[arin-discuss] Status of realigning the IPv6 fee structure?

[Scott Morris]

On 3/13/12 8:21 PM, John Curran wrote:
> On Mar 13, 2012, at 6:13 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
>
>> By the way, I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that that
>> currently an ISP which has an allocation of a /22 of IPv4 space
>> (extra-small) that gets the default-smallest-ISP-allocation of IPv6
>> address space (a /32) suddenly becomes "small" - which results in
>> their yearly ARIN fees doubling.  $1250/year may not sound like a lot,
>> but when you're an organization of that size every penny is watched
>> carefully and it can be a tough sell to management, who may not see
>> the cost/benefit proposition.
>>
>> It would be Extra Nice if the new fee schedule addressed the Extra
>> Small problem.
> Indeed.  Based on feedback expressed on the mailing lists and 
> at the Public Policy and Member meetings, the ARIN Board has 
> expressed to me the strong desire to minimize fees for the 
> smallest members, and not create a disincentive for adopting 
> IPv6 in the process.  I am working with the Board's Finance 
> Committee on proposals that will meet those expectations.
>
> Thanks!
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>
I agree, and hope that the new fee schedule will work on that!

*
**Scott Morris*, CCIE/x4/ (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713,
CCDE #2009::D, CCNP-Voice, JNCIE-SP #153, JNCIE-ER #102, CISSP, et al.
CCSI #21903, JNCI-SP, JNCI-ER
swm at emanon.com

Knowledge is power.
Power corrupts.
Study hard and be Eeeeviiiil......