[arin-ppml] [arin-discuss] x-small IPv4 ISPs going to IPv6

[Owen DeLong]

On May 3, 2010, at 10:14 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> 
> 
> On 4/30/2010 5:39 PM, James Hess wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt<tedm at ipinc.net>  wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> Also since ARIN is duty-bound to return that .8 Mil in the form of
>>> fee DECREASES then the real argument is this, do we want the
>>> ultimate revenue ARIN takes in to NOT increase as a result of IPv6
>>> or do we want it to DECREASE so we all (ISPs who are NOT x-smalls)
>>> can get a nice break on our own fees?
>> 
>> Why do you say ARIN is duty-bound in any way to return "that .8 Mil"?
>> I don't think that is right at all.
>> 
>> 
>> There are probably various useful ways in which ARIN could spend that
>> to perform ARIN's duties better.  Reducing fees or  'returning' $$ is
>> just one option,
>> but not particularly  beneficial to ARIN's  continued survival.
>> 
>> Also in terms offsetting  loss of IPv4 allocation-related revenue
>> after V4 exhaustion.
>> 
>> And new expenses incurred  related to managing IPv6 address space
>> and service enhancements,  outreach, etc...
>> 
> 
> ARIN is a non-profit and thus cannot make a profit, the "IPv6 x-small
> windfall" must therefore be returned in fee decreases, or spent
> on increased operations.
> 
Or held in a reserve or...

There are many options within the rules of not for profit.

As I said earlier, you really need to re-read 28USC501(c).

> You can assume that inflation
> will chew up some of the "IPv6 x-small windfall", and you can assume
> that growth in ISP's will chew up more (although, the region ARIN is
> responsible for is pretty well saturated at this time as it is) you
> can also assume some of the community mandates (Whois cleanup, increased
> IPv6 resource tracking) will chew up even more
> 
> But, ARIN is not so poorly run that outreach and managing of IPv6
> address space is going to significantly increase their budget.  Also
> I'll point out that outreach is already being paid out of the current
> budget, and that it will not be needed once the majority of ISP's
> get the message about IPv6.
> 
Their budget is currently running at a deficit which exceeds the maximum
alleged windfall.

Owen