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

[John Curran]

> On Oct 16, 2014, at 9:12 AM, Rob Seastrom <rs at seastrom.com> wrote:
> John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> writes:
>>  That raises an excellent set of questions with respect to any
>>  fee structure change, specifically - 
>> 
>>  - Should ARIN's future fee structure consider ARIN's long-term 
>>    revenue requirements for a post-IPv4 world?
>> 
>>  - Should ARIN's future fee structure be based on current conditions,
>>    recognizing that it can be updated/refreshed as circumstances 
>>    changes (e.g. as suggested by Bill Herrin w.r.t IPv6 treatment)
>> 
>> Thoughts?
>> /John
> 
> ?Porque no los dos?

Ah, excellent question.  If one presumes that present conditions 
involve a level of policy development and policy implementation
activity which is greater than will occur in the long-term state,
then the revenue requirements long-term would likely be lower,
and it might be possible (given the relatively safety allowed by
the level of reserves) to begin moving fees in that direction...
this would mean lowering both IPv4 and IPv6 fees slowly with a
goal of settling over time to the desired end-state.

Alternatively, one can look at current conditions and note that 
IPv6 revenues do not presently play a significant role; given our 
goal of facilitating IPv6 deployment, one could focus on current 
conditions and waive IPv6 fees, although this would inevitably 
require revisiting the structure long-term since revenues would 
drop precipitously at some point when everyone was paying only
for IPv4 holdings that were unneeded due to IPv6 transition.

/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN