[arin-ppml] Fees for discouraging IPv4

[Ron Cleven]

> 
>>The stupidity of this discussion is breathtaking.  
> 
> 
> I disagree.  Some very well-informed and well-intentioned people are 
> trying to communicate their differences of well-considered opinion.
> 

I agree.  There are extremely intelligent people on this list all very 
expert in their respective fields.  I am taking issue with what IS being 
discussed, and, more to the point, what IS NOT being discussed.  They 
are largely spending their time discussing peripheral issues that would 
not even BE issues if the central issues were properly addressed.  It 
would be nice to see all that brain-power put to use to AVOID the IPV4 
runout rather than treating it as an inevitability and discussing what 
to do after it happens.

Everyone seems to act as if there is no solution, no way to force IPV6 
to be rolled out.  There is, albeit I fear there may not be enough time 
left to do it.  Just focus on forcing the large ISP's in this country to 
switch IN ADVANCE of the IPV4 runout.  The rest of world would follow, 
and all the products that needed to work cleanly in the mixed IPV4/IPV6 
world would magically be made to work cleanly or the companies would be 
out of business.

Many people seem to worry about what to do with all that excess money 
that ARIN will collect by flat per-ip renewal pricing.  For those that 
read my original post, I am proposing setting an IPV6 date-certain that 
everyone agrees is reasonable to radically ratchet up the renewal cost 
of the IPV4 addresses.  Hence, if they believe in their own IPV6 hype, 
they should know that their will be no excess revenue for ARIN, because, 
all large ISP's will do the financially reasonable thing and convert to 
IPV6.  Ultimately this will result in a flood of free IPV4 addresses. 
However, if a few ISP's don't move fast enough, just use the money for 
computer science scholarships or a 200-foot dike around New Orleans.

There may be other better ways to completely avoid the IPV4 runout.  I 
would love to hear the discussion focus along those lines.  Just stop 
getting mired in the can't-do world.  To borrow a phrase, "Yes, we can." 
or maybe, "Yes, ICANN."

> 
>>ARIN has yet to even 
>>begin to change its IPV4 billing policy to make the cost of IPV4 
>>addresses uniform.  
> 
> 
> In another message you clarify: 
> 
>>The renewal rates should be a flat per-ip rate
> 
> 
> A few people have advocated for that structure; see below.
> 
> 
>>Instead, ARIN continues IPV4 billing practices that are encouraging the 
>>entirely WRONG behavior.  Hello?!?!?!?
> 
> 
> Hello!
> 
> The membership has not called for a change in the fee structure.
> It was last discussed in October 2008: 
> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/2008-October/thread.html#1090
> Before that, it was discussed in October 2007:
> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/2007-October/thread.html#432
> 
> In the 2008 thread, I think there's one person proposing fee changes,
> and one saying not to bother.
> In the 2007 thread, I count three people saying fees should be higher for 
> larger organizations, two people saying fees are about right, three people 
> saying they want lower fees, and two saying they don't have enough 
> information.  I don't see anything like consensus-guidance for the Board.
> The FinCom has considered about a dozen different proposals, and in the
> absence of member consensus or financial change for the organization,
> has not substantially changed IPv4 fees.

Don't have to worry about them thinking outside of any boxes.


> 
> I think both of those threads were moved from PPML to ARIN-Discuss.
> I encourage you to have a member post a proposal there, either for a
> fee schedule, or for a philosophy by which the FinCom could derive a
> fee schedule.  
> 
> Lee
> ARIN Treasurer, among other things
>