[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs

[John Curran]

On Apr 6, 2013, at 12:00 PM, Michael Sinatra <michael+ppml at burnttofu.net> wrote:

> The second issue is that it's not even clear what the goals of the fee
> schedule are.  

<https://www.arin.net/fees/faq_fee_schedule.html>
"   
   ARIN adopted the new Fee Schedule in order to:
       • Ensure members receiving comparable services are paying comparable fees where feasible
       • Meet the community's expectations for new and future services such as RPKI
       • Maintain and reduce, where possible, cost for smaller ISPs
       • Provide a revenue model based on long-term expenses
"
(This is also very similar to the information in community 
consultation held in October 2012 on the Revised Fee schedule.)

Note that the present fee schedule does not provide an xx-small 
size category at all, and the fees associated with the current 
x-small category are also lowered by the Revised Fee schedule.

> Are we trying to provide incentives for IPv6 uptake?  For IPv4 return?

We're trying to provide more more uniform fee categories and
introduce lower fees for both x-small and xx-small ISPs as 
noted in the Revised Fee schedule faq.  

> Are we trying to charge ISPs and end sites based on their size?  
> On their profits?
>  (Address space allocations measure neither.)

ARIN has always had fees based on relative size of organizations,
generally based on the total address space held.  This is the case
with both the present fee schedule and the Revised Fee Schedule. 

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN