[arin-ppml] Fee Philosophy

[Matthew Kaufman]

On 4/7/2013 9:34 PM, John Curran wrote:
> On Apr 7, 2013, at 1:31 PM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew at matthew.at> wrote:
>
>> On 4/7/2013 4:46 AM, John Curran wrote:
>>> No NRPM change is needed because of the Revised Fee schedule; fees under the new schedule will be lower for smallest ISPs in any case. The question is whether the community also provide support for a xx-small category which is even lower ($500/year) but distinguished by only a /40 IPv6 allocation. This is being discussed in Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3, and while it is enabled by the Revised Fee schedule, it is an independent item for the community to consider and can be adopted or not based on its merits.
>> And what happens when next week ARIN's board comes up with the xxxx-small category at $200/year, distinguished by a /60 IPv6 allocation. Are we supposed to create more bad numbering policy then too?
> Matthew -
>
>    You shouldn't support the Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3 if don't believe
>    it to be fair and technically sound.

I don't.

> If the draft policy is not
>    adopted, the fee schedule entry does not matter.

True.

>   If it is supported
>    by the community, then the policy change will happen because that
>    meant that overall people felt it was fair and technically sound.

Or it will happen because enough people wanted themselves or others to 
only need to pay $500 and were able to hold their nose long enough to 
ignore the technical soundness while raising their hands. If we could 
somehow figure out how to confine people to voting for or against policy 
changes based soley on their technical merit we should patent the 
process, because it would be useful in so many other venues.

>
>    IF the Board were to add a /60 xxx-small category, nothing would
>    change unless someone also introduced a policy proposal to lower
>    the minimum to that size.

Which they would, because someone would want numbering policy to change 
so they could pay less.

>   There's no obligation to make a policy
>    change, but if some ISPs thought it made sense, you'd likely see
>    it get submitted and also discussed here.

No doubt.

>    If it were found to be
>    supported by the community, it would be adopted and would not be
>    "bad numbering policy" but just "policy Matthew doesn't agree with"

If adopted it would be "policy Matthew doesn't agree with" *and* "bad 
numbering policy" (at least in the technical-soundness sense). This 
isn't the first time that similar reasons have resulted in similarly bad 
policy being adopted, you know.

Matthew Kaufman