:52 , Brian Johnson <bjohnson at drtel.com> wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>> 1.   Discontinue services to legacy holders that don't start paying.
>>> 
>>> There is another possibility...   don't discontinue anything to
>>> non-LRSA signees, but retain the usage "tracking" data necessary to
>>> calculate a fee assessment amount for legacy holders who have not
>>> paid, according to the ordinary fee schedule,  all past unpaid fees
>>> since a certain date,  plus compound interest at prime rate plus 5%
>>> over that period.    Require payment of the tracked amount, and signed
>>> RSA, before any resources can be transferred in or out,  or new
>>> resources can be  requested.
>>> 
>>> In this manner,  legacy holders  are still assessed the fees.
>>> If they fail or refuse to pay, they are not denied   "legacy services".
>>> 
>>> There are no consequences until they need to transfer resources in or out,
>>> or obtain new resources from ARIN  (e.g. IPv6 resources or additional AS number)
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 2.   Treat LRSA Signatories as a group that isn't subjected to the new fees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Consult
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing
> List (ARIN-consult at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services
> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.


From mysidia at gmail.com  Sat Nov 17 12:46:25 2012
From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess)
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 11:46:25 -0600
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801F3F042@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<A9BFC83C1CDECA4DB4E13D7CC86C47A51BDC395C@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801F3F042@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAAwwbU900kMe+FoDOJfh+NJSmKhSM6gRbaTz7upObwZbbH36w@mail.gmail.com>

On 11/16/12, Mike A. Salim <msalim at localweb.com> wrote:
> Greetings:
>
> 1) We have an IPv4 /20 and an IPv6 /32.  According to the new fee schedule,
> we will be X-small for IPv4 ($1000) but Small for IPv6 ($2000).  Since the
> /32 was assigned to us by ARIN when this was the smallest allocation that
> ARIN was allocating, we hope we will be considered X-Small for both IPv4 and
> IPv6

I agree... this is broken.    A single IPv6  /32  should be  X-Small  for IPv6.

--
-JH


From msalim at localweb.com  Tue Nov 20 08:36:45 2012
From: msalim at localweb.com (Mike A. Salim)
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 08:36:45 -0500
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net><A9BFC83C1CDECA4DB4E13D7CC86C47A51BDC395C@EXCH-3.adtimail.com><F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801F3F042@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<CAAAwwbU900kMe+FoDOJfh+NJSmKhSM6gRbaTz7upObwZbbH36w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801F3F11B@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>

Hello,

Yes, I am happy to pay for what I use.  I am happy with the great job ARIN is doing, and fully understand and support the need for fees.

My issue is this:  If I am classified as a Small vs. X-Small because of my IPv4 usage that I had requested, that is fine.  But I am being classified as a Small not because of what I requested or use, but because of what I was allocated as an early adopter of IPv6.  Had the smaller X-Small IPv6 been available at the time, that is what I would have requested.  I did not really need a /32 IPv6.

So, IMHO, an exception should be made for those ISPs who are allocated and using a X-Small IPv4, but were allocated a Small /32 IPv6 as early adopters because there was no X-Small IPv6 at the time, resulting in them being classified as Small vs X-Small.  Also, this should be done without forcing these early adopter ISPs to give up and renumber their /32 IPv6 space - we are now actively using our IPv6 space.  Renumbering would be problematic for us.

Best regards
Mike

A. Michael Salim
VP and Chief Technology Officer,
American Data Technology, Inc.
PO Box 12892
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
P: (919)544-4101 x101
F: (919)544-5345
E: msalim at localweb.com
W: http://www.localweb.com

PRIVACY NOTIFICATION:  This e-mail message, including any attachments, is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). It may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. Unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

??Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. 


-----Original Message-----
From: Jimmy Hess [mailto:mysidia at gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 12:46 PM
To: Mike A. Salim
Cc: arin-consult at arin.net
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation

On 11/16/12, Mike A. Salim <msalim at localweb.com> wrote:
> Greetings:
>
> 1) We have an IPv4 /20 and an IPv6 /32.  According to the new fee 
> schedule, we will be X-small for IPv4 ($1000) but Small for IPv6 
> ($2000).  Since the
> /32 was assigned to us by ARIN when this was the smallest allocation 
> that ARIN was allocating, we hope we will be considered X-Small for 
> both IPv4 and
> IPv6

I agree... this is broken.    A single IPv6  /32  should be  X-Small  for IPv6.

