[ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
paul at redbarn.org
Fri Nov 9 16:40:14 EST 2012
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.
"I suspect I'm not known as a font of optimism." (VJS, 2012)
More information about the ARIN-consult