<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font size="-1"><font face="sans-serif">unsubscribe</font></font><br>
<br>
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4B6C955E.8080000@ipinc.net" type="cite"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:michael.dillon@bt.com">michael.dillon@bt.com</a>
wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">I agree - however ARIN already is HEAVILY
stacked in favor of the large holders. Check out the cost-per-IP
address, it drops like a rock as the number of IP addresses you obtain
from ARIN grows.
<br>
<br>
Since we are already stacked in favor of the large holders, adjusting
the initial fee to bear more heavily on the large holders as I advise
actually brings ARIN to LESS of a point of favoring one segment of
address holders over another.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Are you nuts? He who pays the piper calls the tune.
<br>
If we "adjusted" fees so that the members with the biggest
<br>
allocations paid a fee per IP address, then a few large
<br>
organizations would control ARIN to their benefit. All other
<br>
ISPs would get table scraps if anything. In fact, they will
<br>
probably just eliminate the small fry altogether.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
And immediately run afoul of the Sherman anti-trust laws (at
<br>
least in the US) and anti-trust laws elsewhere.
<br>
<br>
Why do you think that Microsoft injected 100 million into
<br>
Apple a few years ago when Apple was about ready to tank?
<br>
Apple is a competitor of theirs!!!
<br>
<br>
The large players in any industry have discovered over
<br>
the last 50 years that when you try a scorched earth policy,
<br>
the governments will kill you, or come very close to.
<br>
Microsoft learned that when the DoJ came within inches of
<br>
splitting the company in half, that is why years later they
<br>
were propping up their competitor.
<br>
<br>
The other think the large players have learned is that they
<br>
are a lot better at marketing than at creating. They need the
<br>
small companies out there to act as "skunkworks" for new
<br>
ideas. Every year there are hundreds of small companies who
<br>
create new products and only a handful of those new products
<br>
ever catch on - whereupon they are immediately purchased by
<br>
the large companies, who then turn around and market them to
<br>
the world and make a mint.
<br>
<br>
It's much cheaper than the large companies running their own
<br>
R&D.
<br>
<br>
Name me ONE innovation in the last 10 years on the Internet
<br>
of any consequence that started at a large ISP instead of
<br>
a VC-funded startup or small org. Name me FIVE Internet
<br>
companies in the last 10 years who started in a garage and
<br>
are the size of Google now. You'll find it very hard to do
<br>
because the Internet has operated as a professional market for at least
<br>
a decade now. You have to go back in time when the Internet
<br>
was operating like an amateur club to find innovations that
<br>
were born in a garage and grown into huge companies.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Talk about serving up your own head on a
platter...
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Not at all. The large companies need the small companies
<br>
for innovations, the small companies need the large
<br>
companies to force customers into a standardized market.
<br>
It is a symbiotic relationship.
<br>
<br>
Have you ever wondered why milk all over the US is either
<br>
1%, 2% or 3.8% fat? Why not sell milk that is 2.5% fat
<br>
or 5% fat? It is because the large players all agreed on
<br>
the standards, and they did it so that when a company manufactures
<br>
a food product with milk in it, they are assured that the
<br>
ingredient is unchanged from month to month, so they are not
<br>
having to fiddle with their recipies all the time.
<br>
<br>
IPv6 is just such an example, it's why anyone proposing
<br>
an "extended IPv4" or some such is quashed - the large players
<br>
decided to standardize on IPv6 so that's where we are going.
<br>
It wasn't that an "extended IPv4" wouldn't work, it probably would.
<br>
It's because everyone on the Internet needs a unified standard
<br>
so years ago back in a smoke-filled room a bunch of network
<br>
wonks smoking ceegars decided that we are gonna put the Internet
<br>
on IPv6, and the check-signers running large companies may
<br>
not know the difference between IPv6 and IPv4 but they know they
<br>
need a standard.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">A blanket fee waiver continues to bias the
costs more towards the smaller orgs with less numbers, which is what
you claim you want to avoid - your logic is highly inconsistent here.
<br>
<br>
Either you just don't realize the cost issues involved or your being
disingenuous.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
There are no cost issues. ARIN has enough money. ARIN can afford
<br>
to waive IPv6 fees for LRSA signers precisely because there are
<br>
no material cost and funding issues. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
For small ones, yes. I'm not disputing that.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">However, what ARIN does need are more members
with legacy resources
<br>
in order to ensure that all stakeholders are represented in the
<br>
organization.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
And the large orgs with large legacy IPv4 allocations who need the
giant IPv6 allocations do not need any monetary incentive to go to IPv6
since they know they need to go there for the reasons I just outlined.
Thus,
<br>
there is no reason to hand it to them for free since they have plenty
<br>
of incentive already.
<br>
<br>
You yourself have argued before that the large orgs are the ones who
<br>
need IPv6 due to subnet mathematics so why on earth are you arguing
that they need "extra" incentive like a fee waiver? geeze!
<br>
<br>
Ted
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">--Michael Dillon
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
ARIN-Discuss
<br>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
<br>
the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ARIN-discuss@arin.net">ARIN-discuss@arin.net</a>).
<br>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss</a>
<br>
Please contact <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
ARIN-Discuss
<br>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
<br>
the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ARIN-discuss@arin.net">ARIN-discuss@arin.net</a>).
<br>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss</a>
<br>
Please contact <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>