[arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] x-small IPv4 ISPs going to IPv6

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

On 5/3/2010 10:28 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On May 3, 2010, at 10:14 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 4/30/2010 5:39 PM, James Hess wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt<tedm at ipinc.net>   wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>> Also since ARIN is duty-bound to return that .8 Mil in the form of
>>>> fee DECREASES then the real argument is this, do we want the
>>>> ultimate revenue ARIN takes in to NOT increase as a result of IPv6
>>>> or do we want it to DECREASE so we all (ISPs who are NOT x-smalls)
>>>> can get a nice break on our own fees?
>>>
>>> Why do you say ARIN is duty-bound in any way to return "that .8 Mil"?
>>> I don't think that is right at all.
>>>
>>>
>>> There are probably various useful ways in which ARIN could spend that
>>> to perform ARIN's duties better.  Reducing fees or  'returning' $$ is
>>> just one option,
>>> but not particularly  beneficial to ARIN's  continued survival.
>>>
>>> Also in terms offsetting  loss of IPv4 allocation-related revenue
>>> after V4 exhaustion.
>>>
>>> And new expenses incurred  related to managing IPv6 address space
>>> and service enhancements,  outreach, etc...
>>>
>>
>> ARIN is a non-profit and thus cannot make a profit, the "IPv6 x-small
>> windfall" must therefore be returned in fee decreases, or spent
>> on increased operations.
>>
> Or held in a reserve or...
>

Reserve is nothing, if you put the next 5 years of .8Mil increases
in reserve then you end up with 4 million and then the question is
what are you going to spend it on?  The question is no different than
what are you going to spend the .8 Mil on this year?  This is just
evading the point.

And the "or..." just gets back to my original question, what are
you going to spend the money on?

> There are many options within the rules of not for profit.
>
> As I said earlier, you really need to re-read 28USC501(c).
>
>> You can assume that inflation
>> will chew up some of the "IPv6 x-small windfall", and you can assume
>> that growth in ISP's will chew up more (although, the region ARIN is
>> responsible for is pretty well saturated at this time as it is) you
>> can also assume some of the community mandates (Whois cleanup, increased
>> IPv6 resource tracking) will chew up even more
>>
>> But, ARIN is not so poorly run that outreach and managing of IPv6
>> address space is going to significantly increase their budget.  Also
>> I'll point out that outreach is already being paid out of the current
>> budget, and that it will not be needed once the majority of ISP's
>> get the message about IPv6.
>>
> Their budget is currently running at a deficit which exceeds the maximum
> alleged windfall.
>

So what?  So then they institute a fee increase as they are required to
do since they are a non-profit, and we all pay higher fees next year and
they go back into balance - or they cut spending when they use up their 
reserves and they go back into balance - and then 4-5 years from now 
what are you going to do about the "IPv6 windfall" when it happens then?

Or are you advocating they run at a deficit for another 5-6 years and 
use the windfall to cover it?

This is all just casting around trying to avoid the fact that having a
lot of x-smalls pay more money, and having legacy IPv4 holders
pay more money for IPv6 is going to result in a revenue increase.  As I
have said, what do you want to do with the revenue increase from the
windfall?  Spend it on inflating ARIN's bureaucracy?  Return it as fee
decreases?  Or use it as waivers to help get some more x-smalls onboard
with IPv6 right now?  Since that revenue windfall is going to be mostly 
from x-smalls paying more money it certainly seems to me a lot wiser to 
spend it on getting them on IPv6 now, so as to advance IPv6 penetration, 
then withdrawing it once IPv6 is required for ISP
operations.

If the ARIN community's response to the x-smalls is to just suck it
up and pay the extra money if you want IPv6, or to disparage their
finances and claim that the thousand bucks a year is peanuts and
they shouldn't be bitching about it, then I think that I speak for
the majority of x-smalls when I say that their response is
going to be something along the lines of "IPv6? We'll get to it when
we need it and we just don't need it right now"

And as I have also said before, maybe that really doesn't matter
since bringing on the x-smalls to IPv6 just maybe isn't going to be
an IPv6 driver.

Ted