[arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?

[Michael Tague]

John,

When you say "processing of larger requests" versus smaller requests, are
you talking about requests for new IP space?   If so, as you say, that
portion of what ARIN does is drying up - not being much space to left (IPv4)
to give out.

But it seems that ARINs rates have long been based upon IP Address space
(held) and they still are.   We haven't come to ARIN for a new allocation in
15 years but we've been paying $4500/yr all along.

I guess a question for you John is how much of ARIN's cost is of a general
nature - to be applied to the industry as a whole - and how much is specific
to particular request types?   If it is mostly general, or mostly grows with
address space used, then I would think that a linear - per IP - rate
schedule would be most fair.

What do you think is most fair?

Thanks,
Michael



-----Original Message-----
From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net] 
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 4:42 PM
To: Michael Tague
Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?

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?   

Michael - 

  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.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



-- 
BEGIN-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS
------------------------------------------------------


Teach Your Spam and Virus filtering service if this mail (ID 01Jr8GekB) is
spam:

Spam:
http://filter.win.net/canit/b.php?i=01Jr8GekB&m=b571fda09b29&t=20130422&c=s

Not spam:
http://filter.win.net/canit/b.php?i=01Jr8GekB&m=b571fda09b29&t=20130422&c=n

Forget vote:
http://filter.win.net/canit/b.php?i=01Jr8GekB&m=b571fda09b29&t=20130422&c=f
------------------------------------------------------
END-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS