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 (Steven Noble)
2. Re: fee structure (Steven Ryerse)
3. Re: fee structure (Owen DeLong)
4. Re: fee structure (John Curran)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 21:13:34 -0700
From: Steven Noble <[email protected]>
To: John Curran <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected] PPML" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] fee structure
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Mar 30, 2013, at 8:18 PM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 2013, at 10:25 PM, Milton L Mueller <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> [Milton L Mueller] So the end user membership fee is intended to be a
>> payment of "earnest money" to prove that they are really interested?
>
> No, it is to provide equitable engagement for all those participating
> in the ARIN corporate governance matters.
$500 is way too high for me.. in fact paying just the $100 fee for my single
ASN is high. I spent many years with ARIN refusing to update my ASN due to a
glitch in their system, but ARIN was happy to invoice me $100 for my single ASN.
>
>> Is the fear that without this speed bump end user members will become
>> "rotten boroughs" whose votes are manipulated by others (who?).
>
> No, it is not a "speed bump" but simply a choice available to end-users;
> having an equal voice includes taking on some equal responsibility.
I have to pay an extra $500 a year to be able to vote? How is that equal
responsibility? Sending ARIN more money does not make me more responsible,
sending ARIN money makes me responsible. Everyone who has a resource and pays
for it should have a vote.
>
>> Is there a concern that some little organization with a /24 has the same
>> voting power as an ISP with 2 /8s? Should voting power reflect "share"
>> holding the way it does in stock ownership? Just some random thoughts...
>
> Random thoughts indeed; I almost didn't know if they even warranted
> reply, but have done so for clarity.
>
> The idea was to keep the end-user fees at low and simple as possible
> (for end-users that simply want maintenance of ARIN registry services.)
When ARIN raised the fee from $30 to $100, it was not to keep the end user fee
low. The change only lowered the fee for people with more than 3 ASNs. For
those of us who have a single ASN, it raised the fee. I paid the new fee and I
was still refused service. If I am not allowed maintenance of ARIN registry
services than what am I paying for? Now ARIN is going to charge $100 for each
ASN, but what has changed on ARINs end that makes it so much more expensive to
maintain the database? Why did the fee not go back down to $30 per ASN?
> Membership provides an equal vote to every member, yet ISPs pay on
> average $2500/year to ARIN. Asking end-users to pay that same amount
> in order to be a member with equal vote would likely be considered
> unreasonable by many, but a contribution similar to the the _smallest_
> ISPs provides for comparable standing for all those who participate
> with the same say in ARIN corporate governance matters.
I whole heartedly disagree. You charge me a fee, yet I am not considered
eligible to vote.
Let's be clear here, the member/non member line you draw is arbitrary "The
_smallest_ ISP" would be the one who pays the least. I pay $100, so that makes
me smaller than what you consider the _smallest_ ISP. I don't pay $0 so I do
contribute, ARIN just doesn't give me a vote.
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 04:25:56 +0000
From: Steven Ryerse <[email protected]>
To: John Curran <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] fee structure
Message-ID:
<5b9e90747fa2974d91a54fcfa1b8ad12012f5aa...@eni-mail.eclipse-networks.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
John I do appreciate your comments below but as always they miss the overall
point that I continually try to make. The comments that I have made to this
community since I joined it have mostly been big picture as were my comments
earlier today. As a CEO I've had to face big picture problems and make big
picture decisions and I will continue to point out that there is a big picture
problem whenever an allocation request is completely denied by ARIN. (Like
mine was for the Minimum sized IPv4 block.)
The big picture problem I keep pointing out can't be solved by a change to a
policy or by removing a policy or even by adding several policies. The problem
I keep pointing out (over and over) is that every single policy that has any
language in it that is used by ARIN's staff to deny an allocation request - for
any reason other than the size of the allocation request does not match the
size of the organization - needs to be changed or abandoned.
Every single request should be filled with at least the "Minimum" size
allocation and NONE should be turned flatly down with no allocation made!!!!!
This is because DENYING ALLOCATIONS is NOT the charter of ARIN and not ARIN's
Mission as outlined in ARIN's Mission Statement.
John, you have responded to me several times including in your comments today
below that your policies reflect this community's wishes and that ARIN doesn't
actually make the policies. So, following that logic that means that if this
community decides for example to support a policy change that completely stops
IPv4 allocations to everyone because of say IPv4 depletion or any other reason,
that would be OK with the leadership of ARIN because it is what this community
wants. I submit that such a policy to stop ALL IPv4 allocations would NOT be
OK because it would be 100% against the charter of why ARIN was founded and the
Mission it is supposed to operate under.
I repeat what I said earlier today in my post: ARIN's Mission is to ALLOCATE
resources and it isn't to NOT ALLOCATE resources. I would add to the end of
that sentence "Even if it causes ARIN to run out of IPv4 addresses to
allocate".
I've seen many policy discussions just like the one that has been going on over
the last several days which boil down to just how hard this community wants to
make it to get resources. It was very clear during the discussions of the
change in policy sought by some of the Canadian Cable companies that several
folks in this community didn't want to give them more allocations because they
thought the Cable companies were not using allocations efficiently enough.
Again in my opinion that is a totally arbitrary argument being used against
them and it is just another excuse to NOT ALLOCATE. I will repeat AGAIN that
arbitrary excuses to NOT ALLOCATE are against ARIN's Mission! They should be
allocated resources based on their size - end of discussion. Their efficiency
and how they used resources in the past is totally irrelevant to ARIN's Mission
to ALLOCATE. They shouldn't have to beg this community for resources to
perform their Internet Mission. They should be applauded for
furthering the Internet which of course is part of ARIN's mission.
My big picture observation is that all of these discussions are going down the
road slowly but surely of DENYING ALL ALLOCATIONS of IPv4. This is why I don't
(as you continue to suggest) try to fix a policy by offering a slight change to
one - as the whole set of allocation policies needs to be largely abandoned and
replaced with a few very simple to administrate policies that gage the size of
the organization and match up the allocation to the size of the need - and then
ALLOCATE. IPv4 and IPv6 policies should be identical except for the obvious
technical differences.
At what point John, do you as CEO of ARIN along with your Board of Directors,
use your leadership roles to help this community see the big picture that they
are getting farther and farther away from the Mission of ARIN in the allocation
policies that are being proposed and adopted - and urge this community to
correct this? Seems to me that is your fiduciary responsibility as Officers of
ARIN.
-----Original Message-----
From: John Curran [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2013 6:40 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] fee structure
On Mar 30, 2013, at 2:42 PM, Steven Ryerse <[email protected]> wrote:
> Unfortunately it is somewhat rare to see comments from legacy holders in this
> forum even though I know a lot of them at least "listen" to postings here as
> I've had several make comments to me off-line over time. I think comments
> from legacy holders should be aired in this forum as their comments would
> make these kinds of policy decisions better - even when philosophical issues
> come up like is happening in the current discussions.
Agreed. If anyone has interest in how the registry for the region is operated,
then I would strongly encourage them to speak up. While we do have a mailing
list specifically for members to address issues such as fees and services, the
fact is that you can't have fair discussion about some items (such as equitable
fees for membership) on a list of which includes only members. The same
obviously applies to number policy, which effects everyone in the registry and
hence one of the reasons that we have always had the public policy mailing list
open to all.
> In my humble opinion his most important point is that all of these rules are
> arbitrary. If you stand back and look at all the quibbling going on about
> whether someone should be able to get a /40 or a /36 or a /32 or a /whatever
> - it is easy to see that "community" wishes to limit the assignment of IPv4
> and even IPv6 resources for their purposes - whatever they may be. All of
> these conversations boil down to how best to LIMIT IP resources!
As noted later in your email, "there should be NO LIMITS placed by ARIN other
than a simple justification of the size of the requested block needed as we all
obviously all don't need a /8."
Presently, we've got some fairly straightforward IPv6 allocation policies for
both ISPs and end-users, and no one is discussing putting _any_ restriction on
issuing an /32 to ISPs... the question being discussed is whether we should
allow them to request _less_ space (if that is what they desire) so that we can
provide a lower associated fee ($500/yr) as well. We can't move all ISPs to
that number but would like to allow the smaller category and fees if it makes
sense. We seem to have some folks who think that it would be a worthwhile
change, and some who believe it will encourage some ISPs to economize their
customer assignments to fit in the lower fees (which are more than half of what
they would pay otherwise.)
