[arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re: ARIN Fee discussion

[Michael Thomas - Mathbox]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Howard, W. Lee
> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 1:07 PM
> To: Internet Partners, Inc. Tech Support; arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: SPAM-WARN:Re: [arin-discuss] ARIN Fee discussion
> 
> Excellent comments, very helpful! 
> 
> > 1) Please avoid use of temporary fee changes where possible.  
> > Such as a waiver that is set to expire in a year unless 
> > renewed by the board, etc.
> > The ISP business is a long-term planning game, and if I'm 
> > planning a deployment I don't want to have to worry about a 
> > waiver not being renewed.
> 
> Yes, we heard this comment, and that is why we set up the
> planned waiver for the next several years.  It's also part
> of the reason we have been reluctant to tinker with fees
> in the past.
> 
> > 2) I disagree with the "fee per single IP" approach. 

Would you agree with a fee per /24?

> > . . .
> > 3) The top pricing tier for blocks in ARIN should not be 
> > occupied by more than a dozen or so organizations. 
> 
> Should it be a bell curve distribution?  Half-bell?  Linear?
> In other words, if there are about 3000 members, should the 
> distribution be (for XXL/XL/L/M/S) 15/500/2000/500/15 or
> 15/100/250/600/2000 or 15/300/600/900/1200?

Why in the world should anyone in ARIN community accept the current fee
structure or a bell curve fee structure.

I would remind everyone of this excerpt from a message from Stephen Sprunk
on 5/31/07:

<Begin Excerpt>
Current stats per ARIN Member Services:
 
            # Members   % Members   % v4 space   % fees
Xtra Small      390        14.8         0.29       5.7
Small         1,571        59.8         4.64      42.6
Medium          518        19.9         8.92      28.0
Large            71         2.7         6.87       7.7
Xtra Large       73         2.8        79.28      15.8
 
(The last column didn't come from ARIN, but I calculated it from the fee
schedule.)
<End Excerpt>

Note that 73 Xtra Large members control over 79 percent of ARIN allocated IP
space and they pay 15.8 percent of the allocation fees. There are several
obvious issues here, including conservation and fair-play. I am surprised
that 2300 victims do not have anything to say on the issue.

> 
> I'll mention that there's a new XXL size category in IPv6,
> that doesn't exist in IPv4.
> 
> > 4) If doing this brings in so much extra money that ARIN is 
> > rolling in cash it doesen't need then let's lower fees on ALL 
> > tiers.  Note that I am not really comfortable with ARIN 
> > running with lean cash reserves 
> 
> We have a reserve that would let us operate for well over a
> year with no additional income.  We can build a reserve
> enough to cover part of our expenses from the income.
>  
> > 5) I disagree with month to month billing.  
> > 
> > I think ARIN's staff should have the flexibility to work out 
> > payment plans with organizations that suddenly find 
> > themselves caught on a yearly bill 
> 
> > Ted
> 
> 
> Thank you for making clear, well-considered suggestions.
> I really appreciate you taking the time to write up your
> perspective.
> 
> Lee 
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to 
> the ARIN Discussion
> Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please 
> contact the ARIN Member
> Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

Michael Thomas
Mathbox
978-683-6718
1-877-MATHBOX (Toll Free)