[arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?
jcurran at arin.net
Mon Apr 22 16:42:11 EDT 2013
On Apr 22, 2013, at 3:29 PM, Michael Tague <tague at win.net> wrote:
> So the question it seems to me is: what is fair?
Fair as in "fair allocation of costs" or "fair fee for value?"
With respect to costs, I will repeat that processing of larger
requests is not significantly different that processing of
smaller requests (and may actually be shorter due to experience)
This would argue for a flat and/or block linear fee structure.
Fair with respect to "value" is hard since the registry services
are obligatory; there is not competitive market for which to shop
for your registry services under the current structure of the
system, so there is no clear way to known their actual value.
Remember that we're discussing fees for registry services, not the
issuance of address blocks. In a short time, there will no more
address blocks issued, but parties still need ARIN's registration
services even if they paid to obtain the rights to the IP addresses
from another party. The fee schedule is supposed to cover the cost
of the registry services, whether directly issued by ARIN from its
free pool or received via transfer; burdening the fees based on some
perceived "value" of the IP addresses is not appropriate as they
may have been ARIN issued or been received via transfer.
President and CEO
More information about the ARIN-discuss