[ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Stephen Sprunk [mailto:stephen at sprunk.org]
>Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 11:10 PM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt; James Jun; 'ARIN PPML'
>Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal
>
>
>Thus spake "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm at ipinc.net>
>> I guarenteee to you that Leatherman Tool Group IS NOT
>> paying ARIN a dime, has NEVER paid them a dime.  Yet,
>> ARIN is still tracking this so ARIN obviously considers this
>> legacy holder still their responsibility.
>> ...
>> Letting legacy holders get away witout funding the RIR that
>> tracks them is in my opinion, far crazier than any rules I've
>> proposed.  Yet, you accept it.
>
>That is primarily because it benefits ARIN's paying members to know who's
>using that space.  WHOIS primarily benefits people _other than_ the
>registrant.  The same argument could be made for reverse DNS
>service, though
>that's not quite as clear-cut.
>
>"Tracks" is also not quite accurate; ARIN is dependent on the registrants
>keeping their data up to date.  Half of them haven't bothered to do so in
>the last decade, and ARIN isn't out there hunting them down.  The
>amount of
>money spent on legacy folks is minimal, since the systems need to be built
>and maintained for non-legacy folks anyways.  It's a negligible
>incremental
>cost.
>

True, but the cost to run the system is spread out over only the non-legacy
folks.  If the cost was spread out over all holders, legacy or not, then
it would be cheaper for non-legacy holders.  Assuming your a non-legacy
holder, are you objecting to a fee reduction for your numbering?

Ted