[ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation
bill at herrin.us
Wed Oct 31 12:59:30 EDT 2012
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:58 PM, Jo Rhett <jrhett at netconsonance.com> wrote:
> I have no idea how this relates to the question. If they can
> pay for several uplinks, then they can afford the proposed
> maintenance fees. The proposed maintenance fees are
> trivial in the face of the costs of maintaining those uplinks.
Respectfully, I really think you're looking at this the wrong way.
Is it important to you that IPv6 be deployed sooner rather than later?
Is it important that we reach a ubiquity in IPv6 deployment where we
can begin to retire IPv4?
If you don't care how long it takes to deploy IPv6, I respect that.
Folks use a service, they pay a fee. They don't want to pay a fee,
they don't use the service. For the moment, many have chosen not to
use IPv6-related services. No problem; it'll happen when its ripe.
If, on the other hand, you believe as I do that your IPv6 deployment
gains value only in relation to everybody else's IPv6 deployment then
the bottom line is: remove the blockers. Time enough to charge for
IPv6 when it's the primary protocol on the public Internet. Today the
fee is one of a number of deployment blockers, so axe it.
I do agree that it shouldn't be free forever and as a long-term matter
I'm not overly offended by the proposed fee structure. I do think,
however, that the appropriate metric for when to instate fees for IPv6
registrations should be based on the measurable level of use on the
public Internet rather than some fixed guess about how long it should
last or a string-along annual choice by the board.
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
More information about the ARIN-consult