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

[joel jaeggli]

I'm surprised that the economists haven't weighed in on this proposal. 

At first glance I'm completely unclear on what benefit to deployment offering LRSA holders ipv6 prefixes achives. The existence of LRSA holders without ipv6 prefixes is a gating condition for what ipv6 deployment milestone?

Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

>
>On Feb 5, 2010, at 12:57 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>> 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.
>> 
>The suggestion was to offer the cut to legacy holders that signed an LRSA.  It doesn't
>get more explicit than that in my mind.  I wasn't explicit about an expiration date because
>it hadn't occurred to me that one might be desirable (being as this is a cut of a one-time
>fee, not a recurring fee).  However, I was attempting to point out that there was also
>somewhat of an inherent limit in the other combination of factors.
>
>> 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.
>> 
>I don't care whether it is time limited or not.
>
>> By saying nothing your intentions are not known and then anything can
>> happen.
>> 
>I tend not to say anything if I am indifferent until someone else brings up the
>subject.  As I said, I don't care if it is time limited or not. If a time limit makes it
>more palatable to people I have no objection.
>
>Owen
>
>_______________________________________________
>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.
>