--
-JH

From jcurran at arin.net  Tue Nov 20 08:42:57 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:42:57 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801F3F11B@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net><A9BFC83C1CDECA4DB4E13D7CC86C47A51BDC395C@EXCH-3.adtimail.com><F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801F3F042@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<CAAAwwbU900kMe+FoDOJfh+NJSmKhSM6gRbaTz7upObwZbbH36w@mail.gmail.com>
	<F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801F3F11B@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
Message-ID: <E14E68A1-A5A1-4728-A40B-7D23477B0672@corp.arin.net>

On Nov 20, 2012, at 8:36 AM, Mike A. Salim <msalim at localweb.com> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> Yes, I am happy to pay for what I use.  I am happy with the great job ARIN is doing, and fully understand and support the need for fees.
> 
> My issue is this:  If I am classified as a Small vs. X-Small because of my IPv4 usage that I had requested, that is fine.  But I am being classified as a Small not because of what I requested or use, but because of what I was allocated as an early adopter of IPv6.  Had the smaller X-Small IPv6 been available at the time, that is what I would have requested.  I did not really need a /32 IPv6.
> 
> So, IMHO, an exception should be made for those ISPs who are allocated and using a X-Small IPv4, but were allocated a Small /32 IPv6 as early adopters because there was no X-Small IPv6 at the time, resulting in them being classified as Small vs X-Small.  Also, this should be done without forcing these early adopter ISPs to give up and renumber their /32 IPv6 space - we are now actively using our IPv6 space.  Renumbering would be problematic for us.

Mike - 
 
  Thanks for clear feedback on the proposed fee changes;
  we've had a few folks now make note of this concern and 
  it will be explicitly considered in any path forward.

Thanks again,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN





From owen at delong.com  Tue Nov 20 08:44:46 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 05:44:46 -0800
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801F3F11B@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net><A9BFC83C1CDECA4DB4E13D7CC86C47A51BDC395C@EXCH-3.adtimail.com><F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801F3F042@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<CAAAwwbU900kMe+FoDOJfh+NJSmKhSM6gRbaTz7upObwZbbH36w@mail.gmail.com>
	<F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801F3F11B@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
Message-ID: <1D3FB0EF-F3BC-4A39-A469-174C27223125@delong.com>

For those that have /32s only because /36s weren't an option in policy when they obtained their space, the option does exist to consolidate into a /36 of your /32 and return the remainder to ARIN in order to become an X-Small IPv6 if the proposed fee structure is implemented.

Personally, I would rather see the fee structure modified so that /32s issued to X-small IPv4 providers prior to the policy change that allowed for /36s were grandfathered as X-Small in the IPv6 category, but, I wouldn't want to create a blanket exemption for all /32 holders or even all X-small IPv4 holders.

Owen

On Nov 20, 2012, at 5:36 AM, "Mike A. Salim" <msalim at localweb.com> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> Yes, I am happy to pay for what I use.  I am happy with the great job ARIN is doing, and fully understand and support the need for fees.
> 
> My issue is this:  If I am classified as a Small vs. X-Small because of my IPv4 usage that I had requested, that is fine.  But I am being classified as a Small not because of what I requested or use, but because of what I was allocated as an early adopter of IPv6.  Had the smaller X-Small IPv6 been available at the time, that is what I would have requested.  I did not really need a /32 IPv6.
> 
> So, IMHO, an exception should be made for those ISPs who are allocated and using a X-Small IPv4, but were allocated a Small /32 IPv6 as early adopters because there was no X-Small IPv6 at the time, resulting in them being classified as Small vs X-Small.  Also, this should be done without forcing these early adopter ISPs to give up and renumber their /32 IPv6 space - we are now actively using our IPv6 space.  Renumbering would be problematic for us.
> 
> Best regards
> Mike
> 
> A. Michael Salim
> VP and Chief Technology Officer,
> American Data Technology, Inc.
> PO Box 12892
> Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
> P: (919)544-4101 x101
> F: (919)544-5345
> E: msalim at localweb.com
> W: http://www.localweb.com
> 
> PRIVACY NOTIFICATION:  This e-mail message, including any attachments, is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). It may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. Unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
> 
> ??Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jimmy Hess [mailto:mysidia at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 12:46 PM
> To: Mike A. Salim
> Cc: arin-consult at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
> 
> On 11/16/12, Mike A. Salim <msalim at localweb.com> wrote:
>> Greetings:
>> 
>> 1) We have an IPv4 /20 and an IPv6 /32.  According to the new fee 
>> schedule, we will be X-small for IPv4 ($1000) but Small for IPv6 
>> ($2000).  Since the
>> /32 was assigned to us by ARIN when this was the smallest allocation 
>> that ARIN was allocating, we hope we will be considered X-Small for 
>> both IPv4 and
>> IPv6
> 
> I agree... this is broken.    A single IPv6  /32  should be  X-Small  for IPv6.
> 
> --
> -JH
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Consult
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing
> List (ARIN-consult at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services
> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.



