[arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Fee proposal (was Re: Alternativetoarbitrarytransfers)

Tue Apr 7 19:07:33 EDT 2009

Ted,

Let me start with the usual disclaimer that this is my own opinion and not the position of my employer. Registration fees are not the key factor in whether or not to deploy IPv6, nor are they the key factor in the efficiency in which IPv4 address space is utilized. 

The largest consumers of IP address space are ISP. The reason they use these IP resources is not because they are cheap, or easy to come by. It is because they are connecting end users (I assume you are one of them) to the Internet. The growth, and very existence of an ISP is based on the services they provide and the revenue these services generate. 

The fact that IPv4 is running out is the single largest incentive any ISP needs to deploy IPv6. The lost revenue, because you don't have the IP resources to add new customers and services, far outweighs any increase in fees that ARIN could impose. Another thing to consider is that historically, an increase in fees are rarely born by the provider, and are more often passed along to the consumer. It is the end user who would most likely bear the burden of the fee "incentive" you propose.

Again, this is my own opinion.
Dan Alexander
ARIN AC

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 2:14 PM
To: 'John Tobin'; 'Lee Howard'; 'Brian Johnson'
Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Fee proposal (was Re: Alternativetoarbitrarytransfers)

All I am asking is that anyone who cares anything at all about transitioning to IPv6, be aware that a fee incentive exists for the largest holders to NOT transition.

As I don't work at a large holder I do not know if the fee discount for large IPv4 holdings actually influences decisions.  If it does not, because the IP address registration fee is such a small part of total business expenses, then perhaps the fees should be adjusted until they do start to influence decisions.

Just a thought.

Ted

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Tobin [mailto:JTobin at origindigital.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 8:01 AM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt; 'Lee Howard'; 'Brian Johnson'
> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Fee proposal (was Re: 
> Alternative toarbitrarytransfers)
> 
> 
>  All, this thread is hard to follow... What are you asking me?
> 
> 
> John Tobin	
> Director Of Information Technology
> 
> 
> 300 Boulevard East
> Weehawken, NJ 07086-6702, U.S.A.
> 
> E: jtobin at origindigital.com   | C: 732-616-8780 | V: 
> 201.272.8451 |  F: 201.272.8400 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
> This message contains information which may be confidential and/or 
> privileged. Unless you are the intended recipient (or authorized to 
> receive for the intended recipient), you may not read, use, copy or 
> disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the 
> message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the 
> sender by reply e-mail at jtobin at origindigital.com and delete the 
> message and any attachment(s) thereto without retaining any copies.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 6:52 PM
> To: 'Lee Howard'; 'Brian Johnson'
> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Fee proposal (was Re: 
> Alternative to arbitrarytransfers)
> 
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> > [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Lee Howard
> > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 3:09 PM
> > To: Brian Johnson; ARIN PPML
> > Subject: [arin-ppml] Fee proposal (was Re: Alternative to
> > arbitrarytransfers)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > > From: Brian Johnson <bjohnson at drtel.com>
> > >
> > > If viewed by cost/IP, then the cost/IP for larger orgs
> > (ISPs generally
> > > speaking) is less than for smaller orgs. This has been long
> > standing
> > > policy. If you want to change this. Make a proposal and get
> > consensus.
> > > Don't degrade one group to make yourself feel better.
> > 
> > Probably suggestion process, not policy process.  The suggestion 
> > doesn't have to be for a specific fee structure; rather, you[1] want 
> > to change the principle by which fees are
> > set: instead of setting fees based on ARIN's cost, you want to set 
> > fees based on a per-address cost.
> > https://www.arin.net/app/suggestion/
> > 
> > Probably requires member consensus.  Probably belongs on
> arin-discuss.
> > 
> 
> Lee,
> 
> It was not my intent to trigger a discussion on fees.
> 
> But, since we are discussing them, adjustments to the fee structure do 
> not have to be made to increase the money paid to ARIN.  You can 
> reduce the discount to larger players, collecting more money from 
> them, and reduce the fees for smaller players, collecting less money 
> from them, and end up with the same money coming in - just a different 
> distribution among the bearers of the fees.
> 
> In any case, I will direct your attention to the ARIN staff comments 
> on 2008-7, posted to arin-ppml on 3/23/09:
> 
> "...An annual re-registration of all POCs (~223,000 currently) will
>       likely result in a vast increase in workload, particularly with
>       the follow up work and research involved when a POC does not 
> reply
>       within 60 days. ..."
> 
> An increase in workload will mean having to hire more people at ARIN 
> which will increase costs.  Thus increasing fees under the existing 
> principle.  Since increasing fees to the largest consumers of IPv4 
> would increase incentive of those consumers to more efficiently 
> utilize IPv4 and thus defer additional IPv4 requests, which would 
> affect the largest amount of available IPv4, it would be completely 
> logical to do this rather than increase fees across the board.
> 
> Ted
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
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 info at arin.net if you experience any issues.