[arin-ppml] [was Re: Millions of slashdotters are idle]

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Howard, W. Lee
> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 11:36 AM
> To: Stephen Sprunk; Ron Cleven
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: [arin-ppml] [was Re: Millions of slashdotters are idle]
> 
> 
> > >>> Obviously nobody on this list cares about establishing
> > simple market-based incentives to get IPv6 moving.
> > >>>       
> > >> That is not ARIN's job.
> 
> I should've chimed in a couple of messages ago; ARIN's job is 
> not to establish market-based incentives for anything.  
> There's nothing inherently wrong with doing so, it's just 
> that we'd need community consensus that we should do so.  To 
> date, there has not been member consensus that ARIN should 
> increase fees by order(s) of magnitude in order to drive 
> organizations away from IPv4.
> 

It is disingenuous to claim that ARIN's job is not to establish
market-based incentives for anything.  ARIN already engages in this,
the IPv6 fee waiver a market-based incentive, and the "greater
of IPv4 or IPv6 costs" registration policy is also a market-based
incentive.  And as I recall both of those were from the ARIN board,
not from the membership.

In addition, the sliding fees on IPv4 are also a market-based
incentive, although you may deny this, the fact of the matter is that
on a per-IP-address basis, the larger allocations are cheaper.  ARIN
favors the larger ISPs and networks in this manner.

Further, the requirement that orgs go to upstream providers for
IP numbering unless they are large is also a market incentive for
the org to become large before obtaining a portable allocation.

Also, as I understand it, fee amounts are not set in the NPRM and
there is thus no mechanism for the membership to have any
consensus on fee amounts.



Ted