[ppml] ARIN Fee structure [was Policy Proposal 2007-8: Transfer Policy Clarifications]

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Thu Mar 8 11:21:32 EST 2007

> 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.
No, that simply doesn't hold true.  End users tend to be much more
static.  Their dat does not change nearly as often as ISP reassignment
data tends to change.  Further, End users do not get membership
in ARIN as part of their annual fees.  If an end user wishes to attend
an ARIN Public Policy meeting, they must pay a separate registration
fee for the meeting, or, pay an additional fee for membership in ARIN.
There are other differences, but, I think this covers some of the major
> 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.
Then why do you need a re-assignable block?  Why didn't you just
apply under the end user criteria to begin with?

The Subscriber policies/fees and end user policies/fees are based
on the most common cases of each.  The fact that your ARIN labor
usage pattern more resembles an end user while you are paying
subscriber rates does not mean that your particular situation holds
true for the more general case.

> 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.
So what would you propose would be more equitable?  I think that
charging end-user subscribers the same as members would actually
be quite inequitable in the opposite direction. Although PPML
is not the place to discuss ARIN fees (that's a subject for the
members meeting, not the public policy meeting), I do think it
is reasonable to discuss the fee structure and relationships
while not discussing the actual fees themselves.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list