From msalim at localweb.com  Tue Nov 20 09:00:17 2012
From: msalim at localweb.com (Mike A. Salim)
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 09:00:17 -0500
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net><A9BFC83C1CDECA4DB4E13D7CC86C47A51BDC395C@EXCH-3.adtimail.com><F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801F3F042@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<CAAAwwbU900kMe+FoDOJfh+NJSmKhSM6gRbaTz7upObwZbbH36w@mail.gmail.com>
	<F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801F3F11B@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<1D3FB0EF-F3BC-4A39-A469-174C27223125@delong.com>
Message-ID: <F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801F3F11F@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>

Hello Owen,

I agree with your suggestion regarding grandfathering those few early adopter ISPs who happened to be X-Small IPv4 but were allocated a /32 IPv6.  I suspect that number of ISPs is very few :-)

As for your suggestion on renumbering into a /36, we have reviewed it here internally.  It would be messy, to say the least.  We are actively using and allocating those addresses.

Best regards
Mike

A. Michael Salim
VP and Chief Technology Officer,
American Data Technology, Inc.
PO Box 12892
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
P: (919)544-4101 x101
F: (919)544-5345
E: msalim at localweb.com
W: http://www.localweb.com

PRIVACY NOTIFICATION:  This e-mail message, including any attachments, is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). It may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. Unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

??Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. 


-----Original Message-----
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 8:45 AM
To: Mike A. Salim
Cc: Jimmy Hess; arin-consult at arin.net
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation

For those that have /32s only because /36s weren't an option in policy when they obtained their space, the option does exist to consolidate into a /36 of your /32 and return the remainder to ARIN in order to become an X-Small IPv6 if the proposed fee structure is implemented.

Personally, I would rather see the fee structure modified so that /32s issued to X-small IPv4 providers prior to the policy change that allowed for /36s were grandfathered as X-Small in the IPv6 category, but, I wouldn't want to create a blanket exemption for all /32 holders or even all X-small IPv4 holders.

Owen

On Nov 20, 2012, at 5:36 AM, "Mike A. Salim" <msalim at localweb.com> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> Yes, I am happy to pay for what I use.  I am happy with the great job ARIN is doing, and fully understand and support the need for fees.
> 
> My issue is this:  If I am classified as a Small vs. X-Small because of my IPv4 usage that I had requested, that is fine.  But I am being classified as a Small not because of what I requested or use, but because of what I was allocated as an early adopter of IPv6.  Had the smaller X-Small IPv6 been available at the time, that is what I would have requested.  I did not really need a /32 IPv6.
> 
> So, IMHO, an exception should be made for those ISPs who are allocated and using a X-Small IPv4, but were allocated a Small /32 IPv6 as early adopters because there was no X-Small IPv6 at the time, resulting in them being classified as Small vs X-Small.  Also, this should be done without forcing these early adopter ISPs to give up and renumber their /32 IPv6 space - we are now actively using our IPv6 space.  Renumbering would be problematic for us.
> 
> Best regards
> Mike
> 
> A. Michael Salim
> VP and Chief Technology Officer,
> American Data Technology, Inc.
> PO Box 12892
> Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
> P: (919)544-4101 x101
> F: (919)544-5345
> E: msalim at localweb.com
> W: http://www.localweb.com
> 
> PRIVACY NOTIFICATION:  This e-mail message, including any attachments, is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). It may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. Unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
> 
> P Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jimmy Hess [mailto:mysidia at gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 12:46 PM
> To: Mike A. Salim
> Cc: arin-consult at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change 
> Consultation
> 
> On 11/16/12, Mike A. Salim <msalim at localweb.com> wrote:
>> Greetings:
>> 
>> 1) We have an IPv4 /20 and an IPv6 /32.  According to the new fee 
>> schedule, we will be X-small for IPv4 ($1000) but Small for IPv6 
>> ($2000).  Since the
>> /32 was assigned to us by ARIN when this was the smallest allocation 
>> that ARIN was allocating, we hope we will be considered X-Small for 
>> both IPv4 and
>> IPv6
> 
> I agree... this is broken.    A single IPv6  /32  should be  X-Small  for IPv6.
> 
> --
> -JH
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Consult
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN 
> Consult Mailing List (ARIN-consult at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the 
> ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.


