[ppml] Why should ARIN have to be dictated first by ICANN?

[Joe Baptista]

On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, A. M. Salim wrote:

> As a tiny ISP (we have a /22 from our upstream), at YOUR recoking, we
> would now need to start paying ARIN $10,240 per year and ICANN another
> $10,240 per year.  Please, Jim, please try and read your own posts one of
> these days!

Well - right now they want $2,500 per year for a /24 - /19.

I think it's nuts myself.  Just another conrad mutilevel marketing
campaign.

cheers
joe baptista

>
> Or are you suggesting that each ISP, rolling in wealth that they are,
> should quietly hand over one sixth of their annual income to ICANN and
> ARIN?  Come on guy !!!
>
> Plus these additional "minor" issues:
>
> a) Where did you get this figure of $10 to $15 per month you keep
> mentioning?  This is an astronomical price to charge and I do not know of
> any ISP's that charge this amount.  Our total web hosting package costs
> $19/mo (less in many cases) and of that, $15 is for the IP address you
> say??!!  Gimme a break guy!  Most ISP's charge diddly squat for IP's they
> provide to their downstreams , and I don't see any earthly reason for that
> to change.  Yes I know you might be referring to "end users" but it does
> not take much, once this silly argument is established, to start viewing
> any downstream ISP's as "end users" or more accurately, "revenue centers".
>
> b) So now we will have to open our books to ICANN and ARIN so they can
> audit us to determine what our one month's revenue is, then hand it over
> to them?  And we would have to prove which part of our income is IP
> related and which is not?  And what if we refuse to hand over our books to
> ICANN and ARIN?  This is getting so ridiculous, gotta go.
>
> best regards
> Mike Salim.
>