[arin-ppml] Use of the specified transfer policy (was: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers)

[Martin Hannigan]

On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 10:26 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Feb 7, 2011, at 11:08 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>> "Reread the LRSA" is a blanket statement. Can you specify what I'm
>> inaccurate about? If it's just fees, thanks. If not, I'd appreciate
>> further explanation.
>
> Section 7 provides contractual precedence and 10(b) precludes reducing
> services to number resources under agreement, even those unused.

Context? I'm not concerned about the services impact for an LRSA
signatory other than I agree that there is a cost recovery component
that needs to be considered. I am concerned that the agreement is
significantly lopsided to the detriment of the membership. If another
entity offers services like ARIN's to legacy holders, we may lose the
opportunity as a community to participate in making it work to the
benefit of all.


>> My estimates show that the cost of a /24 for a small member would be
>> more than doubled after fees and expenses as a result of the non
>> policy part of transfer and the LRSA are passed through.
>
> The small member doesn't need to use the STLS, and the processing fee
> for a transfer is $250 per the schedule.  I imagine that a legacy holder
> of a /24 might want to pass along the $100 that they are charged for the
> first year to a recipient and this would make it a grand total of $350.
>

There are other costs likely to be passed on. The LRSA is nine pages
of legality that will need significant evaluation and discussion. ARIN
is likely to have a negative stance with respect to negotiating the
agreement which will add more cost.

For example purposes: If we use a known unit cost basis of $4 per
address, we're talking about a raw cost of $1,024 for a /24. If we add
on the $350, we have a cost of $1374, $5.36 per address, or a 24%
increase over the actual cost which at $4 is already a > 260% increase
in cost pre-market. It's significant no matter which way you cut it.

I would offer these as suggestions:

1. Remove section 14(d) and add mutual termination
2. Present a legacy holder fee waiver to the membership in a neutral manner
3. Require use of ARIN's whois services in compliance with policy
4. Modify Section 7 to require whois compliance only
5. Offer a clearinghouse and (arrange for) escrow services to reduce
risk to members
6. Make legacy holders card carrying ARIN members for free

I saw your note on clarifying the STLS language. Thanks. That is a
good thing. That linkage makes it policy made outside of the policy
framework.

Hope that's helpful.

Best,

Marty