[ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-8: Transfer Policy Clarifications

[Daniel Senie]

At 05:32 AM 3/8/2007, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:

>
> > And why are they different for ISPs vs end users for the same size
> > blocks? The reasoning I've heard is that ISPs are expected to be
> > doing more with SWIPs and thus generate expense, but is this really
> > reasonable or fair? As a member with a /22 and a handful of SWIPs
> > that rarely change and no expectation of adding or removing any
> > (after all, SWIPs for /32's aren't done), what expense structure am I
> > really incurring on ARIN?
>
>In order for your SWIP records to be available for queries in the whois
>database, you have to pay ARIN enough money to sustain it as a
>functioning organization. That includes a share of the President's
>salary, the Board of Trustees meeting expenses, the cost of all the
>servers, the electric bills, and the contributions to the staff pension
>plans.
>
>The current fee structure puts everyone on a more-or-less level playing
>field which is important in an organization like ARIN.

Then end users should be paying the same as me. I can't agree that 
the SWIP record for my /22 and two additional SWIP records are so 
much more burden than the single SWIP record for a /22 for a 
multi-homed non-ISP as to be the differentiator of paying or not 
paying an annual fee. Either all should pay, or a system that IS 
equitable should be arrived upon.

It's possible part of the issue is the definition of "ISP." We don't 
sell circuits. We have no turnover of SWIPs because we are a hosting 
shop and with the exception of a couple of customers, most of our 
customers are delegated a /32 from us, and that's below the threshold 
of doing SWIPs.

Even if we didn't have the two SWIPs for delegations to the few 
customers with subnets, we would be counted as an ISP because we 
resell services to others, vs. consuming them ourselves.

I'm really not trying to focus this on my own ARIN account, and I 
certainly agree something's got to pay for the organization to run. 
What I am arguing is the notion that the fee structure is equitable. 
I agree with Randy that payment on a per-incident basis is a pain to 
track and could have negative repercussions. I don't believe the 
present system is a good alternative to pay-per-incident.

>--Michael Dillon
>
>_______________________________________________
>PPML mailing list
>PPML at arin.net
>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml