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
      (John Curran)
   3. Re: Consultation on Proposed 2018 Fee Schedule Changes
      (William Herrin)
   4. Re: Consultation on Proposed 2018 Fee Schedule Changes
      (Jason Schiller)


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

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 00:48:57 +0000
From: John Curran <jcur...@arin.net>
To: Bill Woodcock <wo...@pch.net>
Cc: "<arin-consult@arin.net>" <arin-consult@arin.net>
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Proposed 2018 Fee Schedule
        Changes
Message-ID: <47f9dbcc-851c-47b0-8ddd-1fbc44da3...@arin.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

On 9 Apr 2018, at 7:02 PM, Bill Woodcock <wo...@pch.net> wrote:
> 
> 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.

Bill -

Actually, ARIN isn?t all that different than other organizations, and that?s 
because we?ve worked
diligently over the last 5 years to establish a more traditional planning and 
budgeting process
(prior to that time there was not a clear process for setting ARIN objectives 
or budget priorities)

There is nothing that stops the ARIN Board from setting a two-year budget 
target that is lower
than previous year's during our August strategy planning session ? I will 
certainly provide a budget
that fits what requirement is provided.  During the 2017 budget planning 
process, I proposed reducing
expenses for ARIN significantly starting at the beginning of 2018, but the 
Board (of which you were a
member) provided guidance that in 2018 we would conserve expenses where 
possible but continue
at present staffing levels, in order to continue the significant progress being 
made with engineering
deliverables, and look to year-end 2018/early 2019 for more significant 
reductions in expenses.

> Does the board have some reason to WANT to spend more money this year?  If 
> so, why?

The current two-year budget does incorporate a year-over-year staff reduction 
at the end of 2018.

As a result, ARIN?s 2019 expenses will be significantly closer to revenues even 
under the current
fee schedule ? i.e. rather than $2.8M USD reduction in reserves, the annual 
impact to reserves in
2019 and going forward will be about half that (approximately $1.4M USD.)   
ARIN?s reserves are
quite sufficient to sustain that burn rate for short-term, but not 
indefinitely.  One way to address the
remaining misalignment would be to have further reductions in expenses, and 
that can be done
but obviously would have some impact to the goals and objectives that can be 
achieved.

The proposed fee increase is another way possible way to address the mismatch, 
and labelling it
as ?wanting to spend more money? is a rather poor characterization given that 
2019 has lower
expenses than 2018.   The sole reason I brought the fee increase proposal forth 
is to address
the other financial priority expressed by the Board during the same budget 
planning process:
specifically, to balance ARIN revenues and expenses over the long-term.

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 874 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: 
<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20180410/77a15650/attachment-0001.sig>

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

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 01:23:43 +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: <07b7069a-3082-441e-a1d3-a4150dd69...@arin.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

On 9 Apr 2018, at 6:46 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote:
> 
> 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?

ARIN?s expenses are principally recovered from the 5,750 registration services 
plan organizations;
these organizations pay fees ranging from $250 year to $256,000 USD per year, 
i.e. just over $2500
each on average and about $14.4M USD annually in total.

There are approximately 15 thousand ARIN end-user customers who collectively 
pay $2.9M in fees;
approximately $200 annually on average, and that would rise to $300 annually on 
average with the
proposed fee increase.

If there is to be a fee increase, than an increase to the end-user fees has the 
benefit of being spread
over more organizations and yields a more equitable recovery ARIN?s expenses 
while still operating
under the current fee framework.  

ARIN has significant fixed expenses and while one can argue that end-users who 
don?t need anything 
other than stable registry operations shouldn?t have to pay more to ARIN, one 
could just as easily argue 
that IP addresses for ISPs that don?t need any services in a year shouldn?t 
result in their significantly 
larger fees.  In the end, it is clear that all customers benefit from the 
registry, even if no makes a single 
change or request all year.

> 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?

Obviously one could vary the allocation of revenue increase among the two 
constituencies to
achieve any desired outcome, but If evenly spread by number of organizations, 
it would not 
yield a significantly different outcome (changing the divisor from 15000 to 
20000 total would 
mean a $35/year per object maintenance increase instead of a $50/year per 
object increase.)  

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)




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

Message: 3
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 23:41:03 -0400
From: William Herrin <b...@herrin.us>
To: John Curran <jcur...@arin.net>
Cc: Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com>, "<arin-consult@arin.net>"
        <arin-consult@arin.net>
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Proposed 2018 Fee Schedule
        Changes
Message-ID:
        <CAP-guGUc39chPG=zrw9hus6a20hv4uzktaoumojyh5h8xw8...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 9:23 PM, John Curran <jcur...@arin.net> wrote:
> ARIN has significant fixed expenses and while one can argue that end-users 
> who don?t need anything
> other than stable registry operations shouldn?t have to pay more to ARIN, one 
> could just as easily argue
> that IP addresses for ISPs that don?t need any services in a year shouldn?t 
> result in their significantly
> larger fees.

