[ARIN-consult] Consultation on Transfer Fees Now Open

[Hannigan, Martin]

> On Sep 7, 2016, at 6:41 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> 
> On Sep 6, 2016, at 5:38 PM, Hannigan, Martin <marty at akamai.com <mailto:marty at akamai.com>> wrote:
>> On Sep 6, 2016, at 17:24, Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com <mailto:mike at iptrading.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>> 



[ clip ]


> If folks want variable fees for different sizes, that can be done;
> I would only caution that use of the term “fair’ for describing
> such an sized-index fee schedule is quite a subjective matter.
> 

I’m not suggesting variable fees, I’m suggesting a fixed percentage as a way to more equitably distribute fees along with the two sided application to reduce the impact for both parties. In retrospect, that may be neutral in terms of aggregation, but if it’s applied to each transaction, that may be incentive as well.


>> Shouldn't "everyone" be able to "reasonably" ascertain chain of custody pre charge? Brokers could charge research fees and alleviate the members from wasted time.
> 
> Most brokers do research these materials, and that speeds up the processing
> (since documentation is readily available when ARIN requests such) but that
> does not preclude ARIN having to carefully review these materials to confirm
> veracity and prevent anyone from hijacking blocks via creative requests…


True. That’s a risk I think is fair to assign to the brokers. It's a fair trade for the financial gain, to let them be the first line of defense in terms of fraud.


Best,

-M<



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20160907/960a2b82/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 236 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20160907/960a2b82/attachment.sig>