[arin-discuss] Suggestion 2010.1 -- Initial Fee Waiver for IPv6 assignments to LRSA signatories

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2010, at 1:05 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> 
>> On Feb 4, 2010, at 3:54 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> 
>>> I am not in favor of an across-the-board, non-time limited fee
>>> cut.
>>> 
>>> 
> As proposed, although the fee cut wouldn't necessarily be
> time-limited (although I have no opposition to placing a limit on
> it), since there is a limited amount of time that the LRSA is still
> being offered, I figured it was inherently limited that way.
> 

It's always risky to not be explicit and create dependencies like
this that are not spelled out.

If you want the cut to be dependent on the LRSA then say that, otherwise
if the LSRA were to be modified by a future policy proposal to be
permanent, then the fee cut is now without an expiration.

If you want the fee cut to be limited to the current LSRA expiration
date then put duplicate the expiration language in the LSRA in your
suggestion.

By saying nothing your intentions are not known and then anything can
happen.

I'll get off my soapbox now. :-)

> Something to consider is this might be a good way to encourage both
> IPv6 uptake _AND_ LRSA signatures, two items which I think are
> strongly in the community's interest. I think that the fees lost to
> such an offer will pale in comparison to the benefit to the
> community.  Mostly we're looking at waiving end-user /48 one-time 
> fees. That's $1,250/organization and last I heard only a few hundred
> organizations had signed the LRSA.
> 

I don't know if it will encourage it or not, it might.  Like you, I also 
think that not a lot of orgs will take advantage of it so the impact 
isn't going to be
significant.  It's probably not going to be significant enough to be
able to track if it's effective or not, so as long as it's got some
time and size limits on it we can probably just assume it will have some 
effect and that it's a Good Thing and just do it.

 >> I guess we can call this one the Owen Tax.

wouldn't that be "Owen tax writeoff"  ;-)

Ted