None of this is "driven" by ARIN... At the end of the day, the policy as to
whether ISPs can request a /40 (rather than /36 or /32) will be set by the
community. The Board has expressed willingness to have these lower fee
categories (they approved the IPv6 /36 already and the change for /40 will be
considered), but again, that's presuming that the community wants to set some
policies which would allow an ISP to request _less_ IPv6 space than presently
allowed today.
> I've said many times and I'll keep saying it as long as I can breathe that
> ARIN's mission is to ALLOCATE resources and not to find reasons NOT TO
> ALLOCATE resources. IPv4 depletion being the justification be damned!
I actually agree with that (personally), but despite what you may have heard to
the contrary, I not make policy for the ARIN region; the community on this list
does, based on lots of discussion against policy proposals that are actually
submitted. If you think that policy should be different, then submit a
proposal which describes how and why it be changed.
> IPv4 depletion being the justification be damned! The big elephant in
> the room is that legacy holders are afraid of having their resources
> (and thus their businesses and their missions) impacted by all of the
> community policy discussions that are about somehow limiting resources
> or increasing fees or whatever. Who can blame them for taking the
> stance that better to be cautious and not sign anything that might
> give Arin any rights over them - just in case the "community" which is
> by design unpredictable - decides to do something harmful.
Perfectly reasonable concern when it comes to fees, particularly given that the
revised fee schedule does set legacy address holder fees to be the same as any
other end-user. However, I will also note that Legacy RSA (which many folks
talk about but never seem to read) actually has some protections specifically
regarding these concerns:
<https://www.arin.net/resources/agreements/legacy_rsa.pdf>
"ARIN may increase the Legacy Maintenance Fee after December 31, 2012, provided
that (i) the Legacy Maintenance Fee cannot exceed the maintenance fee charged
to comparable non-legacy holders for the maintenance service as set forth in
ARIN's Standard Fee Schedule as posted on ARIN's Website for comparable number
resources, and (ii) ARIN must set these fees in an open and transparent manner
through the ARIN community consultation process."
and
"Whenever a transfer or additional IP address space is requested by Legacy
Holder,
ARIN may review Legacy Holder's utilization of previously allocated or assigned
number resources and other Services received from ARIN to determine if Legacy
Holder is complying with the Service Terms. Except as set forth in this Legacy
Agreement, (i) ARIN will take no action to reduce the Services currently
provided
for Included Number Resources due to lack of utilization by the Legacy Holder,
and (ii) ARIN has no right to revoke any Included Number Resources under this
Legacy Agreement due to lack of utilization by Legacy Holder."
Legacy holders who enter into an LRSA are indeed bound contractually
to ARIN policies, but they also receive some fairly straightforward
protections in the process.
> My experience of applying for an IPv6 block in the Small Category and being
> approved one month, and applying and being denied for the current Minimum
> Size IPv4 block the next month - provides a real life illustration of just
> how arbitrary Arin's rules really are. I should have been approved for both
> or rejected for both!
Actually, it simply proves that the IPv4 and IPv6 policies are different.
If you want them the same, then you need to persuade your fellow service
providers and end-users on this list to change them accordingly.
> John said in his email to David Farmer yesterday "ARIN is here to serve the
> community, so the normal response to any request should be "Yes", unless
> there a clear reason (example, potential impacts to other parties) that
> something should be prohibited by policy". Obviously since I was approved
> for IPv6 and denied for IPv4, Arin found a reason to say "No" to me rather
> than "Yes" for IPv4 because of some arbitrary policy stemming from IPv4
> depletion concerns. As I said IPv4 depletion be damned as it isn't Arin's
> Mission to NOT ALLOCATE even the Minimum block to a party with need.
> ...
> There should be NO LIMITS placed by Arin other than a simple justification of
> the size of the requested block needed as we all obviously all don't need a
> /8. Then Arin should ALLOCATE for a reasonable cost that covers Arin's bills.
> For the record I have no problem paying a to make sure Arin's reasonable
> bills are paid.
