[ppml] Why should ARIN have to be dictated first by ICANN?
A. M. Salim
msalim at localweb.com
Fri Oct 4 09:15:44 EDT 2002
> Why is this so difficult to understand ?
> ISPs sell (lease) a "virtual product" called an IP address for $10 to $15 per month.
> ARIN should get one month's revenue on an annual basis.
> ICANN should get one month's revenue on an annual basis.
Why is this difficult to understand? Why is this difficult to
understand?? Jim please you must be joking!
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
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.
More information about the ARIN-PPML