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

[John Curran]

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