That is good to know; it's also similar to the reasoning that has led to
ARIN having 4 fee reductions since its inception; we need to only recover
reasonable amounts to cover our costs.
> I'm sure I will get the obligatory email response from John about this email
> (which I do think is good) but then my comments again will be ignored by this
> community - and unfortunately all of the legacy holders will continue to be
> cautious and stay away as long as they can. I applaud Mathew's attempt to
> contribute here and the sanity he is trying to provide!
>
> -1 This member is against the current changes as proposed because at least
> in part it further restricts ALLOCATION of resources which I believe to be
> against Arin's Mission.
As we're presently discussing: 1) The new fee schedule (aka the "Pending Fee
schedule) which the Board has adopted; 2) A potential change to the Pending
Fee schedule to make the xx-small category include IPv6 address holders with
as large as a /40 IPv6 allocation; #) A change to policy [Draft ARIN-2013-3]
to allow ISPs to request as small as a /40 of IPv6 (presently limited to as
low as a /36 of IPv6), and 4) A change to a policy [Draft ARIN-2013-2] which
would treat 3GPP networks in a manner similar to current cable providers for
purposes of showing utilization of past blocks when requesting additional
space, would it be possible for you to be just a bit more specific about
which "current changes as proposed" you are referring to above?
Thanks!
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 01:20:50 -0700
From: Owen DeLong <[email protected]>
To: John Curran <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected] PPML" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] fee structure
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Mar 30, 2013, at 20:18 , John Curran <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 2013, at 10:25 PM, Milton L Mueller <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> [Milton L Mueller] So the end user membership fee is intended to be a
>> payment of "earnest money" to prove that they are really interested?
>
> No, it is to provide equitable engagement for all those participating
> in the ARIN corporate governance matters.
>
>> Is the fear that without this speed bump end user members will become
>> "rotten boroughs" whose votes are manipulated by others (who?).
>
> No, it is not a "speed bump" but simply a choice available to end-users;
> having an equal voice includes taking on some equal responsibility.
In that case, shouldn't we get $100 off of our membership for each resource
record subject to the $100 fee?
After all, the $500 XX-Small ISPs get their membership for free. Why should
a $500/year end-user be any different?
Owen
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 11:05:46 +0000
From: John Curran <[email protected]>
To: Steven Ryerse <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] fee structure
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
On Mar 31, 2013, at 12:25 AM, Steven Ryerse <[email protected]>
wrote:
> John, you have responded to me several times including in your comments today
> below that your policies reflect this community's wishes and that ARIN
> doesn't actually make the policies. So, following that logic that means that
> if this community decides for example to support a policy change that
> completely stops IPv4 allocations to everyone because of say IPv4 depletion
> or any other reason, that would be OK with the leadership of ARIN because it
> is what this community wants. I submit that such a policy to stop ALL IPv4
> allocations would NOT be OK because it would be 100% against the charter of
> why ARIN was founded and the Mission it is supposed to operate under.
As noted earlier, policy does have meet ARIN's Principles of
Internet Number Resource Policy (Part One, Section 4) which the
ARIN Board adopted as part of the Policy Development Process.
These principles are:
? Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
? Technically Sound
? Supported by the Community
I do not know what the Board would do under such circumstances
(a policy proposal to completely stop IPv4 allocation which _is_
supported by the community) but in theory it could fail to ratify
the policy as failing the first point of enabling administration.
As it turns out, we've never had a case where the community has
advanced policy that could not be ratified in the end, but your
hypothetical point is taken in that the Board would have to decide
whether to abandon the Principles for sake of the overall mission.
> My big picture observation is that all of these discussions are going down
> the road slowly but surely of DENYING ALL ALLOCATIONS of IPv4. This is why I
> don't (as you continue to suggest) try to fix a policy by offering a slight
> change to one - as the whole set of allocation policies needs to be largely
> abandoned and replaced with a few very simple to administrate policies that
> gage the size of the organization and match up the allocation to the size of
> the need - and then ALLOCATE. IPv4 and IPv6 policies should be identical
> except for the obvious technical differences.
Changes to policy do no have to be "slight"; that is a restriction
that you place upon yourself. If you believe that a fundamental
replacement is called for, feel free to propose it.
Thanks!
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 93, Issue 34
*****************************************
