[ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses
stephen at sprunk.org
Sat Oct 6 16:07:53 EDT 2007
Thus spake "William Herrin" <arin-contact at dirtside.com>
> The price structure is entirely inappropriate for a rapidly
> diminishing asset like IPv4 free pool. Where conservation is
> desired, large allocations per year should made to cost more
> per address than small ones.
I'd be satisfied with a constant per-address fee structure. If nothing
else, that's a good first step vs. our current fee structure of giving
additional addresses free to organizations who waste the most.
> That having been said, this discussion is moot. The xlarge entities
> have the votes to keep the favorable fee structure.
There are 80 X-Large members, out of ~2800 members. Since it's one vote per
member, they obviously do not "have the votes" to do anything. However, as
John pointed out, members don't actually vote on fees; that's done by a
supermajority of the Board. If members are unhappy with the current fee
structure, they should consider that in the next round of Board elections.
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
More information about the ARIN-PPML