Send ARIN-consult mailing list submissions to
arin-consult@arin.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
arin-consult-requ...@arin.net
You can reach the person managing the list at
arin-consult-ow...@arin.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ARIN-consult digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Consultation on Proposed 2018 Fee Schedule Changes
(Owen DeLong)
2. Re: Consultation on Proposed 2018 Fee Schedule Changes
(William Herrin)
3. Re: Consultation on Expanding the Size of the ARIN Board of
Trustees (Jason Schiller)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 10:38:24 -0700
From: Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com>
To: John Curran <jcur...@arin.net>
Cc: Bill Woodcock <wo...@pch.net>, David Farmer <far...@umn.edu>,
"<arin-consult@arin.net>" <arin-consult@arin.net>
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Proposed 2018 Fee Schedule
Changes
Message-ID: <ce6458b2-1621-4e1d-bcc1-84a235f61...@delong.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
John,
With all due respect, speaking as an end user who would face not a $100->$150
increase, but a $300->$450 increase mostly predicated on resources which are
legacy and which weren?t costing me anything until ARIN restructured the way it
charges
end-users to convert me from paying one fee as an end-user to paying 3 fees (a
change which, had I known was even possible,
I would NOT have done the community-minded thing and signed the LRSA, keeping 2
of my 3 resources in the FREE category in
perpetuity).
This so-called ?modest? $150/year increase in my fees is neither desired, nor
appreciated and frankly, no, I?m not seeing
a significant expansion in recent years of the ARIN services I use or of the
number of interactions I carry out with ARIN
annually in relation to my resources (which, if you don?t count paying my
invoices) is approximately zero.
I realize that since end-users don?t have voting rights unless they subscribe
to an additional $500/year poll tax, we are easy targets here, but I do not
support the proposed increase being borne entirely by the end-user with no
impact on ISPs.
Owen
> On Apr 9, 2018, at 08:59 , John Curran <jcur...@arin.net> wrote:
>
> On 9 Apr 2018, at 10:07 AM, Bill Woodcock <wo...@pch.net
> <mailto:wo...@pch.net>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 9, 2018, at 6:43 AM, ARIN <i...@arin.net <mailto:i...@arin.net>>
>>> wrote:
>>> ARIN has increased operating costs in recent years to meet
>>> customer demand for improved and broader services
>>
>> The membership seem to be relatively clear that they?re not in favor of
>> scope-creep. And there are already 88 staff, the majority of whom are in
>> Engineering. The theory was that they were supposed to be temporary
>> contractors, doing one-time projects to automate ARIN registry functions.
>> Yet the ?temporary? part never seems to come to a conclusion.
>>
>> Can you present the budget, and explain what specific new services you?re
>> proposing to perform with this additional money, and give us a status-update
>> on the progress being made toward specific goals by the existing 45
>> engineers?
>
> Bill (and David) -
>
> Both the specific deliverables accomplished, as well as the upcoming
> deliverables can be found online here
> <https://www.arin.net/features/ <https://www.arin.net/features/>>, and
> here <https://www.arin.net/features/planned.html
> <https://www.arin.net/features/planned.html>> respectively.
>
> The budget is always available online here
> <https://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/strategic_plan.html
> <https://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/strategic_plan.html>>
> along with the Strategic Plan and two-year operating plans which includes
> our annual objectives. For 2018,
> we anticipate revenues of $20.9 USD million and expenses of $23.8 USD
> million, thus we are impacting our
> reserves in the short term. Our base model does (as you note) include
> additional engineering ?surge" staffing
> and this continues through 2018, although this does not continue in 2019.
> Even with that adjustment, ARIN
> will be operating at approximately at $1.3 million USD net-to-reserves
> position each year on a going-forward
> basis.
>
> So while ARIN?s present medium-term (5 year) financial outlook is solid,
> it not as robust as the Board has
> traditionally sought ? specifically, with present plan and fee schedule
> we?ll be taking our reserves from $25.9
> million to approximately $21.6 million though 2022. This downward
> trajectory is likely to continue over the
> long-term, and could even accelerate, since our annual revenue includes
> about $1.4M of investment income
> that will drop in a corresponding manner with a declining reserve
> balance; hence why addressing the gap
> is a simpler matter if done sooner rather than later.
>
> The proposed fee change would provide the following net increase in
> annual revenues:
>
> ? Facilitator fee - net revenue increase
> + $34,000
> ? End-user Maintenance fee: net revenue increase +
> $1,400,000
> ? LRSA holders Maintenance fees: net revenue increase + $33,500
>
> The total annual revenue increase with the proposed fee schedule change
> is 1.47M USD, which would have ARIN
> be net neutral to the reserves for the foreseeable future. The increase
> to facilitator fees was deemed appropriate
> because we are seeing significant increased costs related to maintenance
> of that program (specifically in addressing
> parties who are not actual participants but still call themselves ?ARIN
> Facilitators?. )
>
> Regarding the maintenance fee increases, our end-user community engages
> in significant ongoing interactions with
> ARIN and yet is approximately one fifth of ARIN's total revenue. Our
> investment in systems (such as ARIN Online)
> benefit the entire ARIN community, and that community is
> disproportionately end-users. In fact, much of our most
> improvements have been ?easy-of-use? related for the benefit of those
> smaller organizations that are new to ARIN
> and doing requests for the first time.
>
> For the vast majority end-users, the fee change results in a modest $100
> to $150 annual increase ?depending on
> whether the organization has only one of IPv4 or IPv6 and an ASN, or both
> IPv4 block, IPv6 block, and an ASN.
> While the total impact is still quite small in terms of individual
> end-user invoice, it is true that it could be deemed
> a very significant increase when viewed on a percentage basis. This
> increase is not without corresponding value,
> as the services provided have been quite enhanced over time (including
> improvements to ARIN Online allowing
> easier administration, addition two-factor authentication, streamlined
> request and ticket sections, etc.) so those
> using ARIN services have indeed benefitted from ARIN?s investments in
> staff and systems in recent years.
>
> I will cover this material in more detail at ARIN 41, but felt that the
> communities consideration of this matter
> would be more productive with some fo the budget, development progress,
> and fee distribution information
> that was being sought in the interim. Please do not hesitate ask any
> additional questions that would help
> in consideration of this consultation.
>
> Thanks!
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Consult
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult
> Mailing
> List (ARIN-consult@arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN
> Member Services
> Help Desk at i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20180409/a90f053e/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 13:53:24 -0400
From: William Herrin <b...@herrin.us>
To: ARIN <i...@arin.net>
Cc: "<arin-consult@arin.net>" <arin-consult@arin.net>
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Proposed 2018 Fee Schedule
Changes
Message-ID:
<cap-gugxb-wxnhdljehfyucikipkbg57lmpgf+nm3dujjnmp...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 9:43 AM, ARIN <i...@arin.net> wrote:
> The ARIN Board is proposing the following fee changes:
>
> * Increasing the annual registry maintenance fee paid by end users
> for each IPv4 address block, IPv6 address block, and Autonomous System
> Number (?ASN?) from $100 to $150 per object. Registration Services Plan
> customers do not pay these annual registry maintenance fees as all
> services are already covered in their plan.
> * Increasing the annual Legacy maintenance fee for each IPv4 address
> * Increasing the initial and annual registration fee for ARIN
> Transfer Facilitators from $100 to $1,000, in order to cover rising
> costs associated with services.
>
> We are seeking community feedback on these modifications to ARIN?s Fee
> schedule that we intend to implement sometime mid-year 2018.
Howdy,
Some thoughts and questions:
1. Would you give us a historical perspective on the budget? What has
ARIN spent each year since its inception in 1997? It would be helpful
to see it in both actual and 2018 dollars.
2. The communications and outreach budgets total more than 1.5M which
excludes member meetings and travel. What are they spent on?
3. Are Bill Woodcock's 88 staff and 45 engineer numbers correct? Would
you elaborate? The folks I work for run an operation whose technical
complexity is in the same ballpark as ARIN's but we do it with 15
engineers (operations and software development).
4. Would you break down the $1.5M travel budget?
5. What are you depreciating at more than 15% of the budget?
6. What alternatives to increasing end-user registration fees did the
board evaluate? Why does it recommend increasing end-user fees instead
of those alternatives?
Thanks,
Bill Herrin
--
William Herrin ................ her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us
Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2018 17:55:08 +0000
From: Jason Schiller <jschil...@google.com>
To: b...@theworld.com
Cc: Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com>, "<arin-consult@arin.net>"
<arin-consult@arin.net>
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Expanding the Size of the
ARIN Board of Trustees
Message-ID:
<CAC4yj2WD-_F92_+z3RwhTGGqJ92T4pCg-RNNL=fu-b6ebkv...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
One of the things that came up in the last consultation to expand the board
was a specific ask wrt
restrictions with the newly added seats, such as ensuring regionality
(Canada, US, Caribbean),
Gender, representative of member types (large IPS, small ISP, content
provider, rural)...
I think this whole discussion would be more fruitful if as you say, we
agreed on
requirements wrt the new board seats (and possibly some or all of the old
ones).
"This idea would probably make more sense if the specific
diversifications desired were assigned to these new roles."
I am less concerned about if these new board seats are voting or
non-voting,
so long as the have equal access to the board discussions and presence at
the votes.
In short, what wider representation of the Internet community is needed,
and
what restriction would be applied to the seats to ensure that.
__Jason
On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 2:43 PM <b...@theworld.com> wrote:
>
> I have no particular problem with expanding the board, let a thousand
> flowers bloom (or ten anyhow.)
>
> HOWEVER, my unsolicited idea is why not create either multiple kinds
> of board positions, where by "multiple" I'm thinking two at least to
> begin, voting/non-voting or similar.
>
> Or another (small) "advisory" -- pick a word, let's not get hung up on
> terminology -- board with enough teeth that it's not just token.
>
> I'd argue, for starters, just being in the room and having a role and
> access to the same information would be enough to make it more than
> just token.
>
> A lot of diversity depends on just being heard effectively as much as
> specific voting/veto powers.
>
> This idea would probably make more sense if the specific
> diversifications desired were assigned to these new roles.
>
> That could even be a transitional change, something to do for some
> number of years, review the result, and take up expanding the board
> per se, or not, at a later date.
>
> P.S. I do realize this would be more work in terms of organizational
> and by-laws changes, etc than just expanding the existing board. It's
> not as simple as changing a number. The new structures would have to
> be defined and incorporated into existing structures including no
> doubt legal considerations (e.g., how would such a newly defined role
> be indemnified?)
>
> --
> -Barry Shein
>
> Software Tool & Die | b...@theworld.com |
> http://www.TheWorld.com
> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD
> The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Consult
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
> Consult Mailing
> List (ARIN-consult@arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the
> ARIN Member Services
> Help Desk at i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
--
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschil...@google.com|571-266-0006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20180409/bd5ebc55/attachment.html>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
ARIN-consult mailing list
ARIN-consult@arin.net
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult
------------------------------
End of ARIN-consult Digest, Vol 67, Issue 14
********************************************
