[arin-ppml] Fee structures for ARIN
jcurran at arin.net
Fri Oct 28 10:46:20 EDT 2011
On Oct 28, 2011, at 2:03 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:48 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>> Since there's not an actual proposal at this point, it is hard to
>> answer that, but the thought would be one or more of the following:
> Hi John,
> As you consider your recommendations to the board, I offer the
> following opinions as to what I personally would find acceptable or
> objectionable. I speak as someone who currently manages end-user
> registrations, holds legacy address and, in the past (and likely
> future), has managed an ISP registration.
>> - General Membership, i.e. ability to vote in the
>> organizational elections and associated rights
>> and Ability to send folks to the ARIN Public
>> Policy and Member Meeting
> I would find this an acceptable bargain in conjunction with a fee
> increase to $300. However, that opinion would change if instead of
> receiving general membership I merely received a reduced price on
> optional general membership: I would consider a merely reduced price
> on general membership to be window dressing which still obstructs
> end-users from voting as a block with similar interests.
>> - RPKI services without separate fee
> I may eventually use this but would just as soon pay a separate fee
> when and if I do. I would, of course, feel differently should the
> process gain widespread use.
>> - STLS services without separate fee
> I don't anticipate using this as a lister and don't wish to
> financially support the individuals who do. Should I ever desire to
> use it as a would-be recipient, I will be funded sufficiently to
> afford appropriate, presumably steep costs.
> I would also be willing to pay greater fees were those fees calculated
> something like this:
> ( # of /24 IPv4 blocks held
> + # of /48 IPv6 blocks held
> + # of ASNs held)
> / total of the same across all ARIN registrants
> x ARIN's annual budget
> The ongoing policy development and corresponding registry system
> enhancement costs unevenly impact the holders of large quantities of
> ARIN resources. Applying them evenly by registrant count vice
> resources held would not strike me as especially fair.
Thanks for your excellent feedback; it is both clear in what you
want to see, and informative due to your included reasoning.
President and CEO
More information about the ARIN-PPML