[ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring

[David Farmer]

On 10/27/12 15:12 , Jo Rhett wrote:
>> On 10/27/12 11:23 , Jo Rhett wrote:
>>> I will only support that trend if the discount only applies to organizations with v6 assignments.
>
> On Oct 27, 2012, at 10:24 AM, David Farmer wrote:
>> The idea is that you get one of each type of resource for the $100. This primarily means that end-users that have resources already, an IPv4 assignment or ASN, can get an IPv6 assignment without impacting their annual maintenance fee.  They still have to pay the one-time fees, but that's a different issue.  Also, if you only had a IPv4 assignment you could get an ASN without impact as well, and visa-verses, again you still pay the one-time fees.
>>
>> The point is, it isn't specifically an IPv6 discount, but for the large majority of end-users that is the result.
>
> I oppose that idea as you have stated it, and will stand fast in opposition. This would be a discount for standing still, out of line with actual cost recovery (3-4 resources for cost of 1). If we are going to provide a discount, let's use that discount to help move the world forward.
>
> In particular, many network admins are jumping to get IPv6 blocks and are being held off by their managers.  In every situation as soon as I got the managers to accept "let's get the future block for documentation purposes", pretty soon they were tossing tasks at their staff to get nameservice and e-mail delivery over v6, etc and the gate was opened.
>
> If we give them incentives to acquire the block, we can't force them to deploy it on their services but we may well open the door for them.

To be clear, I believe that the fee schedule proposed by the 
consultation, creates a disincentive for end-user organizations to 
deploy IPv6, however small.  The proposal in the consultation charges 
end-users $100 for each resource they have, meaning an extra $100 a year 
if they receive an IPv6 assignment.  Prior to the new fee schedule 
end-users paid a single $100 annual fee covering all resources they had.

The change I'm proposing is simply to allow an organization, to have one 
of each type resource (ASN, IPv4, IPv6) for their first $100, and to pay 
$100 for each resource of any type beyond the first one of each type. 
With the simple intent of removing any dis-incentive to deploy IPv6 with 
as few changes to the overall proposal as possible.

Personally, I'd be willing to support other incentives for deploying 
IPv6.  However, much more important than creating any incentive for 
deploying IPv6, is to ensure that no disincentive to deploy IPv6 is 
created accidentally by any change, however small the disincentive may 
actually be.

Overall I think the board got it right, and I support this very 
important and necessary restructuring of the fee schedule, including 
having end-user fees scale with the number of assignments they have.  I 
simply want to avoid any unintentional disincentive to deploy IPv6, 
again however small it may actually be.  Allowing each end-user 
organization one of each type resource (ASN, IPv4, IPv6) for their first 
$100 seems like the simplest way to fix this problem, without having to 
redo over a years worth of work by the board.  Note: If the change 
creates to big of a revenue whole, I'd support $150 per organization 
with one of each type resource (ASN, IPv4, IPv6) included, and then $100 
for each resource of any type beyond the first one of each type.

Further, while you seem to be arguing against the change I'm proposing, 
its unclear to me if you support the consultation's proposal or not.  It 
would be helpful if you would please clarify if you support the 
consultation's proposal or not.

Thanks