<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7653.38">
<TITLE>RE: [arin-ppml] maintenance fees for legacy space holders</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Please see Lee Howard's long list of services provided by ARIN in an earlier email.<BR>
<BR>
The simplistic argument that ARIN is a staff of folks who stand around making money while watching a database store bits is specious and disingenuous.<BR>
<BR>
"I'm not going to moan here about all the hard work of the legacy holders and how<BR>
they deserve a free ride,"... I hear moaning from somewhere.<BR>
<BR>
Picture certain /8 legacy holders staring and repetitively sifting through their fingers...large handfuls of IP addresses piled upon a table.<BR>
<BR>
Still, I'm of the opinion that these legacy holders should maintain control over those addresses if they don't wish to share.<BR>
<BR>
I do object to ARIN purposefully erecting a market that introduces and encourages monetary value of those resources and in the bargain, establishes a more durable use case for those resources rather than encouraging the movement to a new and virtually free substitute.<BR>
<BR>
My personal opinion only.<BR>
<BR>
bd<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: John Paul Morrison [<A HREF="mailto:jmorrison@bogomips.com">mailto:jmorrison@bogomips.com</A>]<BR>
Sent: Thu 9/4/2008 7:39 PM<BR>
To: Bill Darte<BR>
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net<BR>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] maintenance fees for legacy space holders<BR>
<BR>
I never said it was worth nothing. Owen Delong asked how to justify a<BR>
different pricing model and I simply gave some examples.<BR>
<BR>
Maybe it should be $10/year or maybe $10 every time someone changes<BR>
their whois or DNS record, or maybe it's a sunk cost - it's net $0/year<BR>
but that doesn't make it worthless. I don't know if ARIN has an<BR>
endownment, but maybe they have capital assets, software etc. that were<BR>
given to them. The biggest "Legacy" ARIN inherited is not the Legacy IP<BR>
assignments but rather it is the recurring income they receive from<BR>
fees, derived from administering a database of numbers (the Banks must<BR>
be envious!) - for a protocol developed and funded largely by<BR>
governments, military, academic and corporate research groups. I'm not<BR>
going to moan here about all the hard work of the legacy holders and how<BR>
they deserve a free ride, but I'm not going to cry about that fact either.<BR>
<BR>
As Cliff Bedore and Eric Westbrook point out though, it isn't just about<BR>
the money.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 9/4/2008 4:59 PM, Bill Darte wrote:<BR>
><BR>
> The services rendered to legacy holders is real and if you don't think<BR>
> it is worth anything then simply say.<BR>
> Please stop providing any and all services that are rendered on behalf<BR>
> of legacy addresses that have taken effect since the initial allocation.<BR>
> Fair?<BR>
> bd<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> -----Original Message-----<BR>
> From: arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net on behalf of John Paul Morrison<BR>
> Sent: Thu 9/4/2008 4:53 PM<BR>
> To: arin-ppml@arin.net<BR>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] maintenance fees for legacy space holders<BR>
><BR>
> On 9/4/2008 1:17 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:<BR>
> > The problem comes in trying to justify why you have a different<BR>
> > pricing model for Legacy than for everyone else who is (and has<BR>
> > been) paying the standard fees for years.<BR>
> > <BR>
> This isn't that hard.<BR>
><BR>
> First of all, there was no fee specified at the time they were given.<BR>
> And IP addresses were given out, no strings attached, with no<BR>
> expectation that they would come back, so why would there be any<BR>
> expectation of a recurring charge? If an item was given away for free<BR>
> with no terms of service, how can one argue that a "service" whether<BR>
> it's whois/DNS, or PPML, be tacked on later and then charged for? Under<BR>
> that light, $10/year seems fair, even charitable of Legacy holders to<BR>
> pay, given there's likely been little change since the original<BR>
> assignments.<BR>
><BR>
> Second, there's no real justification for any costs to Legacy holders.<BR>
> The addresses were given out while the administration of the Internet<BR>
> was publicly funded, by the NSF, CA*Net (in Canada) etc., so any real<BR>
> work has already been paid out of tax dollars. The allocation is simply<BR>
> an entry in a database, or back of a napkin for that matter. It's great<BR>
> that it's recorded in Whois, but it's not a requirement that it be<BR>
> that way.<BR>
><BR>
> For the sake of argument, someone could document all the Legacy<BR>
> allocations and publish an RFC and say 'that's the historical record'<BR>
> and do away with any whois, other requirements, or ARIN's involvement<BR>
> with all of Legacy space for that matter, and that would be the<BR>
> historical record for all time, unless anyone cared enough to make minor<BR>
> revisions as a courtesy. What's to distinguish one Legacy assignment<BR>
> from another? 127.0.0.0/8 is assigned in an RFC, so are the Class E<BR>
> addresses and many others. I'm pretty sure the RFC process pre-dates<BR>
> whois, especially since 811 prior RFCs were published before they got<BR>
> around to publishing the one for Whois, but I could be wrong. (And if<BR>
> this Legacy holders RFC were published on April 1, I think that would<BR>
> definitely absolve the Legacy holders of any obligation to chip in for<BR>
> their 1/5000th share of the costs of hosting and maintaining the RFCs!)<BR>
><BR>
> Especially in light of IPv4 address exhaustion, would anyone like to<BR>
> reclaim 127.0.0.0/8 or the Class E space, or parts of Legacy space? Yes,<BR>
> of course if we had the chance to do it all over, we would do things<BR>
> differently, but we can't. If people don't like that, that's too bad. In<BR>
> practical terms, IP address assignments are permanent and irrevocable.<BR>
><BR>
> > If we're going to drop the annual maintenance fee to some lower<BR>
> > level, I'd like to see that happen across the board rather than<BR>
> > just for legacy holders. Thus, we'd need to calculate it<BR>
> > in those terms.<BR>
> > <BR>
> It's sounding like it's just not worth the effort to collect a token<BR>
> amount.<BR>
> > Owen<BR>
> ><BR>
> > _______________________________________________<BR>
> > PPML<BR>
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<BR>
> > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).<BR>
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<BR>
> > <A HREF="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</A><BR>
> > Please contact info@arin.net if you experience any issues.<BR>
> > <BR>
><BR>
> _______________________________________________<BR>
> PPML<BR>
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<BR>
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).<BR>
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<BR>
> <A HREF="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</A><BR>
> Please contact info@arin.net if you experience any issues.<BR>
><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>