<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">John,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I just came across your spreadsheet of fee increases. It pretty much summarizes what I’ve been saying - this isn’t a neutral harmonization of fees, it’s a 20% rate hike on roughly 40% of ARIN’s customers that disproportionally affects ARIN’s smaller customers, with Large being the middle tier in ARIN’s fee schedule, while targeting end users that use a fraction of the services of an ISP. In nearly 20 years we’ve opened 5 ticket and in all cases, chose to better optimize IP space rather than pull from a finite resource (IPv4 address space). That works out to about $1000/ticket - does it really cost ARIN more than $1000 to respond to a ticket?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>It would be nice to show in that spreadsheet how many IP’s are represented in each Category - both RSP and End User. My assumption, and I could be wrong, is that these fees are going towards users who are already paying 30-40x more than those utilizing the most resources. The previously proposed $800/object almost seems like a bargain compared to what’s being proposed for us. This isn’t about the money, it’s about the principal of what users ARIN is raising fees on.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I’m curious as to who made/makes up ARIN’s Fee Structure Review Panel and why wasn’t outreach done back then? I was sure notified from 3 different departments when ARIN blasted out fee increases of 650% so it seems capable of better communication.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>What should happen is ARIN truly engages it’s customers and if it needs 20% more revenue so badly, perhaps look at taking it from the companies that have profited most from the services you provide and who already pay a tiny fraction of what smaller users do for the resources (IPv4 addresses) they consume.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I need to get back to vendor negotiations. I’m trying to get Verisign to reduce our domain renewal rates by 99.61% because we only use their API and don’t consume even a tiny fraction of resources of what a retail customer does and they only discount our rates by like 8% - crazy right?! They’re pushing back stating that domain names are a limited resource and we’re going to make a boat-load of money off of my proposal by buying nearly every domain at 3/10ths of 1% of their normal customer but they simply don’t understand the volume we’ll be able to bring. I’ll keep you posted on how my negotiations go.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">-Mark<br class=""><div class="">
</div>
<div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Sep 17, 2021, at 4:36 AM, John Curran <<a href="mailto:jcurran@arin.net" class="">jcurran@arin.net</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" class="">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">
On 17 Sep 2021, at 3:52 AM, <a href="mailto:hostmaster@uneedus.com" class="">hostmaster@uneedus.com</a> wrote:<br class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div class="">Some have suggested the fee should not have a relationship to the number of addresses, but I strongly disagree.<br class="">
<br class="">
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. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Albert – </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;" class="">
<div class="">This is incorrect – i.e. the assertion that ARIN’s costs are proportional to the span of address space represented by registry objects – and it is also likely beyond the possibility of physics (as noted below.)</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Larger entities almost always have dedicated personal who knowledgable of ARIN and our processes – while they may make some additional customer services transactions (due to acquiring additional resources or using more advanced services), it would be highly
unusual for any of them to make hundreds of more frequent customer service requests, let alone the thousands, or hundreds of thousands, that you suggest and would be necessary for ARIN to bear a proportional cost burden due to servicing such organizations. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">There are significant fixed costs of operating the registry and these fixed costs are predominately related to the number of organizations that must have billing relationships with ARIN and the number of resource entries in the registry – they are _not_
proportional in any manner to the size of the address space span represented by the registry objects.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Note – In 2014, the previously mentioned Fee Structure Review Panel looked at an approach that sought recover a fixed amount per registry object and use rather significant transactions fees to correspond more directly to the level of effort for recovering
costs of registration service requests (aka Proposal #7 “Transaction Fee Proposal” in the previously referenced report.) It was clear that such an approach would quite significantly penalize the smaller registry users, as it results in per registry object
fees of more than $800 per object per year and larger transaction fees. The fact of the matter is that ARIN’s present geometric registry fee scale burdens organizations with the largest number resource holdings far in excess of their imputed costs to ARIN,
and while this is obvious, it was also felt to be overall reasonable because the _benefit_ obtained could also be deemed to be disproportionate. </div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">FYI,</div>
<div class="">/John</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="">John Curran</div>
<div class="">President and CEO</div>
<div class="">American Registry for Internet Numbers</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">ARIN-PPML<br class="">You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br class="">the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net" class="">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br class="">Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br class=""><a href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" class="">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br class="">Please contact info@arin.net if you experience any issues.<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>