[ppml] Proposed Policy: PI assignments for V6 (and v6 fees)

[Owen DeLong]

>
> In a significant portion of these cases, they may be connected
> to "an internet" but not the Internet.  An internet is two or more
> networks under separate authority which connect to each other.
>
If any of the member networks on "an internet" is connected to "The 
internet",
then, they fall into category 1.  If not, then, it's category 2 and not
an ARIN issue.

(Just my opinion, but, I think that works generally)

>> Either way, I think ARINs involvement should be limited to category 1.
>
> I agree that ARIN's policy involvement is limited to numbering on
> the Internet, but we sure (the public) sure have some useful expertise
> on internets.
>
Yes.  We're talking policy here (it is the policy mailing list afterall :-),
so, expertise is a separate issue.

> Multiple choice:
> A.  There's no such thing.  Policy requires 200 sub-assignments within 5
> years (IIRC), therefore anyone meeting those criteria is a subscriber,
> receiving an allocation.  http://www.arin.net/policy/index.html#six5
> "To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an
> organization must . . . not be an end site."
>
Right... This proposal is an attempt to change exactly that.

> B.  Except micro-allocations, which have a category all their own (above).
>
Micro-Allocations should still be SUBCSCRIBERS.  They are ALLOCATIONS, and,
as such, the recipient is an LIR and should be a SUBSCRIBER.  I agree the
SUBSCRIBER fees should be smaller than /32 SUBSCRIBER fees, and I think the
previously described fee structure makes sense for these.

> C.  In case an assignment policy is ever established, the Board passed
> a motion setting initial fees to be the same as allocations, with
> maintenance fees consistent with other maintenance fees (currently $100):
> http://www.arin.net/library/minutes/bot/bot2004_0803.html item 12D.
>
Right... That's what I'm hoping for in terms of ASSIGNMENT or NON-SUBSCRIBER
policy.  Stephen, does that address your fee concerns?
>> Or, during that two years, we can work with the board and
>> membership to try and achieve a more useful fee structure for
>> the new policies.
>
> Fair enough.
>
Heck... Based on the above, it looks like if we get this policy implemented,
the structure is already there.

Owen


-- 
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20041206/2df9765d/attachment.sig>