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
      (John Curran)
   2. Re: Consultation on Proposed 2018 Fee Schedule Changes
      (Bill Woodcock)
   3. Re: Consultation on Proposed 2018 Fee Schedule Changes
      (Owen DeLong)
   4. Re: Consultation on Proposed 2018 Fee Schedule Changes
      (Owen DeLong)
   5. Re: Consultation on Proposed 2018 Fee Schedule Changes
      (John Curran)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 18:15:29 +0000
From: John Curran <jcur...@arin.net>
To: Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com>
Cc: "<arin-consult@arin.net>" <arin-consult@arin.net>
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Proposed 2018 Fee Schedule
        Changes
Message-ID: <2e047216-05e4-495d-84b5-63ef1c22a...@arin.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

On 9 Apr 2018, at 1:38 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.

Owen - 

Indeed ? those who have had their resources for some time are likely to have 
less interactions with ARIN, but we still get requests for changes due to 
changing circumstances, and the average party coming to us is not quite as 
familiar with ARIN and its processes as you are...

> 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.


While end-users do not have voting rights, our community consultation processes 
are open to all (just as our policy development processes), so end-users have 
significant input into ARIN direction regardless ? also note that organizations 
can consolidation their resources under a single agreement, pay as the 
appropriate size registration services plan (which may be less in some cases 
the per-object maintainance fees, and become a voting ARIN member in the 
process.) 

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN




------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 11:19:44 -0700
From: Bill Woodcock <wo...@pch.net>
To: William Herrin <b...@herrin.us>
Cc: ARIN <i...@arin.net>, "<arin-consult@arin.net>"
        <arin-consult@arin.net>
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Proposed 2018 Fee Schedule
        Changes
Message-ID: <0badf50e-cd66-4cca-8527-2fe93c0f5...@pch.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

> 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).


I just pulled it off the web site.  I don?t know how up-to-date it is.  I was 
surprised that the number was that large.

https://www.arin.net/about_us/org_chart.html

                                -Bill

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: 
<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20180409/3748dcf9/attachment-0001.sig>

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 11:30:14 -0700
From: Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com>
To: John Curran <jcur...@arin.net>
Cc: "<arin-consult@arin.net>" <arin-consult@arin.net>
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Proposed 2018 Fee Schedule
        Changes
Message-ID: <6985bebf-3637-457b-b823-03e13da30...@delong.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;       charset=utf-8



> On Apr 9, 2018, at 11:15 , John Curran <jcur...@arin.net> wrote:
> 
> On 9 Apr 2018, at 1:38 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> Owen - 
> 
> Indeed ? those who have had their resources for some time are likely to have 
> less interactions with ARIN, but we still get requests for changes due to 
> changing circumstances, and the average party coming to us is not quite as 
> familiar with ARIN and its processes as you are?

Correct me if I am wrong, but the majority of these ?enhanced? services have 
been generated not at the best of (nor primarily used by) end-users, but more 
by subscriber members?

If that?s the case, then I suggest you seek to bill them for the increased 
costs.

If you believe that end-users are using a disproportionately high fraction of 
these enhanced services that are running up the budget, then I?d like to see 
what that is based on.

>> 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.
> 
> 
> While end-users do not have voting rights, our community consultation 
> processes are open to all (just as our policy development processes), so 
> end-users have significant input into ARIN direction regardless ? also note 
> that organizations can consolidation their resources under a single 
> agreement, pay as the appropriate size registration services plan (which may 
> be less in some cases the per-object maintainance fees, and become a voting 
> ARIN member in the process.) 

Well? If this increase goes through, then in a few years, you?ll have narrowed 
my gap to $50, but you won?t let me consolidate under the existing agreement I 
prefer, instead wanting to force me into one of the more current agreements.

Forgive me after already being shafted once by signing an ARIN agreement for 
being a bit gun-shy on signing a new ?improved? ARIN agreement.

Hopefully I only have to deal with this pain for a few more years before I can 
discard or sell my antiquated 32-bit numbers and migrate to a v6-only network, 
but alas, when it comes to that, I am largely at the mercy of others.

