From woody at pch.net  Thu Feb 23 01:07:21 2012
From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock)
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 22:07:21 -0800
Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN as a public interest business
In-Reply-To: <9A5BEA3A-ABDC-4603-9F60-32BE0ED5CE0F@delong.com>
References: <4F45C421.7000802@willitsonline.com>
	<A591AE94-4F48-46B3-9A0A-5B648492323B@pch.net>
	<9A5BEA3A-ABDC-4603-9F60-32BE0ED5CE0F@delong.com>
Message-ID: <37D9D702-B40C-42C9-9FE5-9F10BCABB621@pch.net>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

> On Feb 22, 2012, at 9:38 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>> I'm sure someone will chime in to the effect that, because fees are a matter of budget rather than policy, the PPML is not the appropriate place for this conversation.  I hope that if and when they do, they refer us to a venue where we can continue the conversation.

On Feb 22, 2012, at 9:43 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> arin-discuss.

That was quick!  :-)

                                -Bill




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
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=6JMO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



From hannigan at gmail.com  Thu Feb 23 09:16:32 2012
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:16:32 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] ARIN as a public interest business
In-Reply-To: <A591AE94-4F48-46B3-9A0A-5B648492323B@pch.net>
References: <4F45C421.7000802@willitsonline.com>
	<A591AE94-4F48-46B3-9A0A-5B648492323B@pch.net>
Message-ID: <CAMDXq5M-GrFAawVY7P6k+_pLgtgFR2TjCoRVvVnR9dRfjC41Dg@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
>
> On Feb 22, 2012, at 8:44 PM, mike wrote:
>> I am very unhappy with the price I pay yearly to ARIN.
>
> Mr. Ireton:
>
> Thank you for bringing this up. ?I'm sure someone will chime in to the effect that, because fees are a matter of budget rather than policy, the PPML is not the appropriate place for this conversation. ?I hope that if and when they do, they refer us to a venue where we can continue the conversation.
>
> In the mean time, I'd be very interested to hear more people's thoughts on the matter. ?In general, what I've heard in the past can be grossly summarized as: small providers prefer lower fees and fewer services, while large providers prefer the status-quo or higher fees and more services.
>

PPML to BCC, arin-discuss added.


Bill,


Larger providers want fees to stay the same or higher? You're very
wrong about that. Very wrong. Noone wants to pay higher fees,
especially when ARIN has $30 million in cash sitting in the bank not
working for the members in a way that we want it to work for us.


Best,

-M<


From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Feb 23 10:05:28 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 15:05:28 +0000
Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN as a public interest business
In-Reply-To: <CAMDXq5M-GrFAawVY7P6k+_pLgtgFR2TjCoRVvVnR9dRfjC41Dg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4F45C421.7000802@willitsonline.com>
	<A591AE94-4F48-46B3-9A0A-5B648492323B@pch.net>
	<CAMDXq5M-GrFAawVY7P6k+_pLgtgFR2TjCoRVvVnR9dRfjC41Dg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B99D3AD2-9FE7-409A-B05A-DF4156D5FAE3@arin.net>

On Feb 23, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote:

> PPML to BCC, arin-discuss added.
> 
> Bill,
> 
> Larger providers want fees to stay the same or higher? You're very
> wrong about that. Very wrong. Noone wants to pay higher fees,
> especially when ARIN has $30 million in cash sitting in the bank not
> working for the members in a way that we want it to work for us.

Marty - 
 
What level of long-term reserves do you consider appropriate for ARIN?

The Board has discussed this on several occasions, deciding that having 
at least one years operating budget (approx ~$16B) in long-term reserve 
is prudent, and that even 1 1/2 years would be reasonable given the level
of potential changes faced by the organization.

Our financial reserves as of Dec 2011 were:

  $ 2.0 million Legal Reserve, 
  $ 2.8 million Operating Reserve
  $19.4 million Long-Term Reserve

At this point, we have sufficient reserves for unforeseen circumstances;
this level also allows us room to consider restructuring of fees if that
is desired by the members.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN




