[ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
owen at delong.com
Thu Nov 15 19:46:11 EST 2012
Then as part of the restructure, let's let those that were suckered into signing
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
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.
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
More information about the ARIN-consult