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

[Owen DeLong]

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