From hannigan at gmail.com  Thu Feb 23 10:49:38 2012
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 10:49:38 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN as a public interest business
In-Reply-To: <B99D3AD2-9FE7-409A-B05A-DF4156D5FAE3@arin.net>
References: <4F45C421.7000802@willitsonline.com>
	<A591AE94-4F48-46B3-9A0A-5B648492323B@pch.net>
	<CAMDXq5M-GrFAawVY7P6k+_pLgtgFR2TjCoRVvVnR9dRfjC41Dg@mail.gmail.com>
	<B99D3AD2-9FE7-409A-B05A-DF4156D5FAE3@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAMDXq5P5XD7HiXkG5MLqK=qt6cz7gtrXcURPUSW+=9WP=93hmQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:05 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Feb 23, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>> PPML to BCC, arin-discuss added.
>>
>> Bill,
>>
>> Larger providers want fees to stay the same or higher? You're very
>> wrong about that. Very wrong. Noone wants to pay higher fees,
>> especially when ARIN has $30 million in cash sitting in the bank not
>> working for the members in a way that we want it to work for us.
>
> Marty -
>
> What level of long-term reserves do you consider appropriate for ARIN?
>
> The Board has discussed this on several occasions, deciding that having
> at least one years operating budget (approx ~$16B) in long-term reserve
> is prudent, and that even 1 1/2 years would be reasonable given the level
> of potential changes faced by the organization.

Slide 7 of the financial report presented by the treasurer in the
Member Meeting in Philadelphia this past October shows an approved
budget of $10,374,849.00. Did I read that wrong? Did funding for 2012
really rise by $6M?

> Our financial reserves as of Dec 2011 were:
>
> ?$ 2.0 million Legal Reserve,
> ?$ 2.8 million Operating Reserve
> ?$19.4 million Long-Term Reserve

Slide 11 of the financial report presented by the treasurer in the
Member Meeting in Philadelphia this past October shows a reserve
balance of $25.2 million.

>
> At this point, we have sufficient reserves for unforeseen circumstances;
> this level also allows us room to consider restructuring of fees if that
> is desired by the members.
>

I guess you're agreeing. I can't tell though.

Best,

-M<


From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Feb 23 12:26:20 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:26:20 +0000
Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN as a public interest business - errata
In-Reply-To: <B99D3AD2-9FE7-409A-B05A-DF4156D5FAE3@arin.net>
References: <4F45C421.7000802@willitsonline.com>
	<A591AE94-4F48-46B3-9A0A-5B648492323B@pch.net>
	<CAMDXq5M-GrFAawVY7P6k+_pLgtgFR2TjCoRVvVnR9dRfjC41Dg@mail.gmail.com>
	<B99D3AD2-9FE7-409A-B05A-DF4156D5FAE3@arin.net>
Message-ID: <027B4B46-79D4-47C1-8ED7-212B9778F56F@arin.net>

On Feb 23, 2012, at 10:05 AM, John Curran wrote:

> The Board has discussed this on several occasions, deciding that having 
> at least one years operating budget (approx ~$16B)

Correction: reference should be "approx ~$16M" (as in million, not billion :-)

Apologies,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN





From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Feb 23 12:49:16 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:49:16 +0000
Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN as a public interest business
In-Reply-To: <CAMDXq5P5XD7HiXkG5MLqK=qt6cz7gtrXcURPUSW+=9WP=93hmQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4F45C421.7000802@willitsonline.com>
	<A591AE94-4F48-46B3-9A0A-5B648492323B@pch.net>
	<CAMDXq5M-GrFAawVY7P6k+_pLgtgFR2TjCoRVvVnR9dRfjC41Dg@mail.gmail.com>
	<B99D3AD2-9FE7-409A-B05A-DF4156D5FAE3@arin.net>
	<CAMDXq5P5XD7HiXkG5MLqK=qt6cz7gtrXcURPUSW+=9WP=93hmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <24D69370-114A-4A00-AC94-D91350424050@arin.net>

On Feb 23, 2012, at 10:49 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote:

> Slide 7 of the financial report presented by the treasurer in the
> Member Meeting in Philadelphia this past October shows an approved
> budget of $10,374,849.00. Did I read that wrong? Did funding for 2012
> really rise by $6M?

That slide presents the performance of budgeted expense versus actual 
expense for the period of January through August 2011 (i.e. YTD means 
"Year to Date").  The budget is available on the web site here:
https://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/budget.html

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



From hannigan at gmail.com  Thu Feb 23 12:59:42 2012
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:59:42 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN as a public interest business
In-Reply-To: <24D69370-114A-4A00-AC94-D91350424050@arin.net>
References: <4F45C421.7000802@willitsonline.com>
	<A591AE94-4F48-46B3-9A0A-5B648492323B@pch.net>
	<CAMDXq5M-GrFAawVY7P6k+_pLgtgFR2TjCoRVvVnR9dRfjC41Dg@mail.gmail.com>
	<B99D3AD2-9FE7-409A-B05A-DF4156D5FAE3@arin.net>
	<CAMDXq5P5XD7HiXkG5MLqK=qt6cz7gtrXcURPUSW+=9WP=93hmQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<24D69370-114A-4A00-AC94-D91350424050@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAMDXq5OgTT+o8sa498=MMMDZGfSC6txk15f2RS8i706XOa=6hw@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 12:49 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Feb 23, 2012, at 10:49 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>> Slide 7 of the financial report presented by the treasurer in the
>> Member Meeting in Philadelphia this past October shows an approved
>> budget of $10,374,849.00. Did I read that wrong? Did funding for 2012
>> really rise by $6M?
>
> That slide presents the performance of budgeted expense versus actual
> expense for the period of January through August 2011 (i.e. YTD means
> "Year to Date"). ?The budget is available on the web site here:
> https://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/budget.html
>


