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

hostmaster at uneedus.com hostmaster at uneedus.com
Fri Sep 17 03:52:28 EDT 2021

Some have suggested the fee should not have a relationship to the number 
of addresses, but I strongly disagree.

For the most part, the more addresses you have, the more SWIP transactions 
and reverse lookups and customer service transactions are going to take 
place, so it is quite proportional.  Clearly those in the market for more 
addresses are QUITE aware of the number of addresses they seek.

Another factor is if you are a user or an ISP (LIR).  Users have no need 
for having to record allocation data, as their block is generally 
registered as a whole to a single entity.  I do not know what percent of 
the costs of ARIN go to each service provided, however if this 
registration function is a large amount of the ongoing costs of operation, 
there also needs to be a fee difference between those members with 
Allocation Data to record, versus those without.  Of course I understand 
that some of this data is unloaded from ARIN by larger networks running 
their own SWIP servers.  However, I also find that many of the private 
SWIP servers are down more than they are up, whenever I am trying to look 
something up, so maybe it is time for an uptime requirement, or 
enforcement if there already is one.

Looking at the data, it looks to me that the smaller operators are paying 
a LOT more than the larger ones.  I guess ARIN's Board thinks that being 
a 4X Large means you deserve a 99% discount, versus the small guy. I think 
that this much price differential, especially when there was a claim of 
"harmonizing" the fees, which on the face does not seem to have been done.

Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.

On Thu, 16 Sep 2021, Paul E McNary via ARIN-PPML wrote:

