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

[Owen DeLong]

If the level of policy development activity is truly a driving cost, then what about charging relative to the amount of policy work being done. I notice that since the rewrite of the v6 policy a while back, the vast majority of our policy work and virtually all of the controversy is v4. Perhaps v6 should be relatively cheaper as a result and v4 should be relatively more expensive?

I think this is probably a bad idea, but if we are going to talk about policy development as a driving cost, then really most of that drive is about manipulating the IPv4 portable seating apparatus on the deck. 

Owen




> On Oct 16, 2014, at 20:15, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.