ARIN Proposal

[Brian Tackett]

On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Michael D. Bathrick wrote:

> I have to agree with David - the fees posted will do nothing but hurt the
> small ISP, many of whom are running on the hairy edge of existance.  We
> were never consulted when Network Solutions chose to impose a domain
> registration fee - but at least that fee was within reason.  The fees
> currently proposed are outrageous.

*sighs deeply*

OK....now it looks like I'm in the slightly odd position of defending this
proposal. I'd like to just take a time out and aswer what seem to be the
most common misperceptions of this plan:

1) As explained by the proposal's primary drafter, the fee schedule is
based on a yearly fee, charged on the cumulative amount of address space
allocated in the previous year directly from the registry. If ISP X
allocates 2 /16's, they pay $20,000 total. THe pricing is *not* $20,000
for each /16, etc. At the end of the year your allocations are added up,
and what you pay depends only on the range you fall into.

2) The small ISP (non-multihomed) WILL NOT have to pay this price
schedule, though they may have to pay a lesser amount based on upstream
providers charging to recoup their investment. *ONLY* ISP's which obtain
allocations *directly* from the registry will be paying the proposed fee
schedule, and since it is currently not possible to obtain an address
block smaller than a /19 (32 class C's) from InterNIC, there will really
be no change in this aspect for small ISP's.

3) The allocation guidelines will not change unless it is decided for
other reasons to do so in the future. If you couldn't get a /19 now, you
won't be able to get it then either, money irregardless.


Now....can we PLEASE wait until we see the next revision of the proposal
to start wasting time and bandwidth again? Kim has assured as that a good
bit of work is going into making the next generation readable and clear,
and that objections made previously on this list and others are being
considered. All we're doing until then is rehashing the same arguments
over, and over, and over, with no knowledge of whether or not said
arguments have or have not been dealt with in the next revision of the
ARIN proposal.