[arin-discuss] fee waivers

Wed Jun 23 15:01:31 EDT 2010

Aaron,

   Frankly I've never understood how ARIN arrived at the fee AMOUNTS in 
the first place, and the fact that those fees have NOT increased along
with inflation pretty much points to the notion that they are, to put
it bluntly, arbitrary.  So yes, I can understand that a $1250 one-time
wack out of the blue seems pretty stunning.

   However I have to side with Paul, Michael & Steve on this one, this
is a dead issue, it's been fought before, I've even been involved in 
fighting those battles myself, with little sympathy.

   And I do also feel that there must be SOME bar to entry to IPv6 or
we are going to have everyone and their dog signing up for direct 
assignments/allocations/whatever from ARIN rather than going to their
upstream ISP.

   When it gets down to brass tacks, $1250 isn't THAT high.  You cannot
even buy a running used car that doesn't have a whole lot of hidden
crash damage or the engine ready to fall out for that kind of money. 
And Apple Computers seems to have absolutely no trouble collecting that
for their (in my opinion ridiculously overpriced) laptops.  (they look
cool, though)

   What I think gives people pause is that the $1250 figure is high 
enough to NOT be able to slip in under a $500 limit on an expense
report - so you cannot spend it WITHOUT having a big discussion with
the check signers, a discussion that I think most admins would rather
NOT have - yet it is not so high that the CEO is going to put the
kibosh on the IPv6 rollout project.

   In a short phrase, it's an expense that has to be budgeted - whether
your org is a shoestring org and you have to go beg it from someone,
or a rich oil company org that spends more than that on scented toilet
paper every month.  And after 20+ years of experience in high tech, 
working with other admins and accountants, I know damn well that most 
normal admins out there would rather have a root canal than deal with 
budgeting.

Ted

On 6/23/2010 11:31 AM, Aaron Wendel wrote:
> Once again, and to my continued astonishment, I'm in complete agreement with
> Owen.
>
> This is not about my exchange, or me not wanting to pay a fee or even about
> whether those fees are justified.  One of my members stepped up to the plate
> and paid the fee.  It's over and done with.
>
> My intent here was to bring up a point that I believe has merit.  There is a
> fee waiver in place for initial allocations to ISPs because we want ISPs to
> adopt IPv6.  Don't we want end users to adopt IPv6?  ISPs have more of an
> incentive because they're growing and need additional space ongoing.  They
> need a migration plan.  What about Bob's Pizza that qualified for a /20
> years ago and will never need more IPs?  What is his incentive to move to
> v6?  If large chunks of network space don't adopt v6 then it removes the
> incentive for everyone else to as well.  I see a lot of momentum being
> generated by the "everyone is doing it" clause.
>
> I understand that fee's are not a matter of policy.  That's why I submitted
> my suggestion/question/out loud thought to the discuss list and not PPML and
> I thought this was the appropriate place to "discuss" it.
>
> Aaron
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]
> On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 12:22 PM
> To:<michael.dillon at bt.com>
> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] fee waivers
>
>
> On Jun 23, 2010, at 2:35 AM,<michael.dillon at bt.com>  <michael.dillon at bt.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> but this case would be covered under "community networking" which had
>> a
>>> separate policy process and the arin community already ruled against
>>> fee waivers in this case. i am not reraising that issue, dead is dead.
>>> however, it's worth keeping the record straight, an IX with legitimate
>>> participants can still in some cases have no bank account.
>>
>> Bottom line then is that most end users don't need a fee waiver
>> because IPv6 is free from their ISP and they should have no
>> problem getting a /48 even if the ISP normally hands out smaller
>> prefixes.
>>
>> End users who really, really need to have a portable assignment
>> can pay a one time fee to ARIN and that fee is already low enough
>> that we don't consider it a barrier to IPv6 deployment.
>>
> Let me paraphrase that a little:
>
> Bottom line: End users should be treated as second class citizens.
> If they don't want to be second class citizens, it's OK for us to require
> a certain level of wealth in order to treat them otherwise.
>
>
> 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.
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2957 - Release Date: 06/23/10
> 01:36:00
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.