[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro Allocation Conservation Update

Gary Buhrmaster gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com
Thu Feb 6 12:02:54 EST 2014

On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 4:36 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> On 2/5/14, 17:36 , Andrew Dul wrote:
>> Does the community support raising the minimum requirement for IXPs from
>> 2 to 3?
> I support the change from a two participants to a three participant standard
> to qualify as an Internet Exchange Point (IXP).

I agree with David's conclusion and reasoning.

>> Does the community believe that additional clarity is needed to define
>> if an IXP uses the end-user or ISP fee schedule?
> I believe both the old language and the new language regarding this issue
> should be stricken, this is an ARIN business issue, not a policy issue.  I
> have no problem with such a recommendation being included in the comments
> section, outside the policy text itself.  I support the general concept it
> represents, but it is just not a policy issue in my opinion.

I agree with David's conclusion and reasoning.

To follow up on this point a bit, I certainly understand the desire
of non-profit organizations to reduce their overhead costs, and
the reality of ISP fees being a barrier to entry for smaller orgs.
However, if the greater ARIN community believes non-profits
deserve a break in pricing, there should be an entirely new
category created for non-profits, meaning there would be
end-users, ISPs, and now non-profits.  That would allow there to
be a different set of rates created for this new category should
the membership agree.  Deciding exactly how one qualifies
(IRS qualification in the US?), and how big such organizations
can be (before they no longer qualified for the category) would
be an interesting discussion.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list