From rs at seastrom.com  Tue Nov 20 09:39:04 2012
From: rs at seastrom.com (Robert E. Seastrom)
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 09:39:04 -0500
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <1D3FB0EF-F3BC-4A39-A469-174C27223125@delong.com> (Owen DeLong's
	message of "Tue, 20 Nov 2012 05:44:46 -0800")
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<A9BFC83C1CDECA4DB4E13D7CC86C47A51BDC395C@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801F3F042@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<CAAAwwbU900kMe+FoDOJfh+NJSmKhSM6gRbaTz7upObwZbbH36w@mail.gmail.com>
	<F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801F3F11B@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<1D3FB0EF-F3BC-4A39-A469-174C27223125@delong.com>
Message-ID: <86boesl4on.fsf@seastrom.com>


Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> writes:

> For those that have /32s only because /36s weren't an option in
> policy when they obtained their space, the option does exist to
> consolidate into a /36 of your /32 and return the remainder to ARIN
> in order to become an X-Small IPv6 if the proposed fee structure is
> implemented.

Considering this in $BRO_COLO's case.  It's annoying though
particularly for those of us who have been doing sparse allocation
internally in order to aggregate nicely.

> Personally, I would rather see the fee structure modified so that
> /32s issued to X-small IPv4 providers prior to the policy change
> that allowed for /36s were grandfathered as X-Small in the IPv6
> category,

Agreed.

> but, I wouldn't want to create a blanket exemption for all
> /32 holders or even all X-small IPv4 holders.

Why not?  I should think that the ability to turn into a smaller ISP
by handing back or otherwise divesting oneself of (legacy, IPv4)
address space is something that you, of all people, would heartily
support.

-r



From owen at delong.com  Tue Nov 20 10:21:08 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 07:21:08 -0800
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <86boesl4on.fsf@seastrom.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<A9BFC83C1CDECA4DB4E13D7CC86C47A51BDC395C@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801F3F042@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<CAAAwwbU900kMe+FoDOJfh+NJSmKhSM6gRbaTz7upObwZbbH36w@mail.gmail.com>
	<F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801F3F11B@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<1D3FB0EF-F3BC-4A39-A469-174C27223125@delong.com>
	<86boesl4on.fsf@seastrom.com>
Message-ID: <B4305A46-0A15-4899-B6D1-95289383DFC9@delong.com>


On Nov 20, 2012, at 6:39 AM, Robert E. Seastrom <rs at seastrom.com> wrote:

> 
> Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> writes:
> 
>> For those that have /32s only because /36s weren't an option in
>> policy when they obtained their space, the option does exist to
>> consolidate into a /36 of your /32 and return the remainder to ARIN
>> in order to become an X-Small IPv6 if the proposed fee structure is
>> implemented.
> 
> Considering this in $BRO_COLO's case.  It's annoying though
> particularly for those of us who have been doing sparse allocation
> internally in order to aggregate nicely.
> 
>> Personally, I would rather see the fee structure modified so that
>> /32s issued to X-small IPv4 providers prior to the policy change
>> that allowed for /36s were grandfathered as X-Small in the IPv6
>> category,
> 
> Agreed.
> 
>> but, I wouldn't want to create a blanket exemption for all
>> /32 holders or even all X-small IPv4 holders.
> 
> Why not?  I should think that the ability to turn into a smaller ISP
> by handing back or otherwise divesting oneself of (legacy, IPv4)
> address space is something that you, of all people, would heartily
> support.
> 

Because there are a lot of ISPs that have /32s and are too large to be
considered X-Small. The difference between a /36 and a /32 is quite
significant and I'd hate to see all the truly X-Small providers suffering
a fee increase to subsidize the /32 holdings of a significant number of
small organizations that really shouldn't be X-Small.