> I think that should put to an all member vote on a matter like this.
> They have so many damn mailings, it is done on purpose so that they can say it was put out on this other mailing list.
> Either that or campaign for new board members. And John just as well be replaced also. He been there too long.
> My math doesn't match Owen's ? math either.
> ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> From: "Mark McDonald" <markm at siteserver.com>
> To: "John Curran" <jcurran at arin.net>
> Cc: "arin-ppml" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 5:20:51 PM
> Subject: {Spam?}  Re: [arin-ppml] Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users
> Hi John,
> We must be looking at different fee charts.  Can you send me the one you’re referring to?  We hold a /19 and fall under the “Small” service category, paying roughly
> $0.12/IP/Year.  Right off the bat, we’re in the same service category as someone holding a /18, so we’re paying twice as much per IPv4 Resource as them - but wait, it
> gets much, much better.  Those holding a /8 are paying $0.0038/IP/Year - *64X* less than our company per IPv4 resource.  Someone over there failed math class if the
> goal was to level the costs among all users.
> If ARIN’s goal is to get everyone paying the same per/resource, our bill should go down to $31.13/year so we’re paying the same per resource as those issued /8’s.
>  For an organization that’s trying to promote IP conservation, your metrics show you’re promoting the opposite - the larger the block, the less I pay.
> I broke it all down for you here:
> CIDR Number of IP's Service Category Fee Fee per/IPv4 (Resource) % of full cost (/24) per/resource
> /24 256 3X-Small $250.00 $0.9766
> /23 512 2X-Small $500.00 $0.9766 100.00%
> /22 1,024 2X-Small $500.00 $0.4883 50.00%
> /21 2,048 X-Small $1,000.00 $0.4883 50.00%
> /20 4,096 X-Small $1,000.00 $0.2441 25.00%
> /19 8,192 Small $2,000.00 $0.2441 25.00%
> /18 16,384 Small $2,000.00 $0.1221 12.50%
> /17 32,768 Medium $4,000.00 $0.1221 12.50%
> /16 65,536 Medium $4,000.00 $0.0610 6.25%
> /15 131,072 Large $8,000.00 $0.0610 6.25%
> /14 262,144 Large $8,000.00 $0.0305 3.13%
> /13 524,288 X-Large $16,000.00 $0.0305 3.13%
> /12 1,048,576 X-Large $16,000.00 $0.0153 1.56%
> /11 2,097,152 2X-Large $32,000.00 $0.0153 1.56%
> /10 4,194,304 2X-Large $32,000.00 $0.0076 0.78%
> /9 8,388,608 3X-Large $64,000.00 $0.0076 0.78%
> /8 16,777,216 3X-Large $64,000.00 $0.0038 0.39%
> /7 33,554,432 4X-Large $128,000.00 $0.0038 0.39%
> /6 67,108,864 4X-Large $128,000.00 $0.0019 0.20%
> I sincerely hope ARIN re-thinks this before implementation.  That’s what would be fair and equitable for all.
> -Mark McDonald
> President/CEO
> Siteserver, Inc.
>       On Sep 15, 2021, at 1:05 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> Mark - 
> In April of this year, we announced a consultation on the matter of harmonizing ARIN’s fees and many of the issues you raised were discussed at that time on the
> ARIN-consult mailing list - https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/2021-April/date.html
> As noted in that discussion, 3621 end-user customers will see their fees decrease as a result of change.  4431 end-users (those with larger IP address holdings)
> will see their fees increase.  After the fee changes, all customers will be paying the same fees based on their total IPv4 resources held. 
> Regarding ISP/EU fees distribution, note that ARIN’s expected total fees paid in 2021 are approximately $21 million – with ISP’s paying the overwhelming
> majority of the costs at approximately $17M annually. 
> Thanks,
> /John
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers
> On 15 Sep 2021, at 3:21 PM, Mark McDonald <markm at siteserver.com> wrote:
>       Mr. Curran,
>       It’s unfortunate to learn about ARIN’s proposal to increase our rates by 650% from one year to the next from your EMail.  It would have been nice to
>       receive this when this measure was being proposed.  In looking through various member forums, it appears we aren’t alone.  While I can appreciate
>       your desire to standardize rates between End Users and ISP’s, it’s obvious that ARIN provides a different set of services for ISP’s as it does End
>       Users.  For us, ARIN stores < 50k of data in a database - similar to a Domain Registration from Network Solutions.  They’re somehow able to perform
>       these services for about $9/year.  ARIN has historically charged us $300/year for this service, and is now raising rates by 650% to $2000.00/year.
>        And for what?  The IPv4 pool is depleted so there is no value in attempting to obtain additional IPv4 resources, while IPv6 resources are
>       limitless, and are charged accordingly.
>       For End Users, there are no ongoing SWIP assignments or ongoing actions from ARIN that require ARIN’s resources and for those that there are, ARIN
>       charges for those services (new assignments, transfers, etc).  We maintain numerous resources with ARIN through a different ISP account for
>       resources used for ISP services and pay fees (and utilize services) accordingly.
>       When ARIN, or any organizational body, sends out an email stating rates are raising 650%, it makes me question how an organization that could do
>       something for a a set fee for so long suddenly can’t and needs to implement drastic measures to “recoup” these fees.  It wreaks of inefficiency as
>       ARIN’s number of resources managed is going up, not down and with any business, the cost to provide services goes down as the number of customers
>       (resources) goes up.
>       I was trying to look through the ARIN organizational documents and recent Annual Reports to see how ARIN’s income is represented (percentage of ISP
>       vs End-User, RSP vs Non-RSP) as your Email lacks this important information, however I was unable to find this.  It would be much appreciated if you
>       could provide it.  As a user of ARIN’s services, it would be nice to see exactly how much of a rate increase this is (increasing ARIN revenue) vs
>       standardizing rates, which would re-rate *everybody* (raising some, lowering others) so that ARIN’s revenue remained neutral while equally balancing
>       costs to provide services.
>       In owning and operating businesses in the IT space, I’ve always viewed ARIN as a fair and equitable organization.  Until today.  Your email lacked
>       critical information that would have shown this as a “standardization of rates” vs a rate hike on what appears to be all legacy customers.  Perhaps
>       the rates ARIN is charging them isn’t too low, but the rates you’re charging ISP’s is too high, or perhaps somewhere in between.
>       >From the Emails I’ve already received from other parties this affects, it appears the courts will ultimately decide what is legitimate and what is
>       not, however I feel this could have all been avoided with better communication.
>       Sincerely,
>       Mark McDonald
>       _______________________________________________
>       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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list