[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-138 IPv6 Size Category Alignment

Charles Gucker cgucker at onesc.net
Mon Mar 14 23:02:46 EDT 2011

On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 10:57 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Mar 14, 2011, at 5:32 PM, David Farmer wrote:
>>> On 3/14/11 17:15 CDT, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>>> 2) How is ARIN's revenue a policy development issue?
>> It is not directly one, however the cost of implementation is considered as part of a policies evaluation, and a reduction of revenue is a potential cost of the implementation of this policy that would have to be understood.
>> And as I said Fees are not policy matters, but this issue entangles policy and fees in a way that I'm not sure you can completely and cleanly separate the two.
> The structure of the fee schedule is a policy matter and discussion
> on PPML is perfectly reasonable.


       Thank you for the clarification.    Question is, the condition
that exists today (as was outlined as the rational in the policy
proposal) an administrative oversight (since the policy clearly stated
the ISP minimum Block Size), or a disconnection in policy management ?
   If it's the first, it should be able to be resolved outside of the
PDP process, if the later, then this proposal serves to resolve it.

> The specific fees charged for each tier or category is an ARIN
> membership matter outside of the policy process and best handled
> over on the arin-discuss mailing list.  Same for a general fee
> increase or decrease discussion.

I'm personally going to wait on this part of the discussion until we
sort out the disconnect.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list