Owen



From owen at delong.com  Tue Nov 20 10:33:31 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 07:33:31 -0800
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <CALB2hAchSk6Zk+x9h=pZieBUSEkZrVDEDQcy19d3oV4XPFOJVg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<A9BFC83C1CDECA4DB4E13D7CC86C47A51BDC395C@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801F3F042@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<CAAAwwbU900kMe+FoDOJfh+NJSmKhSM6gRbaTz7upObwZbbH36w@mail.gmail.com>
	<F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801F3F11B@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<1D3FB0EF-F3BC-4A39-A469-174C27223125@delong.com>
	<86boesl4on.fsf@seastrom.com>
	<B4305A46-0A15-4899-B6D1-95289383DFC9@delong.com>
	<CALB2hAchSk6Zk+x9h=pZieBUSEkZrVDEDQcy19d3oV4XPFOJVg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C67EE553-C943-428A-84BA-E6E61D09F24C@delong.com>


On Nov 20, 2012, at 7:30 AM, Charles Gucker <cgucker at onesc.net> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 20, 2012, at 6:39 AM, Robert E. Seastrom <rs at seastrom.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Why not?  I should think that the ability to turn into a smaller ISP
>>> by handing back or otherwise divesting oneself of (legacy, IPv4)
>>> address space is something that you, of all people, would heartily
>>> support.
>>> 
>> 
>> Because there are a lot of ISPs that have /32s and are too large to be
>> considered X-Small. The difference between a /36 and a /32 is quite
>> significant and I'd hate to see all the truly X-Small providers suffering
>> a fee increase to subsidize the /32 holdings of a significant number of
>> small organizations that really shouldn't be X-Small.
> 
> This would only be true if the ISP in question returns all (almost all
> of) their IPv4 space.    Their "size" is not measured based on their
> IPv6 space allotments, but rather IPv4 whereby the X-Small provider is
> having their "size" based on IPv6 and not IPv4, although practical
> usage is quite different.    I'm personally a lot more of a fan of
> making a /32 X-Small in IPv6 and let the IPv4 allotments make up the
> rate scale difference.
> 

I believe that is a much more temporary solution than many people think.

I believe that the financial disincentives for maintaining IPv4 (of which
this would become yet another one) will drive rapid deprecation of IPv4 by
ISPs once IPv6 reaches critical mass and you will see what little IPv4
support they continue to provide to their customers come at a premium price
using a small number of heavily NATted addresses.

I suspect this is probably around 5-7 years from now, possibly sooner.

Owen



From farmer at umn.edu  Tue Nov 20 11:06:23 2012
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 10:06:23 -0600
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <1D3FB0EF-F3BC-4A39-A469-174C27223125@delong.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net><A9BFC83C1CDECA4DB4E13D7CC86C47A51BDC395C@EXCH-3.adtimail.com><F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801F3F042@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<CAAAwwbU900kMe+FoDOJfh+NJSmKhSM6gRbaTz7upObwZbbH36w@mail.gmail.com>
	<F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801F3F11B@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<1D3FB0EF-F3BC-4A39-A469-174C27223125@delong.com>
Message-ID: <50ABAA7F.7000707@umn.edu>

On 11/20/12 07:44 , Owen DeLong wrote:
> For those that have /32s only because /36s weren't an option in policy when they obtained their space, the option does exist to consolidate into a /36 of your /32 and return the remainder to ARIN in order to become an X-Small IPv6 if the proposed fee structure is implemented.
>
> Personally, I would rather see the fee structure modified so that /32s issued to X-small IPv4 providers prior to the policy change that allowed for /36s were grandfathered as X-Small in the IPv6 category, but, I wouldn't want to create a blanket exemption for all /32 holders or even all X-small IPv4 holders.

Rather than a permanent exemption, I would like to see a multi-year 
transition wavier period.  Say like three years, where if they are not 
growing they may reduce down to with the /36, returning the rest of the 
/32 and maintain x-small ISP fee.  Or, at the end of the three years 
keep the /32 and increase to the small ISP fee, hopefully because they 
have grown sufficiently anyway.  However, I believe it is reasonable to 
give them a transition period and a choice, whichever they make in the 
end is up to them.  They should be given time execute the return if that 
is what they decide to do, and a three year transition period seems more 
than generous.

