[arin-ppml] Fees for discouraging IPv4 (was: completely unrelated to 2008-6)
spiffnolee at yahoo.com
Fri Jan 2 11:35:15 EST 2009
Ron Cleven said:
> 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.
> 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?!?!?!?
The membership has not called for a change in the fee structure.
It was last discussed in October 2008:
Before that, it was discussed in October 2007:
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.
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
ARIN Treasurer, among other things
More information about the ARIN-PPML