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

[A. M. Salim]

Hi,

This just keeps getting better and better.  Since when did IP addresses
become like apartment buildings?

An IP address is not like an apartment building, it is not even like the
land that the apartment building stands on.  It is like the address
nameplate on each apartment.  And a Class C is like the street name
signpost.  That's all it is.

And you want ICANN and ARIN to charge $10 to $15 per month for each of
them ??!!

There is no "service value" that you can in any way, shape or form attach
directly to the IP address as a chargeable entity by itself.  All the
"service value" comes from routing and network infrastructure (the network
cabling, hardware and software we have to pay for), administrative
infrastructure (the employees, the building leases, the utility bills,
federal and state taxes not any hair-brained ICANN nd ARIN taxes that we
have to pay for) etc.

Yes ARIN sould charge some sort of fees to support their infrastructure,
and the $2500 per year for a /19 is quite reasonable, and some would argue
it is too high.  Byt Jim's suggestions and comparisons are truly beyond
reason.

Look I really don't have time to keep posting on this subject repeateddly
so this is my last post on this topic.  I sincerely hope that everyone on
this list recognizes that such fund raising suggestions have no merit and
no place in the industry.

Best regards
Mike Salim.

> You might want to look at it like apartment buildings.
>
> A /22 supports 1024 "units"...at $12.50 per month per unit, that is
> $12,500 per month in revenue. One month (8%) is a common fee to the
> broker, on an annual basis.
>
> One then can compare $12,500 and $2,500.
>
> It appears that at $2,500 per year, ARIN is selling at $10,000 below the
> market rate. Non-profits are not allowed to compete with for-profit
> companies and this may be a good example of why that is the case. A
> for-profit company could not compete if their price is $10,000 per year
> higher. It is also illegal in the U.S. to dump products at below market
> costs, to gain an unfair advantage and attempt to monopolize a
> marketplace.