While hard to imagine things getting as problematic as the current IPv4 
legacy issues, creating a permanent exemptions like this will likely 
lead to similar kind of issues in the long-run.  Therefore, it is 
probably best to avoid the issue by putting a sunset on any exemption 
and turning it into a transition period.

While I wouldn't phase in all the fee increase created by this fee 
realignment, this IPv6 x-small ISP issue has been a problem for a while 
now.  Between the policy change allowing for an optional /36 IPv6 ISP 
allocation and this fee realignment I think we have the long-term 
solution, now we need to figure out a transition for those caught in the 
squeeze.

Thanks


-- 
================================================
David Farmer               Email: farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================


From rs at seastrom.com  Tue Nov 20 11:08:39 2012
From: rs at seastrom.com (Robert E. Seastrom)
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 11:08:39 -0500
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <C67EE553-C943-428A-84BA-E6E61D09F24C@delong.com> (Owen DeLong's
	message of "Tue, 20 Nov 2012 07:33:31 -0800")
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net>
	<A9BFC83C1CDECA4DB4E13D7CC86C47A51BDC395C@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801F3F042@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<CAAAwwbU900kMe+FoDOJfh+NJSmKhSM6gRbaTz7upObwZbbH36w@mail.gmail.com>
	<F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801F3F11B@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<1D3FB0EF-F3BC-4A39-A469-174C27223125@delong.com>
	<86boesl4on.fsf@seastrom.com>
	<B4305A46-0A15-4899-B6D1-95289383DFC9@delong.com>
	<CALB2hAchSk6Zk+x9h=pZieBUSEkZrVDEDQcy19d3oV4XPFOJVg@mail.gmail.com>
	<C67EE553-C943-428A-84BA-E6E61D09F24C@delong.com>
Message-ID: <863904l0jc.fsf@seastrom.com>


Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> writes:

> On Nov 20, 2012, at 7:30 AM, Charles Gucker <cgucker at onesc.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 20, 2012, at 6:39 AM, Robert E. Seastrom <rs at seastrom.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Why not?  I should think that the ability to turn into a smaller ISP
>>>> by handing back or otherwise divesting oneself of (legacy, IPv4)
>>>> address space is something that you, of all people, would heartily
>>>> support.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Because there are a lot of ISPs that have /32s and are too large to be
>>> considered X-Small. The difference between a /36 and a /32 is quite
>>> significant and I'd hate to see all the truly X-Small providers suffering
>>> a fee increase to subsidize the /32 holdings of a significant number of
>>> small organizations that really shouldn't be X-Small.
>> 
>> This would only be true if the ISP in question returns all (almost all
>> of) their IPv4 space.    Their "size" is not measured based on their
>> IPv6 space allotments, but rather IPv4 whereby the X-Small provider is
>> having their "size" based on IPv6 and not IPv4, although practical
>> usage is quite different.    I'm personally a lot more of a fan of
>> making a /32 X-Small in IPv6 and let the IPv4 allotments make up the
>> rate scale difference.
>> 
>
> I believe that is a much more temporary solution than many people think.
>
> I believe that the financial disincentives for maintaining IPv4 (of which
> this would become yet another one) will drive rapid deprecation of IPv4 by
> ISPs once IPv6 reaches critical mass and you will see what little IPv4
> support they continue to provide to their customers come at a premium price
> using a small number of heavily NATted addresses.
>
> I suspect this is probably around 5-7 years from now, possibly sooner.

5-7 years from now sounds like right about the time that the fee
schedule will be up for revisiting anyway...

Since we like the idea of subnetting and delegating on nybble
boundaries in IPv6 anyway, why not just deprecate small and medium as
categories and say "/32 ix X-small, /31 to /28 is Large, /27 to /23 is
X-Large, and /22 and larger is XXL.  That's pretty close to our
existing fee schedule which has served us well.  Or use the dividing
lines suggested in the proposed 2013 rate card...  so long as merely
having the smallest ISP allocation of IPv6 in and of itself does not
turn one into small rather than x-small I'm good with it.

