[ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation

[Brian Johnson]

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.
>