<HTML dir=ltr><HEAD><TITLE>Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml]Counselstatementon Legacy assignments?(fwd)</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=unicode">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16527" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV id=idOWAReplyText5965 dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>I'm fine with us all paying for ARIN and it remaining in its current form. I understand that WHOIS and SWIP and all the rest of the services require financing. I also understand that the bigger an IP block a member uses, the more of a "load" the member is going to put on all these services. My point is this: In a year in which no requests for allocations occur, it takes twice as much effort to handle a member with a /19 than it does a similar member with a /20.... therefore the first member should pay exactly twice as much. I don't understand there being any other justification for treating the two otherwise in a year where there are no actual new allocations. All those other services are fairly automated and the impact a member has on them is directly proportional to the size of his total allocation. I don't feel militant about this.... I don't think the current fees are outrageous... I just think they're unfair. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><BR>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> arin-discuss-bounces@arin.net on behalf of michael.dillon@bt.com<BR><B>Sent:</B> Fri 10/5/2007 1:49 PM<BR><B>To:</B> arin-discuss@arin.net<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml]Counselstatementon Legacy assignments?(fwd)<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<P><FONT size=2>> I think the argument that what you are really paying for is<BR>> registration service is specious....<BR><BR>It's not specious. ARIN is a non-profit corporation under Virginia law.<BR>It has a charter, it has bylaws, it has members and it has a Board of<BR>Trustees. The members (like you and me) elected the Trustees and they<BR>decided what the fees are paying for. Twice a year they tell us all<BR>about it with financial reports at the ARIN meetings. We can see the<BR>revenue, the expenses, the savings account to cover emergencies. We can<BR>see how the fees are broken down and that they are calculated as largely<BR>paying for registration services.<BR><BR>> what am I paying for in<BR>> a year in which I don't require any registration services? <BR><BR>Clearly you are not paying for IP addresses. You are supporting the<BR>operation of a non-profit membership organization so that things like<BR>the whois directory and in-addr.arpa service keeps running. You are also<BR>supporting a stewardship structure for managing IP addresses rather than<BR>letting it be run by a government bureaucracy or some pirate<BR>capitalists.<BR><BR>> Why, during those years when I don't need more IP space, is<BR>> my fee higher than someone else who actually did go through a<BR>> registration process in that year... just because my existing<BR>> blocks are bigger?<BR><BR>Because you screwed up when you applied for your allocation and didn't<BR>ask for just 6 months worth like you should have. Fortunately, ARIN does<BR>not actively punish you for this. You just end up paying the same fees<BR>that you would have if you had come back for more addresses twice per<BR>year.<BR><BR>> It would seem that existing policy is that you do pay on a<BR>> per-IP basis up to a certain point (/14 in IPv4), and then<BR>> it's all you can eat. <BR>><BR>> I think the policy should be:<BR><BR>The fee structure is not a matter of ARIN policy. It is decided by the<BR>Board of Trustees. Of course they can and do consult members on this.<BR>The newly announced fee structure incorporates a couple of suggestions<BR>that I made to a BOT member a while back.<BR><BR>> The Yearly cost of maintaining an allocation should equal<BR>> Arin's total annual costs divided by the total number of IP<BR>> numbers allocated times the total number of IPs being used by<BR>> the member. <BR><BR>Because the legal status of IP addresses has not yet been decided in the<BR>courts, the BOT is quite wisely stearing clear of fees which might imply<BR>that you are paying rent per IP address.<BR><BR>> Right now, as your allocations get larger, you have less and<BR>> less of an incentive to worry about whether or not you are<BR>> wasting IP space.<BR><BR>Fees are not allowed to be an instrument of ARIN policy. If you want to<BR>give people incentives, they have to be done without fees. You could<BR>propose some form of regular audits of past allocations. You could<BR>specify best-practices that members must adhere to. Like with phone<BR>numbers, you could require all members to file monthly reports of<BR>utilization with projected runout dates. But you can't touch fees.<BR><BR>And no matter what you suggest, it will never happen unless a majority<BR>of members agree, and a substantial majority of the Advisory Council<BR>aggrees, and ARIN Counsel agrees that it is legal and within ARIN's<BR>Power, and the Board of Trustees agrees. It is rarely possible to sell a<BR>well-crafted proposal. Most of the time, you need to compromise a lot,<BR>water things down, and settle for just making things a bit better.<BR><BR>--Michael Dillon<BR>_______________________________________________<BR>ARIN-Discuss<BR>You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion<BR>Mailing List (ARIN-discuss@arin.net).<BR>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<BR><A href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss</A> Please contact the ARIN Member<BR>Services Help Desk at info@arin.net if you experience any issues.<BR></FONT></P></DIV></BODY></HTML>