-r




From springer at inlandnet.com  Tue Nov 20 13:48:58 2012
From: springer at inlandnet.com (John Springer)
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 10:48:58 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
In-Reply-To: <1D3FB0EF-F3BC-4A39-A469-174C27223125@delong.com>
References: <50899E68.8030208@arin.net><A9BFC83C1CDECA4DB4E13D7CC86C47A51BDC395C@EXCH-3.adtimail.com><F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801F3F042@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<CAAAwwbU900kMe+FoDOJfh+NJSmKhSM6gRbaTz7upObwZbbH36w@mail.gmail.com>
	<F529791B49ADA64A94A476B8D93BE22801F3F11B@EXCH-3.adtimail.com>
	<1D3FB0EF-F3BC-4A39-A469-174C27223125@delong.com>
Message-ID: <20121120104826.Q74645@mail.inlandnet.com>

I agree with Owen's suggestion.

John Springer

On Tue, 20 Nov 2012, Owen DeLong wrote:

> For those that have /32s only because /36s weren't an option in policy when they obtained their space, the option does exist to consolidate into a /36 of your /32 and return the remainder to ARIN in order to become an X-Small IPv6 if the proposed fee structure is implemented.

Personally, I would rather see the fee structure modified so that /32s issued to X-small IPv4 providers prior to the policy change that allowed for /36s were grandfathered as X-Small in the IPv6 category, but, I wouldn't want to create a blanket exemption for all /32 holders or even all X-small IPv4 holders.

Owen

On Nov 20, 2012, at 5:36 AM, "Mike A. Salim" <msalim at localweb.com> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> Yes, I am happy to pay for what I use.  I am happy with the great job ARIN is doing, and fully understand and support the need for fees.
> 
> My issue is this:  If I am classified as a Small vs. X-Small because of my IPv4 usage that I had requested, that is fine.  But I am being classified as a Small not because of what I requested or use, but because of what I was allocated as an early adopter of IPv6.  Had the smaller X-Small IPv6 been available at the time, that is what I would have requested.  I did not really need a /32 IPv6.
> 
> So, IMHO, an exception should be made for those ISPs who are allocated and using a X-Small IPv4, but were allocated a Small /32 IPv6 as early adopters because there was no X-Small IPv6 at the time, resulting in them being classified as Small vs X-Small.  Also, this should be done without forcing these early adopter ISPs to give up and renumber their /32 IPv6 space - we are now actively using our IPv6 space.  Renumbering would be problematic for us.
> 
> Best regards
> Mike
> 
> A. Michael Salim
> VP and Chief Technology Officer,
> American Data Technology, Inc.
> PO Box 12892
> Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
> P: (919)544-4101 x101
> F: (919)544-5345
> E: msalim at localweb.com
> W: http://www.localweb.com
> 
> PRIVACY NOTIFICATION:  This e-mail message, including any attachments, is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). It may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. Unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
> 
> ??Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jimmy Hess [mailto:mysidia at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 12:46 PM
> To: Mike A. Salim
> Cc: arin-consult at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
> 
> On 11/16/12, Mike A. Salim <msalim at localweb.com> wrote:
>> Greetings:
>> 
>> 1) We have an IPv4 /20 and an IPv6 /32.  According to the new fee 
>> schedule, we will be X-small for IPv4 ($1000) but Small for IPv6 
>> ($2000).  Since the
>> /32 was assigned to us by ARIN when this was the smallest allocation 
>> that ARIN was allocating, we hope we will be considered X-Small for 
>> both IPv4 and
>> IPv6
> 
> I agree... this is broken.    A single IPv6  /32  should be  X-Small  for IPv6.
> 
> --
> -JH
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Consult
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing
> List (ARIN-consult at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services
> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

_______________________________________________
ARIN-Consult
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing
List (ARIN-consult at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services
Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

From info at arin.net  Tue Nov 27 11:07:54 2012
From: info at arin.net (ARIN)
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 11:07:54 -0500
Subject: [ARIN-consult] ARIN Fee Schedule Consultation Now Closed
Message-ID: <50B4E55A.3030400@arin.net>

On November 26, 2012, ARIN concluded its consultation with the community
with regards to the proposed Fee Schedule changes:

https://www.arin.net/participate/acsp/community_consult/10-25-2012_fee_schedule.html

The ARIN Board of Trustees will review the feedback received at their
upcoming meeting in December, after which we will report back to the
community about the status of the fee schedule changes.

ARIN thanks everyone who contributed to this consultation.

Regards,


Communications and Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)