Owen



------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 11:36:00 -0700
From: Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com>
To: John Curran <jcur...@arin.net>
Cc: "<arin-consult@arin.net>" <arin-consult@arin.net>
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Proposed 2018 Fee Schedule
        Changes
Message-ID: <cfc5fd99-316a-4645-8352-14d656226...@delong.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;       charset=utf-8



> On Apr 9, 2018, at 11:30 , Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Apr 9, 2018, at 11:15 , John Curran <jcur...@arin.net> wrote:
>> 
>> On 9 Apr 2018, at 1:38 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> Owen - 
>> 
>> Indeed ? those who have had their resources for some time are likely to have 
>> less interactions with ARIN, but we still get requests for changes due to 
>> changing circumstances, and the average party coming to us is not quite as 
>> familiar with ARIN and its processes as you are?
> 
> Correct me if I am wrong, but the majority of these ?enhanced? services have 
> been generated not at the best of (nor primarily used by) end-users, but more 
> by subscriber members?

That should read ??not at the behest??

> 
> If that?s the case, then I suggest you seek to bill them for the increased 
> costs.
> 
> If you believe that end-users are using a disproportionately high fraction of 
> these enhanced services that are running up the budget, then I?d like to see 
> what that is based on.
> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> While end-users do not have voting rights, our community consultation 
>> processes are open to all (just as our policy development processes), so 
>> end-users have significant input into ARIN direction regardless ? also note 
>> that organizations can consolidation their resources under a single 
>> agreement, pay as the appropriate size registration services plan (which may 
>> be less in some cases the per-object maintainance fees, and become a voting 
>> ARIN member in the process.) 
> 
> Well? If this increase goes through, then in a few years, you?ll have 
> narrowed my gap to $50, but you won?t let me consolidate under the existing 
> agreement I prefer, instead wanting to force me into one of the more current 
> agreements.
> 
> Forgive me after already being shafted once by signing an ARIN agreement for 
> being a bit gun-shy on signing a new ?improved? ARIN agreement.
> 
> Hopefully I only have to deal with this pain for a few more years before I 
> can discard or sell my antiquated 32-bit numbers and migrate to a v6-only 
> network, but alas, when it comes to that, I am largely at the mercy of others.
> 
> Owen
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.



------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 18:50:24 +0000
From: John Curran <jcur...@arin.net>
To: BIll Herrin <b...@herrin.us>
Cc: "<arin-consult@arin.net>" <arin-consult@arin.net>
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Proposed 2018 Fee Schedule
        Changes
Message-ID: <ce9cfd71-f2c3-4334-b3b3-dc6518f21...@arin.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

On 9 Apr 2018, at 1:53 PM, William Herrin 
<b...@herrin.us<mailto:b...@herrin.us>> wrote:

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.

Bill -

   The entire set of annual reports are all available online here:
   <https://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/annual_rprt.html>

2. The communications and outreach budgets total more than 1.5M which
excludes member meetings and travel. What are they spent on?

   Communications is probably better read as ?Telecommunications?
   (i.e. composed of our main computing collocation sites and circuits
   interconnecting same, and our additional public-facing-sites colocated
   in Bay Area and Carribbean.)

   Outreach includes costs of supporting events such as ARIN One the Road
   series ARIN presence at speaking events such as HostingCon, ISPCA,
   WISPA, and the miscellaneous support for organizations that we are present
   at such as the US Internet governance forum (IGF), Caribbean IGF, etc.

3. Are Bill Woodcock's 88 staff and 45 engineer numbers correct? Would
you elaborate?

   Yes, it is approximately correct.

4. Would you break down the $1.5M travel budget?

   That includes travel performed by the ARIN Board of Trustees, ARIN Advisory 
Council,
   ARIN ASO/AC members, and ARIN staff across all departments.

5. What are you depreciating at more than 15% of the budget?

   As reported in ARIN?s audited financials, ARIN depreciates major system 
software
   development costs over 5 years with straight-line depreciation. 
(Post-implementation
   and operational costs are expensed as incurred.)

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?

   As I noted in previous email, the Board considered the alternative of not 
raising the fees
   and facing a slow erosion of the reserves over time; given the reduction in 
engineering
   surge staffing planned in 2019, the annual net-to-reserves impact is modest 
enough that
   a change is maintenance fees is not absolutely required, but simply prudent 
if we wish to
   maintain level reserves.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20180409/45322d7d/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 15
********************************************

Reply via email to