<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body dir="auto" class="ApplePlainTextBody" style="word-wrap:
break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break:
after-white-space;" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>David,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The motivation here was not about increasing our overall
revenues but rather dealing with what was seen as an area where a
non-negligible number of requests were not being covered by a
transaction fee or a subscription plan. Having requests abandoned
has obviously been something that has occurred regularly on all
types of requests through ARIN history. The relatively small
number of those abandoned requests made status quo acceptable;
however, in this case the view was the number of abandoned
requests combined with a non-negligible amount of work being done
per request could not be ignored.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The overall fees are something I believe the Board is committed
to continuing to review periodically and where it deems necessary
adjust to provide for an equitable, cost-recovery process, </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>With that in mind thank you to all who have commented and I
hope continue to comment to provide the Board with valuable
community feedback. It is very helpful in our decision process.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Cheers,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Paul</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>---</div>
<div>Paul Andersen</div>
<div>Chair, Board of Trustees</div>
<div>ARIN</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On Sep 6, 2016, at 5:44 PM, David R Huberman
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:daveid@panix.com"><daveid@panix.com></a> wrote:<br>
<br>
Hello John,<br>
<br>
Thank you for the reply.<br>
<br>
If we accept the fundamental idea that ARIN should be charging on
a cost recovery basis, it seems fair that if ARIN staff are
spending more time on transfers, and 25% of transfer tickets
are not having their costs covered, that ARIN should change things
around. So conceptually, I support the idea being proposed.<br>
<br>
But the real numbers are less persuasive than the concepts. We're
talking a difference of just about $125,000. Which is 6 tenths of
a percent of ARIN's budget.<br>
<br>
I therefore OPPOSE this change, as the wrinkles it introduces into
an opaque and volatile IPv4 address market are scarier than the
thought of ARIN not recovering an extra $125,000 next year.<br>
<br>
Thank you,<br>
David<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>