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
      (William Herrin)
   2. Re: Consultation on Proposed 2018 Fee Schedule Changes
      (Owen DeLong)
   3. Re: Consultation on Proposed 2018 Fee Schedule Changes
      (Owen DeLong)
   4. Re: Consultation on Proposed 2018 Fee Schedule Changes
      (Bill Woodcock)


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

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 17:31:24 -0400
From: William Herrin <b...@herrin.us>
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:
        <CAP-guGXAtw6S89qA=j67+suxj8rwatgpezm+ufq2fny89bz...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 2:50 PM, John Curran <jcur...@arin.net> wrote:
> On 9 Apr 2018, at 1:53 PM, William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> wrote:
> 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.
>
>    The entire set of annual reports are all available online here:
>    <https://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/annual_rprt.html>

Thanks John,

I'll spare everyone else the effort of digging it out:

Year: ARIN expenses, ARIN expenses approximated in 2018 dollars

1999: $2,239,707, $3,390,000
2000: $2,806,837, $4,116,000
2001: $3,754,738, $5,318,000
2002: $6,120,209, $8,570,000
2003: $6,357,298, $8,645,000
2004: $6,883,258, $9,204,000
2005: $7,590,880, $9,854,000
2006: $8,653,757, $10,844,000
2007: $9,825,489, $12,021,000
2008: $11,256,656, $13,277,000
2009: $12,141,253, $14,317,000
2010: $13,175,097, $15,139,000
2011: $14,366,655, $16,242,000
2012: $15,551,514, $17,082,000
2013: $15,520,000, $16,781,000
2014: $16,329,920, $17,381,000
2015: $18,039,970, $19,218,000
2016: $21,937,057, $23,055,000
2017: $23,700,000 (projected)
2018: $23,866,000 (projected)

I used https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl to estimate 2018
dollars. Other estimating tools give slightly different, typically
smaller numbers.


>    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.)

Probably better written as Telecommunications then. Folks reading
financial reports understand communications to mean something
different.


> 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.)

I understand this to mean that over the past 5 years ARIN has incurred
approximately $19,000,000 of software development expenses IN ADDITION
TO paying staff software engineer salaries, benefits and similar
employee costs. Is that accurate?


> 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.

Just so I'm clear, no other form of fee change was tabled or considered?

Thanks,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William Herrin ................ her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>


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

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 15:46:16 -0700
From: Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com>
To: John Curran <jcur...@arin.net>
Cc: Steve Noble <sno...@sonn.com>, "<arin-consult@arin.net>"
        <arin-consult@arin.net>
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Proposed 2018 Fee Schedule
        Changes
Message-ID: <bc86b12b-91f0-4856-bd87-23557e34b...@delong.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"



> On Apr 9, 2018, at 14:23 , John Curran <jcur...@arin.net> wrote:
> 
> On 9 Apr 2018, at 3:49 PM, Steve Noble <sno...@sonn.com 
> <mailto:sno...@sonn.com>> wrote:
>> Hi John,
>> 
>> This is a significant change and while you may personally view it as "modest 
>> increase", calling it so for those of us with a single object, is incorrect. 
>>  I have personally been forced to pay this fee even when ARIN refused to 
>> provide any services to me and note: ARIN has not refunded the money paid 
>> while you refused to provide any services, especially the ones you list 
>> below.
> 
> Steve -
>  
>    As discussed perviously on several ARIN mailing lists with you, ARIN does 
> prevent 
>    parties with no clear association with a resource from making changes.  I 
> believe that 
>    the specific issue has been cleared up in your case, but recognize that 
> ARIN is also
>    subject to parties attempting to hijack resources and thus is somewhat 
> pedantic in this 
>    regard. 

Sure, but asking for a refund during the time that you ?couldn?t clearly 
associate him? for
managing the resources, yet clearly enough associated him to take his money 
does seem like
a reasonable request, since clearly even though he was paid in good standing, 
he was being
refused ARIN services.

>> If you are claiming that it costs $150 a year to have an entry in a whois 
>> server, I disagree, if nothing else it should be going down.
> 
>    At this time, we charge $100 per year maintenance fee for all end-user 
> resource records,
>    and that is approximately 15% of ARIN?s total revenue (estimated $2.9M USD 
> of ARIN?s 
>    $20.4M total revenue plan in 2019)
> 
>    We charge ISPs (and others who opt for it) under a registration services 
> plan that is based 
>    on total number resource holdings, and in total is approximate 75% of ARIN 
> annual revenue 
>    (estimated $14.4M USD of our $20.4M total revenue plan in 2019)
> 
>    We presently do not bill either customer category separately for making 
> changes, interacting 
>    with ARIN, etc.  We could do so, but starting back in 2014 the community 
> spent several 
>    years discussing fee models and ultimately came down to this simple model 
> of having two 
>    major categories: ISP/registration services plan and End-users with 
> Maintenance fees. 
> 
>    That model has generally worked well, but over the next five years will 
> result in a gradual 
>    reduction of ARIN?s financial reserves to approximately 50% of our annual 
> budget.  Note 
>    that there are have been times in the past when we had the opposite 
> problem, with reserves 
>    growing beyond our intended range (and ARIN customers concerned that we 
> weren't fast 
>    enough in addressing their requests for improvements to our systems?)

And you (and the board) somehow felt that sticking the entirety of this fee 
increase to the 15%
without any changes to the other 75% was a good idea why?

>    We did add additional staff and have made great progress in improvements 
> to our systems ?
>    this can be seen in both the list of accomplished functionality 
> <https://www.arin.net/features/ <https://www.arin.net/features/>>
>    as well as the results of our most recent customer satisfaction survey, 
> which we will talk 
>    about in more detail next week at ARIN 41 in MIami. 

And what fraction of those additional staff are serving the end-users that 
generate 15% of current
revenue?

>    The question now posed by the ARIN Board of Trustees is whether the 
> facilitator fees and 
>    end-user maintenance fees should be raised, as this would result in 
> approximately $1.4M 
>    per year revenue and allow the organization to maintain a steady reserves 
> position.  

Why isn?t the board asking about a corresponding increase to ISP fees?

If we spread this increase across all constituents instead of just end-users 
and facilitators,
seems to me that the increase per ORG would be significantly less, would it not?

>> Looking at your tax filings, In 2015, you reported that more than half of 
>> your expenses were compensation at 9.1MM. For 2016 the number appears to be 
>> 10.8MM.  As Mr. Herrin noted, other organizations that have the same level 
>> of complexity, can do the work with significantly less engineers.  As a 
>> non-profit you should be focused on delivering value to your customers, not 
>> charging more for the same service.
> 
>    ARIN is indeed focused on delivering more value to its customers ? 
> 
>    You may not utilize our two-factor authentication system, our RPKI 
> services, our improved
>    interface for making resource requests and transfers, our RESTful 
> interface to the registry, 
>    our RDAP services or now-being-refreshed IRR services,  but even if you do 
> not use these
>    services yourself, they make for a better and more accurate registry, and 
> thus improve the 
>    value received by everyone.  The Board of Trustees ultimately has to 
> decide the rate that we 
>    invest in our services, the best fee structure for recovery, and the most 
> appropriate financial 
>    position ? hence this consultation seeking input on changing the fee 
> schedule as proposed. 

RESTful shouldn?t be costing more at this point. It?s a completed project.

RDAP should be nearing completion, so that shouldn?t be an ongoing cost 
increase (or at least not a significant one).

Similarly with RPKI, but, if I have to choose between discarding RPKI and 
paying more per year, that?s an easy choice and RPKI doesn?t win. In it?s 
current (and likely permanent) state, RPKI is little more than a 
cryptographically signed indicator of what to prepend to your spoofed 
announcements. Please explain how that provides a better and/or more accurate 
registry or improves the value received by anyone?

I agree the surge was necessary while there were some serious problems with 
legacy systems that needed to be retired. However, that effort should be 
approaching completion and as such, I?d rather see us un-surge even if it 
delays implementation of some new or upcoming features.

Owen


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20180409/24cdb9a1/attachment-0001.html>

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

Message: 3
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 15:49:40 -0700
From: Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com>
To: Rob Seastrom <r...@seastrom.com>
Cc: ARIN <i...@arin.net>, arin-consult@arin.net
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Proposed 2018 Fee Schedule
        Changes
Message-ID: <ea86fa88-706b-4f0c-8c5c-ad185e6a6...@delong.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;       charset=utf-8

+1

Owen


> On Apr 9, 2018, at 13:07 , Rob Seastrom <r...@seastrom.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Apr 9, 2018, at 9:43 AM, ARIN <i...@arin.net> wrote:
>> 
>> * 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.
> 
> I would support this if it came with a modification of the LRSA to allow 
> signatories to unravel it and return to their previous status without 
> surrendering resources.
> 
> -r
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 4
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 16:02:02 -0700
From: Bill Woodcock <wo...@pch.net>
To: "<arin-consult@arin.net>" <arin-consult@arin.net>
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Proposed 2018 Fee Schedule
        Changes
Message-ID: <a2f6f18a-8f21-48a7-81f6-fc1a4e710...@pch.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"


This whole conversation feels very much cart-leading-the-horse to me, and it 
always did while I was on the board, as well?  I?ve handled budgets for dozens 
of companies over the last thirty, about half-and-half for-profit and 
non-profit, and in all that time, ARIN is the ONLY one in which the CEO said 
what he wanted to spend, and everyone else hopped to it to produce that much 
money.  In EVERY other organization in which I?ve been involved with the 
finances, the board set a budget target, and the CEO produced a budget which 
met that target, whatever it might be.  I don?t understand what makes ARIN so 
fundamentally different from every other organization, that we can?t behave 
normally.

Does the board have some reason to WANT to spend more money this year?  If so, 
why?  What?s the policy goal of spending more money than we have?  If there?s 
no goal, then that?s the cart leading the horse.  Define your goals, and then 
work to achieve them.  Don?t do random stuff because it feels nice, and then 
have to play catch-up to pay for it.  That?s amateur-hour.

                                -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/ddd8a00a/attachment.sig>

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

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 17
********************************************

Reply via email to