[ARIN-consult] Fee restructuring

[Jo Rhett]

On Oct 27, 2012, at 3:45 PM, David Farmer wrote:
> 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.

David, I have met you and you are smart. So why do you keep replying to my messages without reading the text of them?  You keep talking as if I said nothing at all.

I will vote against your proposal, and I'm the designated voting person for several entities.  If we are going to provide a discount, the discount should only come to organizations who deploy IPv6. We should not discount any organization which stays IPv4 only.

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.