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

Jeremy Anthony Kinsey jer at mia.net
Fri Nov 16 13:58:41 EST 2012

On Nov 16, 2012, at 10:10 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

> That would be more palatable, but, I would like to see us consider doing more to get a greater portion of end-users that are currently not paying fees at all contributing to the fee pool prior to giving a 100% or more fee increase to anyone.

This I am in agreement with.

Look, I am all for paying what would be perceived as a fair and equitable share of the load.

But when I am right at the borderline threshold and see a doubling in my costs, but am receiving a full 1/3 less of the resources that someone else is paying the same amount, it just does not make good business sense to me.  

Further to that end it is utterly ridiculous to think that a legacy holder pays nothing for even more; boggles my mind.  I fail to see how asking for a legacy holder to share part of the load is anything but beneficial to all in the end.  
> The proposed modification below would still be a 100% increase in fees for me and even more for many other organizations that have multiple IPv4 records as a result of slow start and other policies which prevented them from getting the space they needed in a single transaction.

Ditto.  If not for the extremely punitive and difficult entry barriers some years ago, we'd probably not be in this situation.  
> Originally, I didn't consider that a major issue because I was told by the RSHD representative in Dallas that I would be able to do an amnesty request under LRSA and have the replacement space covered by that same LRSA. However, when I attempted to actually do so, my request was approved on the condition of signing a current RSA and not the LRSA. Since the current RSA would remove any protections present in my LRSA against future fee increases, that's somewhat untenable.
> So, if amnesty requests can be performed such that the replacement single record can be maintained under the same RSA or LRSA as the original space, then I have no objection to the proposed fees modified as you describe below. However, without that possibility, I believe that the proposed fee restructuring is still disproportionately detrimental to LRSA signatories and violates the spirit of what I was told by ARIN prior to signing the LRSA.

I would argue it is more detrimental to those that are borderline when it comes to the proposed limits.  I have no other vendor structuring their pricing such that some that consume a slight bit more of the same resources than others see an increase, while those that consume more see little or no change.  

I'd be biased if I did not say I am concerned that my costs are going to double.  But equally biased IMO are those that have NO PROBLEMs what so ever with the proposed fee structure will see NO change in their fees.

More information about the ARIN-consult mailing list