The slide that I pointed to demonstrates YTD, actual budget, and variance.

     https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXVIII/PDF/friday/andersen_treasurer.pdf

Did the 2012 budget increased 6M over 2011 as analyzing both slides
and now the URL you provided would seem to indicate?

With regards to answering your question and suggesting what the proper
amount of reserve is for an organization like ARIN, what organizations
can I use to compare ARIN to?


Best,

-M<


From john.sweeting at twcable.com  Thu Feb 23 13:20:52 2012
From: john.sweeting at twcable.com (Sweeting, John)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 13:20:52 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN as a public interest business
In-Reply-To: <CAMDXq5OgTT+o8sa498=MMMDZGfSC6txk15f2RS8i706XOa=6hw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CB6BED4D.1465B%john.sweeting@twcable.com>



On 2/23/12 12:59 PM, "Martin Hannigan" <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 12:49 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>> On Feb 23, 2012, at 10:49 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>>
>>> Slide 7 of the financial report presented by the treasurer in the
>>> Member Meeting in Philadelphia this past October shows an approved
>>> budget of $10,374,849.00. Did I read that wrong? Did funding for 2012
>>> really rise by $6M?
>>
>> That slide presents the performance of budgeted expense versus actual
>> expense for the period of January through August 2011 (i.e. YTD means
>> "Year to Date").  The budget is available on the web site here:
>> https://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/budget.html
>>
>
>
>The slide that I pointed to demonstrates YTD, actual budget, and variance.
>
>
>https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXVIII/PDF/friday/a
>ndersen_treasurer.pdf


It is Actual YTD, Budget YTD, and variance YTD.

>
>Did the 2012 budget increased 6M over 2011 as analyzing both slides
>and now the URL you provided would seem to indicate?
>
>With regards to answering your question and suggesting what the proper
>amount of reserve is for an organization like ARIN, what organizations
>can I use to compare ARIN to?
>
>
>Best,
>
>-M<
>_______________________________________________
>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.


This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.


From hannigan at gmail.com  Thu Feb 23 13:36:21 2012
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 13:36:21 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN as a public interest business
In-Reply-To: <CB6BED4D.1465B%john.sweeting@twcable.com>
References: <CAMDXq5OgTT+o8sa498=MMMDZGfSC6txk15f2RS8i706XOa=6hw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CB6BED4D.1465B%john.sweeting@twcable.com>
Message-ID: <CAMDXq5M2BAxHLGSQv=BFZ-B+=snt=gG7JyJoe_FG2qSxBzsy7Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Sweeting, John
<john.sweeting at twcable.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 2/23/12 12:59 PM, "Martin Hannigan" <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 12:49 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>>> On Feb 23, 2012, at 10:49 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>>>
>>>> Slide 7 of the financial report presented by the treasurer in the
>>>> Member Meeting in Philadelphia this past October shows an approved
>>>> budget of $10,374,849.00. Did I read that wrong? Did funding for 2012
>>>> really rise by $6M?
>>>
>>> That slide presents the performance of budgeted expense versus actual
>>> expense for the period of January through August 2011 (i.e. YTD means
>>> "Year to Date"). ?The budget is available on the web site here:
>>> https://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/budget.html
>>>
>>
>>
>>The slide that I pointed to demonstrates YTD, actual budget, and variance.
>>
>>
>>https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXVIII/PDF/friday/a
>>ndersen_treasurer.pdf
>
>
> It is Actual YTD, Budget YTD, and variance YTD.

The slides don't actually say that, but it makes sense. That simply
leaves the question as to how much did ARIN's budget actually increase
over 2011 and:


>>With regards to answering your question and suggesting what the proper
>>amount of reserve is for an organization like ARIN, what organizations
>>can I use to compare ARIN to?


