[arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule

[Michael Sinatra]

On 04/12/13 05:40, John Curran wrote:
> On Apr 11, 2013, at 8:15 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>> Are you suggesting that they should not be allowed to request 
>>> a /36 IPv6 block at all, contrary to present policy?  If so, 
>>> this should raised on the Public Policy mailing list (ppml) 
>>> for further discussion.
>>
>> If you take out the fee incentive to do so, I think the policy issue is largely moot.
> 
> Owen - 
>    
>   It is very important to have a fee schedule which is "complete";
>   i.e. covers the entire range of possible address holdings.

That's exactly why I proposed my tweak.  Technically, a /36 ISP holding
is still covered under the revised (and tweaked) schedule, but there is
no incentive to ask for a /36, nor to refrain from automatically
"upgrading" to the /32 that is already being held in reserve for each
small ISP.  I don't really care about the /36 issue; I personally think
it's wrong and should go away, but I don't think that my tweak
constrains current policy in any way, nor does it lead to an incomplete
fee schedule.

>  It is
>   also good for the Board to be clear regarding the corresponding
>   fee expectations for all ranges. The fee schedule should not be
>   constraining the community discussion in any manner,

Unfortunately, John, I believe this to already be the case.  The pending
fee schedule is driving 2013-3, a policy which nobody so far has
professed to really like, but some people believe it's necessary to
patch over the incentive issue with the pending fee schedule.  The
purpose of the tweak that I proposed is to remove the policy constraints
that the fee schedule is creating.

> and it would
>   not be appropriate for the ARIN Board to use the fee schedule to 
>   preempt discussion of policy, including the proposed change in 
>   Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3 "Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs" 
>   <https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2013_3.html>.

Nobody is suggesting that the Board do this.  It is also not appropriate
for the Board, or the ARIN community, for that matter, to say that the
fee schedule is immutable (when the reality is that it isn't) and drive
sub-optimal policy as a result.  If the Board adopts my suggestion, the
ARIN community is still free to consider 2013-3, and there may even be
reasons absent the pending fee schedule to consider that proposal.

>   The community should have the opportunity to consider the various
>   of aspects of any proposed policy, including any fairness or technical 
>   concerns, and come to a conclusion regarding support or lack thereof.

For the record, I have proposed this fee schedule tweak on PPML--twice
so far.  The closest thing I have received to an objection from that
mailing list is that I should take it to -discuss, which I did.  I plan
to go back to PPML with a summary of what has been discussed on this
list.  Beyond that, I am not sure how to make a more formal proposal to
the Board regarding fees.  (It's probably on documented on somewhere,
but, as you have seen, I can be a bit lazy at looking these things up. :) )

michael