[ppml] those pesky users...

[Howard, W. Lee]

> >> drop the IPv4 and IPv6 fee schedules (the wavier is a joke anyway, 
> >> what is the point of an IPv6 fee schedule with a fee of $0)
> >
> >The point was to let people know what the fee would be, someday, so 
> >they could plan for it.
> >
> 
> I disagree, I think the real point was to attempt to influence
> IPv6 uptake by adjusting fees.  

The Board set a fee schedule so that people would know what the 
fee would be.  The waiver was so as not to inhibit IPv6 adoption.

> You can argue all you want on 
> this point but it is silly to claim that anyone can predict 
> what ARIN's or anyone elses costs are going to be in the 
> future.  Without knowing the future costs how can you claim 
> that you know now what the fee is going to be, someway.  Come on, now.

That's absolutely true, the Board can change fees at any time.
I don't believe the Board would change fees capriciously.
I do believe the Board sees value in predictable fees.  
The Board, with information from the President, looks at the services
ARIN provides and expects to provide in the future, and tries to
set fees at an appropriate level for the long term.  The fees 
are not a stab in the dark, they are an extension of the 
structure ARIN has had for the past seven or so years. 
If the members provide direction toward a different structure,
the Board will pay close attention.


> >> all current IPv4 holders that the numbering authorities 
> have assigned 
> >> numbering for, just go ahead and assign IPv6 allocations 
> at a 1 to 1 
> >> ratio.  (for every single IPv4 address you get an IPv6 
> address) It's 
> >> not like there's any shortage of IPv6.
> >
> >Er, sorry.  A /21 in IPv4 translates to a /117 in IPv6?  Or is that 
> >/53?  Should we ignore nybble boundaries?
> 
> Let me think about this and see what the responses are to the 
> trial balloon.  Keep in mind that adopting such a proposal 
> carries very far reaching implications.

No problem, that seems reasonable.   

> >I'm having trouble envisioning a combined justification form.
> >Would you be willing to cobble one together, based on existing 
> >templates?
> >
> 
> Yes, I would.  I'll include a sample in a proposal.

Great!

 
> The ideal thing would be a simple formula that would spit out 
> an IPv6 allocation, unless the IPv4 requestor would want for 
> some reason to request a small amount of IPv4 and a large 
> amount of IPv6 at the same time.
> 
> Ted



Just in case I haven't disclosed it recently, I'm on the 
Board, and I'm the Treasurer.  I do not speak for the entire
Board, of course.  

Lee