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

[John Curran]

On Apr 7, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew at matthew.at> wrote:

> More fair would be everyone pays the same. Or everyone pays based on the amount of service they actually require from ARIN.

We can have a fee schedule as complex or as simple as needed,
but our approach has been size categories based on total IP 
address holdings, so we need to be certain to have community 
support and confidence in any other schedule if it is a major 
departure from that approach.  Incrementing the schedule as we 
have done over the years is easier, but not the only possible
type of change.

> Basing it on amount of space *or* gross revenue isn't "fair"... it is just a way to extract extra revenue from those who (in theory) have more to send to ARIN, which gives ARIN the opportunity to lower prices at the other end to keep the masses happy, or to just increase its overhead to ensure the money gets spent.

A wonderful (but incorrect) characterization given that we 
do not expect a meaningful change in revenue as a result of
the Revised Fee schedule.

> Each email or call requires a fee payment above and beyond a tiny fee which everyone pays and which is equal for all. Or, worst case, a tiny fee per database row.

Actually, we get fairly close to a single fee per database row 
with the Revised Fee schedule; this is exactly the case with 
the end-user fees, whereas ISP fees still remain based on total 
holdings but are quite algorithmic. If ISPs were subsequently 
changed to be total records, you'd then have the structure that
you suggest.

Note that reducing the fees per record requires lowering the costs 
associated with changes to registry services (example: feature 
enhancements for ARIN Online, RESTful interfaces, DNSSEC, etc.)
That plus reducing the change in policy that also results in more
registry development work.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN