[ARIN-consult] Community Consultation: Future Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule

[Jesse Geddis]

David and Jon,

	I can’t appreciate your guy’s support on #4 enough. Jon was the one who put together the numbers with me and did a phenomenal job. There were a few specific goals I was after and it sounds like they are well understood as you caught many of the main points in your email here. All of these items were of the utmost importance.

Jon’s email on the topic on 10/10/14 was also excellent.

A couple other things i was after was making it financially accessible for startups and trying to address the gross waste and hoarding we see today. This is a true pay-as-you-grow model The non-profit portion is important as well, however, ARIN does not currently track who is non-profit and who is not so it was impossible to model these numbers. I hope that is addressed at some point.

in short, this is a neutral and even handed approach that I think benefits the community greatly.

Jesse

On Oct 12, 2014, at 8:45 PM, David Huberman <David.Huberman at microsoft.com> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> I strongly endorse Proposal 4.  Before I go into why, I'd like to note that I think that Proposal 6 and especially Proposal 7 would have been great 10 or 20 years ago.  They're equitable in many ways and from many perspectives.  I think they are untenable in 2014 due to the severe rate increase on the vast majority of ARIN's paying customers.
> 
> That said, Proposal 4 is very attractive. Why do I think it is attractive?
> 
> 1) It adds a dose of financial reality to the fee schedule - the more you have, the more you pay.
> 
> 2) It considers a waiver of some sort for not-for-profits/government/educational, which should have been there all along. Again, financial reality found commonly in the North American economies that ARIN has lacked for 17 years.
> 
> 3) The 54 biggest consumers of IPv4 addresses over the last 17 years are evenly distributed among the 50k -> 400k fee buckets. At the highest tiers, the 200k and 400k buckets, these companies are already paying tens to hundreds of millions of dollars in the free market for IPv4, so this money isn't significant.  Microsoft, Akamai, Google, Amazon, AT&T, Comcast, etc. -- they can absorb this budget line item increase. 
> 
> 4) Most paying members see a decrease in fees.  That's excellent.  That would be the 4th fee decrease ARIN has given the membership, I think.
> 
> 5) It removes the IPv6 fee schedule disparity.  A /32 costs $400, which is less than what most folks already pay. BIG win.
> 
> 6) It's budget neutral.[1]  $16.5mm in annual fees based on this year's numbers is about where we're at already. The analysis shows $918k more, but ARIN has run a budget deficit the last few years (or the recent years I looked).  
> 
> [1]This "budget neutral" statement is made without knowing the extent of the waivers/fee reductions for not-for-profits, educational institutions, and governments.  They could be significant.  I support the waiver idea, but the analysis in the Appendix does not seem to consider it in its calculations, which is fine.
> 
> That's my input.  From reading the document, it's clear to me the Board has finally taken to heart the need to remove the IPv6 disincentive that it has ignored for 15 years. That makes me happy.
> 
> Regards,
> David
> 
> David R Huberman
> Microsoft Corporation
> Principal, Global IP Addressing
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Consult
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing
> List (ARIN-consult at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services
> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.