[arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule
Jesse D. Geddis
jesse at la-broadband.com
Fri Apr 12 15:50:04 EDT 2013
>One excellent aspect of this discussion is that it has raised a valid
>question as to whether the fee structure that we have used since ARIN's
>inception (that of size categories) is the best structure going forward,
>and that is an important question that the Board has looked at in the
>past but should likely revisit in light of the increased interest by
>the community and excellent suggestions for alternative structures...
>For example, would a fee structure which is unrelated to address holdings
>be a better approach and prevent fee/policy interactions? Would a fee
>structure which is tied more directly to registry costs (e.g. registry
>objects and/or transaction costs) be more appropriate? I believe that
>these are some aspects of a longer discussion to be held on this topic.
John, I agree that revisiting the foundation of the fee schedule is very
important here. However, I completely disagree with the presumption that
there is a direct relation in the current policy between fees & address
holdings. I would argue that there's no relation, whatsoever, since the
per annum fee difference between a /14 and a /8 is $0.00. Even though the
allocation delta is 16.5million IP's there is no increase in price. While
for all the lower tiers the price doubles with each tiny bump in
I think the fee schedule should be tied *directly* to allocation and they
aren't at all right now.
LA Broadband LLC.
More information about the ARIN-discuss