[ARIN-consult] Consultation on Proposed 2018 Fee Schedule Changes

[William Herrin]

On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 9:23 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> ARIN has significant fixed expenses and while one can argue that end-users who don’t need anything
> other than stable registry operations shouldn’t have to pay more to ARIN, one could just as easily argue
> that IP addresses for ISPs that don’t need any services in a year shouldn’t result in their significantly
> larger fees.

Or argue that there shouldn't be two classes of registrant, just one
with fees scaling in direct proportion to the number holdings.

Or retort that if the fees are directly proportional, the votes should be too.

But this just rehashes old arguments. Maybe we should throw ideas out
there, even if they're dumb ideas, as long as they're fresh. Here's
one:


Pain point: Lack of diversity in the voting membership yields lack of
diversity on the board

Pain point: End users with a /24 asked to pay two orders of magnitude
more per address held than ISPs with /9's.

Pain point: ISPs really hate to publish customer information via SWIP.
They'd rather act as privacy agents like the DNS providers do.

Pain point: slow IPv6 adoption.


Tie them together and: single type of registrant, all voting members
with one vote per organization. Fees assessed based on number of IPv4
addresses held but not permanently reassigned to third parties. Fixed
dollar amount per address times number of addresses. Addresses
considered reassigned (excepted from fee) only when SWIPed with
complete and accurate public information about the assignee. Ephemeral
assignments (dynamic IPs) are not considered reassigned. Some minimum
floor fee like $100. Fees ignore AS numbers and IPv6 addresses (for
now).


Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>