They may be referring to this : Providing a temporary IPv6 fee waiver for organizations in the 3X-Small category that desire a larger address block
On Sun, Sep 19, 2021, 8:45 PM Randy Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote: > > > ----- On Sep 19, 2021, at 9:52 PM, Michel Py via ARIN-PPML > [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > > I probably missed something, but the registration services plan did not > make > > sense to me earlier. When I added it up, it was cheaper to pay > separately. > > My end-user ORG has been opting for the Registration Services Plan for > just about as long as it has been an option. It has always mirrored the ISP > fee schedule and as such, IPv4+IPv6+ASN(s) have been all under a single > fee, based on the larger of the IPv4 or IPv6 size category. That doesn't > necessarily mean it is less expensive for every ORG, but there are many for > whom it would be. > > > This is another of your bait-and-switch schemes. > > Huh? What are you talking about? > > > >> (Note that you can even add a small IPv6 block to that and still not > see any > >> annual fee change...) > > > > Nice try, but I'm not falling for it. > > Falling for what? Have you read the fee schedule? It is right there in > black and white. There is no nuance or shady complicated language. It just > is. > > > > As I said earlier, I don't think that ARIN > > should be in the business of incentives to deploy IPv6. > > Why? If not them, then who? > > > > As I said earlier too, this will go to court at some point. I am not > going to > > tie my company and open the floodgates to IPv6 obligations for $100 a > year. > > It is not worth the risk. > > Again, what are you talking about? Risk of what? Floodgates?!? > > > > I will eat the $100 increase and stay IPv4-only. > > No you won't. As previously shown, your fees are going to go down. > > > > I will not deploy IPv6 and challenge ARIN all the way to the supreme > court if I > > have to. > > Why won't you reply IPv6? Challenge them for what? > > > > A part of ARIN stakeholders feels that we should not be paying you more > than > > half a million dollars a year to keep promoting a protocol that has > failed for > > 20 years. Sooner or later, there will be a vote of no-confidence. > > A vote of no-confidence for whom? The global internet? ICANN? You are not > making any sense at all. I can assume you are talking specifically about > Mr, Curran, but it is not like he unilaterally decides anything about fees > or policies, so it still doesn't make sense. > > In regard to IPv6, I would not at all called it failed at all. The reason > it is not as ubiquitous is because of ignorance and attitudes of companies > and individuals like you. > > > Maybe it is time to put a policy in place that requires all ORGs to have a > basic training course in how number resources work. If you lack the basic > understanding of the policies involved, then you shouldn't qualify for the > resources. > > > -Randy > _______________________________________________ > 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. >
_______________________________________________ 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.
