[arin-ppml] Fee structures for ARIN

[Owen DeLong]

On Oct 30, 2011, at 9:46 AM, William Herrin wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:43 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>> In general, would you prefer seeing all of the $base fees be higher
>> (e.g. $250) or have ARIN charge separately for new service features,
>> even those which might improve the security or quality of registry
>> data for everyone?  I can easily argue the merits of either side of
>> this, and really need to hear more input from the community before
>> preparing various fees structures for the ARIN Board to consider.
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> So there are really four moving pieces to consider here, not just two.
> 
> There are the services where everybody is going to consume them or for
> some other reason everybody must stand on equal footing.
> 
> There are the capabilities where folks with larger holdings will
> generate greater consumption.
> 
> There are the services where only folks with specific needs will use them.
> 
> There are the pure overhead functions which don't directly serve the
> registrants in any form but are required to keep the organization
> running.
> 
> 
> We'll all maintain an org record and POCs. As a matter of fairness, we
> all require access to the PPML and the public meetings.
> 
> DNSSEC (as with all RDNS) will be consumed more heavily by registrants
> with large holdings. The same with RPKI, whois and the REST API -- you
> can expect about the same number of queries per registered IP address,
> thus far more activity attributable to a large holder than a small
> one.
> 

Sorry, I'm having trouble understanding here how an NS record covering
a /32 is going to consume more than an NS record covering a /48.

Can you please explain that one to me?

Seems to me that rDNS and DNSSEC are proportional to the number of
prefixes, not the size of the prefixes.

I have trouble seeing that ANY ARIN costs are actually directly or linearly
proportional to the size of the delegation vs. the number of delegation
records other than, perhaps SWIP, but, again, that's really the number of
reassignment/reallocation records, not the size of the reassignments/
reallocations, as well.
 
> There are things like the STLS or ARIN on the road which only specific
> users will ever engage in.
> 
> And finally we have HR, payroll, marketing, etc.
> 
> 
> In principle, I'd like to see the first group covered by the base fee,
> the second group covered by fees linearly proportional to the
> registrant's holdings and the third group by a la carte fees.
> 

I'd like to see this mythical second group clearly defined. In spite of your
continuing to insist that it exists and fees should be structured accordingly,
I remain unconvinced that it does, in fact, even exist.
> 

Owen