[arin-discuss] [arin-announce] Community Consultation: Future Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule

[Martin Hannigan]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
>
>
> On 10/14/2014 6:46 AM, Cort Buffington wrote:
>>
>> Disclosure: I am with a smallish statewide R&E network, an LRSA
>> holder for 2 x /16s, and "normal" ISP holder of 1x /17 and
>> 1x/32(IPv6). Also, I have never held any illusion that the special
>> treatment of the LRSA holders would be permanent or even long-term. I
>> always expected it to be a way to placate us for a few years while we
>> adjusted to the changing world.
>>
>> Discussion on the Fee Schedules: Underneath the equations and
>> calculations is a question about what ARIN is, or will be. I see two
>> competing paradigms: * ARIN sells the right to use IP addresses and
>> charges fees based on the number of IPs used. * ARIN provides
>> registration and records maintenance services and charges based on
>> the cost to provide those services.
>>
>> One of these describes an organization that is selling something of
>> value, and revenue is generated based on volume of sales, with
>> perhaps discounts for large buys (or penalties for small ones). The
>> other describes a (probably non-profit) organization that is offering
>> a service and charges fees based on the fair recovery of expenses in
>> providing those services.
>>
>> I believe ARIN should first answer the question of what it is,
>
>
> ARIN cannot do that.  We, the ARIN community, can do that.  ARIN exists
> because we wanted it to exist, because originally IP blocks were
> assigned off a spiral notebook
>
> I'm getting tired of this business which a lot of people seem to be
> engaging in of trying to disassociate ARIN as an entity from the
> community of RIR's ISPs, Telcos, and whoever else that has a stake
> in IP address management.
>

More than a few people believe this is may be necessary.


> Martin I can excuse, he's got a chip on his shoulder.  You, not so
> much.  You have no axe to grind, please do not adopt Martin's divisive
> language of us, we, them, etc.
>

Gee, thanks Ted. My experience, and that of many large networks, has
not been as positive as yours may be. I'm pleased to be able to
provide the necessary feedback to insure that ARIN does act in the
_whole_ communities interest and am generally pleased with the
results. Mostly.

I believe the fee structure discussion should come after a more
vigorous debate about expenses and then fee recovery used to fund
them. ARIN has almost $35M in reserves with a two year expense
reserve.

What do the other RIRs do with their reserves and how large are they?


> ARIN as it stands is "option 2" that you have laid out.  Read ARIN's
> charter, it's on their website.  If you think that ARIN is not living up
> to it's charter, then a thoughtful post to this discussion list
> as to why they aren't would be fantastic.  If you think the charter
> needs to be changed, then once more a thoughtful post to this list would
> be great.
>
> But, I see no future in continuing this discussion on terms that ASSUME
> that ARIN is something forced on us and divorced from us.  It is not. If you
> don't like something ARIN is doing - then take it up with the
> rest of us - who created ARIN's policies.
>
> WE made ARIN and we can break it.


If it were that simple we'd all be in a happier place.

Best,

-M<