Best,

-M<


From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Feb 23 13:59:47 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 18:59:47 +0000
Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN as a public interest business
In-Reply-To: <CAMDXq5M2BAxHLGSQv=BFZ-B+=snt=gG7JyJoe_FG2qSxBzsy7Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMDXq5OgTT+o8sa498=MMMDZGfSC6txk15f2RS8i706XOa=6hw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CB6BED4D.1465B%john.sweeting@twcable.com>
	<CAMDXq5M2BAxHLGSQv=BFZ-B+=snt=gG7JyJoe_FG2qSxBzsy7Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A756FF7F-1930-40B0-9B5F-E62A8BE53B2A@arin.net>

On Feb 23, 2012, at 1:36 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:

>> It is Actual YTD, Budget YTD, and variance YTD.
> 
> The slides don't actually say that, but it makes sense. That simply
> leaves the question as to how much did ARIN's budget actually increase
> over 2011 and:

ARIN's 2011 Budget was $ 16,412,160
ARIN's 2012 Budget is  $ 16,918,953

That is an increase of $    506,793.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



From hannigan at gmail.com  Thu Feb 23 14:10:12 2012
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 14:10:12 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] ARIN as a public interest business
In-Reply-To: <A756FF7F-1930-40B0-9B5F-E62A8BE53B2A@arin.net>
References: <CAMDXq5OgTT+o8sa498=MMMDZGfSC6txk15f2RS8i706XOa=6hw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CB6BED4D.1465B%john.sweeting@twcable.com>
	<CAMDXq5M2BAxHLGSQv=BFZ-B+=snt=gG7JyJoe_FG2qSxBzsy7Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<A756FF7F-1930-40B0-9B5F-E62A8BE53B2A@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAMDXq5Pj9cg7AT2Fip=PM-v5StiBFUJj+qPpZyPdnh1OBMOzvg@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks!



On Thursday, February 23, 2012, John Curran wrote:

> On Feb 23, 2012, at 1:36 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
> >> It is Actual YTD, Budget YTD, and variance YTD.
> >
> > The slides don't actually say that, but it makes sense. That simply
> > leaves the question as to how much did ARIN's budget actually increase
> > over 2011 and:
>
> ARIN's 2011 Budget was $ 16,412,160
> ARIN's 2012 Budget is  $ 16,918,953
>
> That is an increase of $    506,793.
>
> FYI,
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>
>

-- 
Sent via a mobile device
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20120223/72a745e5/attachment.html>

From lsc at prgmr.com  Thu Feb 23 16:45:03 2012
From: lsc at prgmr.com (Luke S. Crawford)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:45:03 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] ARIN as a public interest business
In-Reply-To: <CAMDXq5M-GrFAawVY7P6k+_pLgtgFR2TjCoRVvVnR9dRfjC41Dg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4F45C421.7000802@willitsonline.com>
	<A591AE94-4F48-46B3-9A0A-5B648492323B@pch.net>
	<CAMDXq5M-GrFAawVY7P6k+_pLgtgFR2TjCoRVvVnR9dRfjC41Dg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20120223214502.GA31443@luke.xen.prgmr.com>

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 09:16:32AM -0500, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> Larger providers want fees to stay the same or higher? You're very
> wrong about that. Very wrong. Noone wants to pay higher fees,
> especially when ARIN has $30 million in cash sitting in the bank not
> working for the members in a way that we want it to work for us.

Hm.  I am both small and low-margin.   I recently obtained my first /20.
I do a lot of consulting for slightly larger (but still quite small
in the scheme of things) companies.   

When I got my own /20 after five years of working to get enough users
to justify it?  my per-ip costs immediately began falling as I 
returned space to my upstreams, and I'm in a much stronger position to 
negotiate new bandwidth contracts.   From what I see from others 
towards my end of the market?  they'd be happy to pay quite a lot 
more if it meant they would get their own allocation sooner (rather 
than getting small blocks piecemeal from your upstreams, then 
getting a direct block, then renumbering out of your upstream IPs.) 

I mean, I'm sure other companies have different cost structures;  some
of them may even have less revenue per IP than I do.  But the thing I worry
about is "can I renumber out of all my PA space before runout?"  relying 
on PA space is an extremely frightening thing, especially as providers
even now are using runout as an excuse to raise prices.  

I'm just saying, for me?  I'd be quite happy paying ARIN 2x or 3x as 
much if it meant, say, that some space would be reserved for when 
I could justify it.  Using IPs you don't have direct from ARIN 
is a frighteningly expensive proposition. The cheapest PA /24s 
I have cost me a grand a year.   The most expensive PA /24s cost 
me $384.  And this is the line item on the invoice; I believe I'm 
paying more than I need to for the rest of the services I get from 
those providers because they know it's a huge pain for me to lose 
those IPs before I finish the painful process of getting everyone to 
move.   Nearly all of those blocks were free with the bandwidth 
when the contract started.  

Certainly, not everyone feels this way, (and certainly, it's more 
difficult for me to renumber than for most people, and my current 
difficulties are largely unrelated to anything but some poorly-considered
promises I have made to my own customers.)  but I can't tell you the 
number of consulting clients (that were not large enough to justify 
a direct allocation)  that just wanted to write a large check to get 
a large block from ARIN. 

If anything, with v4 runout approaching, I'm glad they have something of a
war chest to help smooth runout.  I mean, I don't claim to know what is
going to happen, but I'm pretty sure that if ARIN no longer has address 
space, it's going to be a /whole lot/ more difficult for those of us
who came of age after CIDR and therefore don't have huge class B blocks 
to compete in spaces that require lots of low-cost IPv4 addresses, like
the virtual private server market.

So yeah, if anything?   I'd vote to charge me more if it means ARIN is
more prepared for runout.  (I don't know if they can use money to help 
solve that problem, but they are in a position to do something more than
anyone else is.)
 


From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Feb 23 17:13:54 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 22:13:54 +0000
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] ARIN as a public interest business
In-Reply-To: <20120223214502.GA31443@luke.xen.prgmr.com>
References: <4F45C421.7000802@willitsonline.com>
	<A591AE94-4F48-46B3-9A0A-5B648492323B@pch.net>
	<CAMDXq5M-GrFAawVY7P6k+_pLgtgFR2TjCoRVvVnR9dRfjC41Dg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20120223214502.GA31443@luke.xen.prgmr.com>
Message-ID: <4499C01D-B865-4FE4-88F1-41EBEFCD2DA2@arin.net>

Luke - 
 
  Thanks for that input.  Do you subscribe the the ARIN Public Policy
  mailing list?  

  The reason I ask is that there was recently a proposal to reserve 
  space for new entrants, but it did not receive much discussion.  
  Your note below suggests something very similar, and I was wondering
  if you had seen the proposal (ARIN Policy Proposal 165) when it came 
  out?

Thanks again!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

On Feb 23, 2012, at 4:45 PM, Luke S. Crawford wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 09:16:32AM -0500, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>> Larger providers want fees to stay the same or higher? You're very
>> wrong about that. Very wrong. Noone wants to pay higher fees,
>> especially when ARIN has $30 million in cash sitting in the bank not
>> working for the members in a way that we want it to work for us.
> 
> Hm.  I am both small and low-margin.   I recently obtained my first /20.
> I do a lot of consulting for slightly larger (but still quite small
> in the scheme of things) companies.   
> 
> When I got my own /20 after five years of working to get enough users
> to justify it?  my per-ip costs immediately began falling as I 
> returned space to my upstreams, and I'm in a much stronger position to 
> negotiate new bandwidth contracts.   From what I see from others 
> towards my end of the market?  they'd be happy to pay quite a lot 
> more if it meant they would get their own allocation sooner (rather 
> than getting small blocks piecemeal from your upstreams, then 
> getting a direct block, then renumbering out of your upstream IPs.) 
> 
> I mean, I'm sure other companies have different cost structures;  some
> of them may even have less revenue per IP than I do.  But the thing I worry
> about is "can I renumber out of all my PA space before runout?"  relying 
> on PA space is an extremely frightening thing, especially as providers
> even now are using runout as an excuse to raise prices.  
> 
> I'm just saying, for me?  I'd be quite happy paying ARIN 2x or 3x as 
> much if it meant, say, that some space would be reserved for when 
> I could justify it.  Using IPs you don't have direct from ARIN 
> is a frighteningly expensive proposition. The cheapest PA /24s 
> I have cost me a grand a year.   The most expensive PA /24s cost 
> me $384.  And this is the line item on the invoice; I believe I'm 
> paying more than I need to for the rest of the services I get from 
> those providers because they know it's a huge pain for me to lose 
> those IPs before I finish the painful process of getting everyone to 
> move.   Nearly all of those blocks were free with the bandwidth 
> when the contract started.  
> 
> Certainly, not everyone feels this way, (and certainly, it's more 
> difficult for me to renumber than for most people, and my current 
> difficulties are largely unrelated to anything but some poorly-considered
> promises I have made to my own customers.)  but I can't tell you the 
> number of consulting clients (that were not large enough to justify 
> a direct allocation)  that just wanted to write a large check to get 
> a large block from ARIN. 
> 
> If anything, with v4 runout approaching, I'm glad they have something of a
> war chest to help smooth runout.  I mean, I don't claim to know what is
> going to happen, but I'm pretty sure that if ARIN no longer has address 
> space, it's going to be a /whole lot/ more difficult for those of us
> who came of age after CIDR and therefore don't have huge class B blocks 
> to compete in spaces that require lots of low-cost IPv4 addresses, like
> the virtual private server market.
> 
> So yeah, if anything?   I'd vote to charge me more if it means ARIN is
> more prepared for runout.  (I don't know if they can use money to help 
> solve that problem, but they are in a position to do something more than
> anyone else is.)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.



From farmer at umn.edu  Thu Feb 23 17:38:35 2012
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:38:35 -0600
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] ARIN as a public interest business
In-Reply-To: <4499C01D-B865-4FE4-88F1-41EBEFCD2DA2@arin.net>
References: <4F45C421.7000802@willitsonline.com>
	<A591AE94-4F48-46B3-9A0A-5B648492323B@pch.net>
	<CAMDXq5M-GrFAawVY7P6k+_pLgtgFR2TjCoRVvVnR9dRfjC41Dg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20120223214502.GA31443@luke.xen.prgmr.com>
	<4499C01D-B865-4FE4-88F1-41EBEFCD2DA2@arin.net>
Message-ID: <4F46BFEB.9090507@umn.edu>

John,

I think you mean ARIN-prop-163 - Dedicated resources for initial ISP 
allocations, and not ARIN-prop-165 - Eliminate Needs-Based Justification 
on 8.3 Specified Transfers.  Otherwise I'm really confused.

On 2/23/12 16:13 CST, John Curran wrote:
> Luke -
>
>    Thanks for that input.  Do you subscribe the the ARIN Public Policy
>    mailing list?
>
>    The reason I ask is that there was recently a proposal to reserve
>    space for new entrants, but it did not receive much discussion.
>    Your note below suggests something very similar, and I was wondering
>    if you had seen the proposal (ARIN Policy Proposal 165) when it came
>    out?
>
> Thanks again!
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>
> On Feb 23, 2012, at 4:45 PM, Luke S. Crawford wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 09:16:32AM -0500, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>>> Larger providers want fees to stay the same or higher? You're very
>>> wrong about that. Very wrong. Noone wants to pay higher fees,
>>> especially when ARIN has $30 million in cash sitting in the bank not
>>> working for the members in a way that we want it to work for us.
>>
>> Hm.  I am both small and low-margin.   I recently obtained my first /20.
>> I do a lot of consulting for slightly larger (but still quite small
>> in the scheme of things) companies.
>>
>> When I got my own /20 after five years of working to get enough users
>> to justify it?  my per-ip costs immediately began falling as I
>> returned space to my upstreams, and I'm in a much stronger position to
>> negotiate new bandwidth contracts.   From what I see from others
>> towards my end of the market?  they'd be happy to pay quite a lot
>> more if it meant they would get their own allocation sooner (rather
>> than getting small blocks piecemeal from your upstreams, then
>> getting a direct block, then renumbering out of your upstream IPs.)
>>
>> I mean, I'm sure other companies have different cost structures;  some
>> of them may even have less revenue per IP than I do.  But the thing I worry
>> about is "can I renumber out of all my PA space before runout?"  relying
>> on PA space is an extremely frightening thing, especially as providers
>> even now are using runout as an excuse to raise prices.
>>
>> I'm just saying, for me?  I'd be quite happy paying ARIN 2x or 3x as
>> much if it meant, say, that some space would be reserved for when
>> I could justify it.  Using IPs you don't have direct from ARIN
>> is a frighteningly expensive proposition. The cheapest PA /24s
>> I have cost me a grand a year.   The most expensive PA /24s cost
>> me $384.  And this is the line item on the invoice; I believe I'm
>> paying more than I need to for the rest of the services I get from
>> those providers because they know it's a huge pain for me to lose
>> those IPs before I finish the painful process of getting everyone to
>> move.   Nearly all of those blocks were free with the bandwidth
>> when the contract started.
>>
>> Certainly, not everyone feels this way, (and certainly, it's more
>> difficult for me to renumber than for most people, and my current
>> difficulties are largely unrelated to anything but some poorly-considered
>> promises I have made to my own customers.)  but I can't tell you the
>> number of consulting clients (that were not large enough to justify
>> a direct allocation)  that just wanted to write a large check to get
>> a large block from ARIN.
>>
>> If anything, with v4 runout approaching, I'm glad they have something of a
>> war chest to help smooth runout.  I mean, I don't claim to know what is
>> going to happen, but I'm pretty sure that if ARIN no longer has address
>> space, it's going to be a /whole lot/ more difficult for those of us
>> who came of age after CIDR and therefore don't have huge class B blocks
>> to compete in spaces that require lots of low-cost IPv4 addresses, like
>> the virtual private server market.
>>
>> So yeah, if anything?   I'd vote to charge me more if it means ARIN is
>> more prepared for runout.  (I don't know if they can use money to help
>> solve that problem, but they are in a position to do something more than
>> anyone else is.)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================


From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Feb 23 17:44:26 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 22:44:26 +0000
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] ARIN as a public interest business
In-Reply-To: <4F46BFEB.9090507@umn.edu>
References: <4F45C421.7000802@willitsonline.com>
	<A591AE94-4F48-46B3-9A0A-5B648492323B@pch.net>
	<CAMDXq5M-GrFAawVY7P6k+_pLgtgFR2TjCoRVvVnR9dRfjC41Dg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20120223214502.GA31443@luke.xen.prgmr.com>
	<4499C01D-B865-4FE4-88F1-41EBEFCD2DA2@arin.net>
	<4F46BFEB.9090507@umn.edu>
Message-ID: <49B73DBC-E95D-4010-91D6-A20FE88E8B02@arin.net>

David - Thanks... That is correct, I typo'd the number and meant to reference
ARIN-Prop-163 "Dedicated resources for initial ISP allocations"

<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2012-February/024054.html>

/John

On Feb 23, 2012, at 5:38 PM, David Farmer wrote:

> John,
> 
> I think you mean ARIN-prop-163 - Dedicated resources for initial ISP allocations, and not ARIN-prop-165 - Eliminate Needs-Based Justification on 8.3 Specified Transfers.  Otherwise I'm really confused.
> 
> On 2/23/12 16:13 CST, John Curran wrote:
>> Luke -
>> 
>>   Thanks for that input.  Do you subscribe the the ARIN Public Policy
>>   mailing list?
>> 
>>   The reason I ask is that there was recently a proposal to reserve
>>   space for new entrants, but it did not receive much discussion.
>>   Your note below suggests something very similar, and I was wondering
>>   if you had seen the proposal (ARIN Policy Proposal 165) when it came
>>   out?
>> 
>> Thanks again!
>> /John
>> 
>> John Curran
>> President and CEO
>> ARIN
>> 
>> On Feb 23, 2012, at 4:45 PM, Luke S. Crawford wrote:
>> 
>>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 09:16:32AM -0500, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>>>> Larger providers want fees to stay the same or higher? You're very
>>>> wrong about that. Very wrong. Noone wants to pay higher fees,
>>>> especially when ARIN has $30 million in cash sitting in the bank not
>>>> working for the members in a way that we want it to work for us.
>>> 
>>> Hm.  I am both small and low-margin.   I recently obtained my first /20.
>>> I do a lot of consulting for slightly larger (but still quite small
>>> in the scheme of things) companies.
>>> 
>>> When I got my own /20 after five years of working to get enough users
>>> to justify it?  my per-ip costs immediately began falling as I
>>> returned space to my upstreams, and I'm in a much stronger position to
>>> negotiate new bandwidth contracts.   From what I see from others
>>> towards my end of the market?  they'd be happy to pay quite a lot
>>> more if it meant they would get their own allocation sooner (rather
>>> than getting small blocks piecemeal from your upstreams, then
>>> getting a direct block, then renumbering out of your upstream IPs.)
>>> 
>>> I mean, I'm sure other companies have different cost structures;  some
>>> of them may even have less revenue per IP than I do.  But the thing I worry
>>> about is "can I renumber out of all my PA space before runout?"  relying
>>> on PA space is an extremely frightening thing, especially as providers
>>> even now are using runout as an excuse to raise prices.
>>> 
>>> I'm just saying, for me?  I'd be quite happy paying ARIN 2x or 3x as
>>> much if it meant, say, that some space would be reserved for when
>>> I could justify it.  Using IPs you don't have direct from ARIN
>>> is a frighteningly expensive proposition. The cheapest PA /24s
>>> I have cost me a grand a year.   The most expensive PA /24s cost
>>> me $384.  And this is the line item on the invoice; I believe I'm
>>> paying more than I need to for the rest of the services I get from
>>> those providers because they know it's a huge pain for me to lose
>>> those IPs before I finish the painful process of getting everyone to
>>> move.   Nearly all of those blocks were free with the bandwidth
>>> when the contract started.
>>> 
>>> Certainly, not everyone feels this way, (and certainly, it's more
>>> difficult for me to renumber than for most people, and my current
>>> difficulties are largely unrelated to anything but some poorly-considered
>>> promises I have made to my own customers.)  but I can't tell you the
>>> number of consulting clients (that were not large enough to justify
>>> a direct allocation)  that just wanted to write a large check to get
>>> a large block from ARIN.
>>> 
>>> If anything, with v4 runout approaching, I'm glad they have something of a
>>> war chest to help smooth runout.  I mean, I don't claim to know what is
>>> going to happen, but I'm pretty sure that if ARIN no longer has address
>>> space, it's going to be a /whole lot/ more difficult for those of us
>>> who came of age after CIDR and therefore don't have huge class B blocks
>>> to compete in spaces that require lots of low-cost IPv4 addresses, like
>>> the virtual private server market.
>>> 
>>> So yeah, if anything?   I'd vote to charge me more if it means ARIN is
>>> more prepared for runout.  (I don't know if they can use money to help
>>> solve that problem, but they are in a position to do something more than
>>> anyone else is.)
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.
> 
> -- 
> ===============================================
> David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
> Networking & Telecommunication Services
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota	
> 2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
> ===============================================



