[arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

[Steve Noble]

They may be referring to this :

Providing a temporary IPv6 fee waiver for organizations in the 3X-Small
category that desire a larger address block

On Sun, Sep 19, 2021, 8:45 PM Randy Carpenter <rcarpen at network1.net> wrote:

>
>
> ----- On Sep 19, 2021, at 9:52 PM, Michel Py via ARIN-PPML
> arin-ppml at arin.net wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I probably missed something, but the registration services plan did not
> make
> > sense to me earlier. When I added it up, it was cheaper to pay
> separately.
>
> My end-user ORG has been opting for the Registration Services Plan for
> just about as long as it has been an option. It has always mirrored the ISP
> fee schedule and as such, IPv4+IPv6+ASN(s) have been all under a single
> fee, based on the larger of the IPv4 or IPv6 size category. That doesn't
> necessarily mean it is less expensive for every ORG, but there are many for
> whom it would be.
>
> > This is another of your bait-and-switch schemes.
>
> Huh? What are you talking about?
>
>
> >> (Note that you can even add a small IPv6 block to that and still not
> see any
> >> annual fee change...)
> >
> > Nice try, but I'm not falling for it.
>
> Falling for what? Have you read the fee schedule? It is right there in
> black and white. There is no nuance or shady complicated language. It just
> is.
>
>
> > As I said earlier, I don't think that ARIN
> > should be in the business of incentives to deploy IPv6.
>
> Why? If not them, then who?
>
>
> > As I said earlier too, this will go to court at some point. I am not
> going to
> > tie my company and open the floodgates to IPv6 obligations for $100 a
> year.
> > It is not worth the risk.
>
> Again, what are you talking about? Risk of what? Floodgates?!?
>
>
> > I will eat the $100 increase and stay IPv4-only.
>
> No you won't. As previously shown, your fees are going to go down.
>
>
> > I will not deploy IPv6 and challenge ARIN all the way to the supreme
> court if I
> > have to.
>
> Why won't you reply IPv6? Challenge them for what?
>
>
> > A part of ARIN stakeholders feels that we should not be paying you more
> than
> > half a million dollars a year to keep promoting a protocol that has
> failed for
> > 20 years. Sooner or later, there will be a vote of no-confidence.
>
> A vote of no-confidence for whom? The global internet? ICANN? You are not
> making any sense at all. I can assume you are talking specifically about
> Mr, Curran, but it is not like he unilaterally decides anything about fees
> or policies, so it still doesn't make sense.
>
> In regard to IPv6, I would not at all called it failed at all. The reason
> it is not as ubiquitous is because of ignorance and attitudes of companies
> and individuals like you.
>
>
> Maybe it is time to put a policy in place that requires all ORGs to have a
> basic training course in how number resources work. If you lack the basic
> understanding of the policies involved, then you shouldn't qualify for the
> resources.
>
>
> -Randy
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20210919/a4e82a38/attachment.htm>