[arin-ppml] large vs small?

[Lee Howard]

Ted Mittelstaedt replied to Brian Johnson:



> > So you are assuming that ARIN has to do "work" on the larger
> > allocations? Please explain what work needs to be done on an allocation,
> > post it being allocated. Also explain what the difference in allocation
> > size has to do with doing such work.
> 
> Your confusing ISSUE costs with MAINTAINENCE costs.
>
> ARIN fees do not currently discriminate when it's also clearly obvious
> that most of ARIN's work goes into making ISSUES of numbering.  Very little of 
> their work goes into MAINTAINING issues that have already
> been made.

Earlier this month I listed many of the services ARIN provides, few of which
were issuance costs.
http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2009-June/014336.html

Evaluating requests for address space is only one very important part of
ARIN's services.  Facilitating the policy process, development of services,
education on IPv6 and other technologies, and coordination with other
organizations are all expensive activities.  The costs for those activities might
be allocated differently than direct evaluation of applications.

> > I don't understand this argument. YOU DO NOT PAY FOR IP ADDRESSES. THE
> > FEE IS A MEMBERSHIP FEE.
> > 
> 
> This is like Costco claiming that their price
> on tires is lower than anyone else ... you must 
> continue to pay your yearly $35 membership fee.
>
> Your membership argument is nothing more than marketing nonsense.  The
> yearly membership fee is required to be paid to maintain allocations,
> thus it is a fee for the IP numbers in those allocations.

But that allocation is not the only service you get from ARIN.
(Nor do most people buy nothing but one set of tires from Costco, but I
shouldn't even play with analogies).

> Well, it's a common debate tactic to use emotional labels to try to
> obscure the real issues.  Which you are doing here.

Irony.  I get it.
Please lose your caps lock key.

> The fact is that the fee discussion is purely an accounting argument.
> ARIN has chosen one way to interpret it's expenses, when there are
> several other equally and I think more valid, ways of interpreting
> them.

For the record, I neither oppose nor support alternate fee structures.
I simply want arguments to be well-formed, well-informed, and 
held on arin-discuss.

> Ted

Lee, who is risking over-posting