From hannigan at gmail.com  Thu Feb 23 17:45:42 2012
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:45:42 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] ARIN as a public interest business
In-Reply-To: <20120223214502.GA31443@luke.xen.prgmr.com>
References: <4F45C421.7000802@willitsonline.com>
	<A591AE94-4F48-46B3-9A0A-5B648492323B@pch.net>
	<CAMDXq5M-GrFAawVY7P6k+_pLgtgFR2TjCoRVvVnR9dRfjC41Dg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20120223214502.GA31443@luke.xen.prgmr.com>
Message-ID: <CAMDXq5PxYrXHKyQXPvS42KCAnMNTW7e+pwVdofBsYNzr2WAXcw@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Luke S. Crawford <lsc at prgmr.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 09:16:32AM -0500, Martin Hannigan wrote:

> I'm just saying, for me? ?I'd be quite happy paying ARIN 2x or 3x as
> much if it meant, say, that some space would be reserved for when
> I could justify it. ?Using IPs you don't have direct from ARIN
> is a frighteningly expensive proposition. The cheapest PA /24s
> I have cost me a grand a year. ? The most expensive PA /24s cost
> me $384. ?And this is the line item on the invoice; I believe I'm
> paying more than I need to for the rest of the services I get from
> those providers because they know it's a huge pain for me to lose
> those IPs before I finish the painful process of getting everyone to
> move. ? Nearly all of those blocks were free with the bandwidth
> when the contract started.

Was allowing them to charge you for PA part of the service terms?

> Certainly, not everyone feels this way, (and certainly, it's more
> difficult for me to renumber than for most people, and my current
> difficulties are largely unrelated to anything but some poorly-considered
> promises I have made to my own customers.) ?but I can't tell you the
> number of consulting clients (that were not large enough to justify
> a direct allocation) ?that just wanted to write a large check to get
> a large block from ARIN.

Doesn't everyone. But they can write a large check to acquire
addresses via the legacy market today:

http://addrex.net/
http://ipv4marketgroup.com/


> If anything, with v4 runout approaching, I'm glad they have something of a
> war chest to help smooth runout. ?I mean, I don't claim to know what is

I wish it were that simple. That war chest represents a significant
over charging of services in my opinion.

> going to happen, but I'm pretty sure that if ARIN no longer has address
> space, it's going to be a /whole lot/ more difficult for those of us
> who came of age after CIDR and therefore don't have huge class B blocks
> to compete in spaces that require lots of low-cost IPv4 addresses, like
> the virtual private server market.


I agree with you. But then again, it'll be harder for all of us.

> So yeah, if anything? ? I'd vote to charge me more if it means ARIN is
> more prepared for runout. ?(I don't know if they can use money to help
> solve that problem, but they are in a position to do something more than
> anyone else is.)


I wish we knew what they would use the money for period.


Best,

-M<


From lsc at prgmr.com  Fri Feb 24 03:18:14 2012
From: lsc at prgmr.com (Luke S. Crawford)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 03:18:14 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] ARIN as a public interest business
In-Reply-To: <CAMDXq5PxYrXHKyQXPvS42KCAnMNTW7e+pwVdofBsYNzr2WAXcw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4F45C421.7000802@willitsonline.com>
	<A591AE94-4F48-46B3-9A0A-5B648492323B@pch.net>
	<CAMDXq5M-GrFAawVY7P6k+_pLgtgFR2TjCoRVvVnR9dRfjC41Dg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20120223214502.GA31443@luke.xen.prgmr.com>
	<CAMDXq5PxYrXHKyQXPvS42KCAnMNTW7e+pwVdofBsYNzr2WAXcw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20120224081812.GA14492@luke.xen.prgmr.com>

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 05:45:42PM -0500, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> > If anything, with v4 runout approaching, I'm glad they have something of a
> > war chest to help smooth runout. ?I mean, I don't claim to know what is
> 
> I wish it were that simple. That war chest represents a significant
> over charging of services in my opinion.

I think the real question is "what can they do about runout"  - 
I don't have any ideas on how a pile of cash could mitigate 
the problem, but it does mean that legal challenges 
(and there will be legal challenges when runout comes) 
to their authority will be just that- challenges. 

Eh, I mean, that's just one reason why sitting on some cash
when runout comes might be a good idea.