[arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule

[John Curran]

On Apr 13, 2013, at 10:37 AM, Mike A. Salim <msalim at localweb.com> wrote:

> The analogy fails because after I have purchased and taken my Jeep home, Jeep Cherokee Corporation does not come back to me and say: "About that Jeep you we sold you for $1000, we need you to pay up another $1000 or exchange it for a lower model because we changed our mind and came out with a lower model at the $1000 price and raised the price on the one we sold you".  Yet that is pretty much what ARIN is telling me.

Umm... To be accurate, it would be more comparable if Jeep told you it 
would be without charge due to a 100% waiver, but that waiver would be 
retired over the next four years (100%, 75%, 50%, 25%) -  

  <https://www.arin.net/announcements/2007/20071004.html>

(This is what the Board implemented in order to provide a predictable 
transition to the regular fee schedule after many years of no fees for 
IPv6.)

For those with /40 to /32 IPv6 holdings (x-small category), the annual
fee would be $2250/year under the current fee schedule without any waiver 
(note that the Board also extended the 2012 25% waiver [net $1688] till 
the Revised fee schedule takes effect, to avoid having folks have to pay 
$2250 under the regular fee schedule during the transition period.

You are correct that under the Revised fee schedule, an organization with
IPv6 holdings of /32 will see fees of $2000/year, but these are lower than 
the current fee schedule which is presently in place and was to take effect 
without any waiver in 2013.

> BTW we are not talking large $$ here - I am happy to pay $1000, $2000 or $2200 for the allocation I have received.  ARIN does a great job and it is in all our mutual interests to help ARIN continue to meets is fiscal goals.  But it is an enjoyable philosophical discussion on the principles involved, nonetheless :-)

Agreed,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN