On 17 Sep 2021, at 3:52 AM, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
Some have suggested the fee should not have a relationship to the number of addresses, but I strongly disagree. For the most part, the more addresses you have, the more SWIP transactions and reverse lookups and customer service transactions are going to take place, so it is quite proportional. Albert – This is incorrect – i.e. the assertion that ARIN’s costs are proportional to the span of address space represented by registry objects – and it is also likely beyond the possibility of physics (as noted below.) Larger entities almost always have dedicated personal who knowledgable of ARIN and our processes – while they may make some additional customer services transactions (due to acquiring additional resources or using more advanced services), it would be highly unusual for any of them to make hundreds of more frequent customer service requests, let alone the thousands, or hundreds of thousands, that you suggest and would be necessary for ARIN to bear a proportional cost burden due to servicing such organizations. There are significant fixed costs of operating the registry and these fixed costs are predominately related to the number of organizations that must have billing relationships with ARIN and the number of resource entries in the registry – they are _not_ proportional in any manner to the size of the address space span represented by the registry objects. Note – In 2014, the previously mentioned Fee Structure Review Panel looked at an approach that sought recover a fixed amount per registry object and use rather significant transactions fees to correspond more directly to the level of effort for recovering costs of registration service requests (aka Proposal #7 “Transaction Fee Proposal” in the previously referenced report.) It was clear that such an approach would quite significantly penalize the smaller registry users, as it results in per registry object fees of more than $800 per object per year and larger transaction fees. The fact of the matter is that ARIN’s present geometric registry fee scale burdens organizations with the largest number resource holdings far in excess of their imputed costs to ARIN, and while this is obvious, it was also felt to be overall reasonable because the _benefit_ obtained could also be deemed to be disproportionate. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers
_______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
