[arin-ppml] Fee Philosophy

John Curran jcurran at arin.net
Mon Apr 8 00:34:27 EDT 2013

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

  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.  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.  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"


John Curran
President and CEO

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list