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

[William Herrin]

On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 10:31 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> <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
> "

Hi John,

Perhaps that's the error. It seems to me that ARIN's fee schedule
objectives should be along the lines of (in this order):

1. Assure adequate funding to meet ARIN's mission over the next three years.
2. Optimize for compatibility between the funding model and the NRPM
number policies.
3. Optimize for compatibility between the funding model and the
technical objectives associated with world Internet number resources
(e.g. wide deployment of IPv6, RPKI)
4. Optimize for a fair spread of cost between registrants based on
resources consumed.


ARIN's quoted objectives seem to forget about registrants all together
in favor of members. That's dumb. Then they try to model _long-term_
funding during an unpredictable time of transition. That's dumber.
Then they focus on services rather than community objectives. That's
tone deaf.



On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 10:58 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>  If very small ISPs receiving /40 of IPv6 space does not make good
>  technical sense, then the community should not support the draft
>  policy... it's that simple.

It's not that simple. If it was, we wouldn't have a policy draft on
the table trying to work around errors in the fee schedule.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004