Or argue that there shouldn't be two classes of registrant, just one
with fees scaling in direct proportion to the number holdings.

Or retort that if the fees are directly proportional, the votes should be too.

But this just rehashes old arguments. Maybe we should throw ideas out
there, even if they're dumb ideas, as long as they're fresh. Here's
one:


Pain point: Lack of diversity in the voting membership yields lack of
diversity on the board

Pain point: End users with a /24 asked to pay two orders of magnitude
more per address held than ISPs with /9's.

Pain point: ISPs really hate to publish customer information via SWIP.
They'd rather act as privacy agents like the DNS providers do.

Pain point: slow IPv6 adoption.


Tie them together and: single type of registrant, all voting members
with one vote per organization. Fees assessed based on number of IPv4
addresses held but not permanently reassigned to third parties. Fixed
dollar amount per address times number of addresses. Addresses
considered reassigned (excepted from fee) only when SWIPed with
complete and accurate public information about the assignee. Ephemeral
assignments (dynamic IPs) are not considered reassigned. Some minimum
floor fee like $100. Fees ignore AS numbers and IPv6 addresses (for
now).


Regards,
Bill Herrin


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


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

Message: 4
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 04:25:46 +0000
From: Jason Schiller <jschil...@google.com>
To: William Herrin <b...@herrin.us>
Cc: John Curran <jcur...@arin.net>, "<arin-consult@arin.net>"
        <arin-consult@arin.net>
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Proposed 2018 Fee Schedule
        Changes
Message-ID:
        <CAC4yj2VU2K+4x4YWwW4F1Z06tqdE=7etqn9oalb_a0ykfvx...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

1. I generally support increased fees if it means continuing to get the IT
    development that the community wants.
2. Please dear god, do not make fees scaling.
3. The smallest organizations should not see a fee increase.


1. I generally support increased fees if it means continuing to get the IT
development that the community wants.
(I lament the fact we lack a services document)
(please fix IRR and closely couple it to whois)
(Close out all the ACSP)

2. Please dear god, do not make fees scaling.

I like the predictability of knowing how much a large will pay next year,
and how much an extra large will pay next year.

I have a good idea if in a given year I'm going to cross into a bigger
fee category, and can thus plan budgets year over year easily.

Please do not require me to regularly adjust my anticipated spend each time
the
my IP holdings change, using some web based IP calculator.


3. The smallest organizations should not see a fee increase.

For the very small organizations, the fees can be burdensome,
and an increase of 50% is significant.

Very small is arbitrary, but for sake of argument, I'd say any one with
less than two IPv4 blocks, one IPv6 block, one ASN , and
 no registration services (no delegations), should not see a
fee increase.   In fact I'd like to see this category go down in price.

You think an organization with a single /8 and no registration
services isn't small and should pay more than $100/year, then
make some sort of exception like total holding must be less than
2X-small service category.

The larger categories can absorb and off set these fees.

You want to scale the increase in fees proportionally by size
of the various buckets?  fine.

You want to scale the increase in fees proportionally by size
of the various buckets, but limit the increase to XL and above?  fine.

You want to scale the increase in fees proportionally by size
of the various buckets, but limit the increase to 3-XL and above?  fine.

___Jason



On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 11:41 PM William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 9:23 PM, John Curran <jcur...@arin.net> wrote:
> > ARIN has significant fixed expenses and while one can argue that
> end-users who don?t need anything
> > other than stable registry operations shouldn?t have to pay more to
> ARIN, one could just as easily argue
> > that IP addresses for ISPs that don?t need any services in a year
> shouldn?t result in their significantly
> > larger fees.
>
> Or argue that there shouldn't be two classes of registrant, just one
> with fees scaling in direct proportion to the number holdings.
>
> Or retort that if the fees are directly proportional, the votes should be
> too.
>
> But this just rehashes old arguments. Maybe we should throw ideas out
> there, even if they're dumb ideas, as long as they're fresh. Here's
> one:
>
>
> Pain point: Lack of diversity in the voting membership yields lack of
> diversity on the board
>
> Pain point: End users with a /24 asked to pay two orders of magnitude
> more per address held than ISPs with /9's.
>
> Pain point: ISPs really hate to publish customer information via SWIP.
> They'd rather act as privacy agents like the DNS providers do.
>
> Pain point: slow IPv6 adoption.
>
>
> Tie them together and: single type of registrant, all voting members
> with one vote per organization. Fees assessed based on number of IPv4
> addresses held but not permanently reassigned to third parties. Fixed
> dollar amount per address times number of addresses. Addresses
> considered reassigned (excepted from fee) only when SWIPed with
> complete and accurate public information about the assignee. Ephemeral
> assignments (dynamic IPs) are not considered reassigned. Some minimum
> floor fee like $100. Fees ignore AS numbers and IPv6 addresses (for
> now).
>
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> --
> William Herrin ................ her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
> Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180410/40f09984/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 18
********************************************

Reply via email to