Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: fee structure (John Curran)
2. Re: fee structure (William Herrin)
3. Re: fee structure (John Curran)
4. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(Brandon Ross)
5. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(Brandon Ross)
6. Re: fee structure (Scott Leibrand)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 13:55:24 +0000
From: John Curran <[email protected]>
To: William Herrin <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] fee structure
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On Mar 29, 2013, at 9:09 AM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Jimmy Hess <[email protected]> wrote:
>> It certainly makes sense, that it could be more expensive on a
>> per-resource basis to be an End user, and go to ARIN, in some cases,
>> for a small amount of resources.
>
> Hi Jimmy,
>
> For the past decade and a half, the claim has been that ISPs are more
> expensive for ARIN to interact with because they SWIP and have other
> frequent interactions with ARIN while end users mostly appear once and
> except to pay their bills are never heard from again.
Generally correct (regarding more interactions and service
use than end-users) Historically, ISPs have also come back
repeatedly for additional blocks of address space. It is
probably worth reviewing that aspect over the long-term
once we get to general IPv6 usage; the fee schedule actually
is a solid step towards closer harmonization between ISPs
and end-user fees in that respect.
>> Perhaps the ARIN membership cost to be full member and have voting
>> rights; instead of being a $500/Year, extra fee for just end users,
>> should be a fee of whatever amount is required on top of the
>> resource, transfer, allocation fees during the year (for both end
>> users and ISPs), to bring the total annual amount to a minimum of
>> $1400 to initially establish membership, and $1200 a year thereafter
>> to maintain membership.
>
> That would indeed restore the status quo. Here's a more radical idea:
> why not scrap the end-user $500 poll tax and let *every* holder or
> ARIN resources under RSA or LRSA vote?
We want to make sure that we have an electorate which is actually
interested in participating in governance of the registry and many
end-users are not (at least, once they get their address block.)
To this end, we'll likely always have a nominal fee for membership
for end-user, but I believe it should be reviewed to see if $500 is
the right amount.
FYI,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 11:06:16 -0400
From: William Herrin <[email protected]>
To: John Curran <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] fee structure
Message-ID:
<cap-gugwbtal3+ee-vgcjse5gk4s89eoj1z0zep_rqilbkom...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 9:55 AM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 29, 2013, at 9:09 AM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> That would indeed restore the status quo. Here's a more radical idea:
>> why not scrap the end-user $500 poll tax and let *every* holder or
>> ARIN resources under RSA or LRSA vote?
>
> We want to make sure that we have an electorate which is actually
> interested in participating in governance of the registry and many
> end-users are not (at least, once they get their address block.)
> To this end, we'll likely always have a nominal fee for membership
> for end-user,
Hi John,
For the sake of clarity, I'll rephrase that for you:
You don't want folks to vote until they're well informed. You find
that a poll tax helps assure that only well informed end users vote.
The government of my home state of Virginia took a similar position
until the 1960's when it was finally corrected by a Federal court.
> but I believe it should be reviewed to see if $500 is
> the right amount.
Yeah.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected]
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 15:25:32 +0000
From: John Curran <[email protected]>
To: William Herrin <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected] PPML" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] fee structure
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
On Mar 29, 2013, at 11:06 AM, William Herrin <[email protected]>
wrote:
> For the sake of clarity, I'll rephrase that for you:
>
> You don't want folks to vote until they're well informed. You find
> that a poll tax helps assure that only well informed end users vote.
Bill - I said "interested in participating", not "well informed";
please do not paraphrase my remarks when they are already quite
clear.
The ARIN Board has considered this particular matter (of fees and
membership) at length, and it is important to have a well-defined
membership for the proper running of the organization. This is very
common for 503c6 business associations (which is ARIN's incorporation),
and attempting to compare this with a citizens right-to-vote issue
is quite misplaced.
Thanks,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 11:33:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brandon Ross <[email protected]>
To: Gary Buhrmaster <[email protected]>
Cc: John Curran <[email protected]>, "[email protected] PPML"
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6
Allocations for ISPs
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> I seem to recall that the ARIN board explicitly choose not to
> give 501(c)'s a break on fees (was that an Owen proposal?).
>
> Does anyone know if the board gave 501(c)'s a "one size down"
> fee this would solve the 80% issue?
I don't think so. Neither of the organizations that inspired the creation
of this policy proposal are 501(c).
--
Brandon Ross Yahoo & AIM: BrandonNRoss
+1-404-635-6667 ICQ: 2269442
Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/bross Skype: brandonross
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 11:37:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brandon Ross <[email protected]>
To: David Farmer <[email protected]>
Cc: ARIN PPML <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6
Allocations for ISPs
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013, David Farmer wrote:
> I'd change that a little and add another subsection;
>
> 6.5.2.1(g): An LIR that requested a /36 or /40 initial allocation is
> entitled to increase said allocation's size to /36 or /32. This change is
> not a subsequent allocation as described in 6.5.3. Additionally, a minimum
> of a /32 will be reserved for all such LIRs to facilitate this expansion.
I'm good with that.
> 6.5.2.1(h): An LIR that received a /32 initial allocation before the
> availability of the /36 and /40 initial allocation sizes is entitled to a
> one-time decrease of their allocation size to /36 or /40. Such an LIR will
> retain the first (lowest numbered) subnet or the last (highest numbered)
> subnet of their original block.
What benefit does it give the community to limit reduction in allocation
size to only those that were issued earlier and only once? I am against
that change as plenty of organizations may make initial errors in their
allocation requests and might want to move back to a smaller size later.
--
Brandon Ross Yahoo & AIM: BrandonNRoss
+1-404-635-6667 ICQ: 2269442
Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/bross Skype: brandonross
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 08:38:11 -0700
From: Scott Leibrand <[email protected]>
To: John Curran <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] fee structure
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Mar 29, 2013, at 6:55 AM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> We want to make sure that we have an electorate which is actually
> interested in participating in governance of the registry and many
> end-users are not (at least, once they get their address block.)
> To this end, we'll likely always have a nominal fee for membership
> for end-user, but I believe it should be reviewed to see if $500 is
> the right amount.
John,
Have you (or has the board) considered other methods of identifying those who
have demonstrated an interest in participating? For example, any resource
holder who has sent someone to an ARIN meeting and then applies for membership
has IMO demonstrated such an interest.
-Scott
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 93, Issue 25
*****************************************
