Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

> Randy Carpenter wrote : > 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. I had IPv6 on a Cisco 2500, more than 20 years ago. I was on the 6bone. Who are you ?

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

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 wrote: > > > - On Sep 19, 2021, at 9:52 PM, Michel Py via ARIN-PPML > arin-ppml@arin.net wrote:

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

- On Sep 19, 2021, at 9:52 PM, Michel Py via ARIN-PPML arin-ppml@arin.net 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

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

John - > John Curran wrote : > Michel - Organizations with a registration services plan don’t pay any > separate ASN maintenance fees so your > previous total of $300 annually ($150 for the /24 + $150 for ASN maintenance) > will now be $250 annually in total. I probably missed something, but

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 8:13 PM Michel Py via ARIN-PPML wrote: > > John Curran wrote : > > but it also means a reduction for more than three thousand end-user > organizations who have the typical single /24 IPv4 address block. > > I'd like to see where it is, as $job[0] is an end-user org with a

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

On Sep 19, 2021, at 9:13 PM, Michel Py wrote: > >  >> >> John Curran wrote : >> but it also means a reduction for more than three thousand end-user >> organizations who have the typical single /24 IPv4 address block. > > I'd like to see where it is, as $job[0] is an end-user org with a

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

On 19 Sep 2021, at 1:12 PM, Owen DeLong mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote: On Sep 19, 2021, at 06:32 , John Curran mailto:jcur...@arin.net>> wrote: I actually haven’t said that – what I said is that your assertion that the costs are linear (i.e. per IP address represented) are not realistic, nor

Re: [arin-ppml] Rate Hikes discouraging the use of SWIP is bad (Was Open Letter Thread)

On 2021-09-19 12:54 p.m., David Farmer via ARIN-PPML wrote: So, currently end-users don't have access to SWIP, so how do you know they don't have good uses for it? Probably not good enough to pay more, but if it didn't cost more would they find uses for it? It is pretty easy to imagine it

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

> On Sep 19, 2021, at 12:54 , David Farmer wrote: > > > > On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 10:05 PM Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML > mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net>> wrote: > > > > On Sep 18, 2021, at 03:04 , John Curran > > wrote: > > You can assert that ARIN's costs are

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 10:05 PM Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML < arin-ppml@arin.net> wrote: > > > > On Sep 18, 2021, at 03:04 , John Curran wrote: > > You can assert that ARIN's costs are predominantly the result of “LIRs” > but that doesn’t reflect reality – many of our services and functions are >

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

+1, I feel the same Cheken On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 7:31 PM Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML < arin-ppml@arin.net> wrote: > Let me be clear… > > I do not feel that the overall costs of operating ARIN at this time are > unreasonable. > > I do feel that the apportionment of fees in the new system is very

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

Let me be clear… I do not feel that the overall costs of operating ARIN at this time are unreasonable. I do feel that the apportionment of fees in the new system is very unfair to certain registrants. Owen > On Sep 19, 2021, at 08:51 , Steve Noble wrote: > > Your and my view of rich are

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

Maybe ARIN and staff should move to Kansas City like the Department of Agriculture did to the Ag Research Science Division. They used the facts that it is much cheaper in KC for rent, employee cost of living, central to US. The said inside the Beltway was too expensive, so they just up and

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

In general, executives of (successful) profit-making ventures have lavish compensation that is usually proportional to the profit that the organization makes in some way. OTOH, the executives of NGOs usually have fixed compensation that is often well below that of executives of profit-making

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

> On Sep 19, 2021, at 06:32 , John Curran wrote: > > On 19 Sep 2021, at 12:15 AM, Mark McDonald > wrote: >> >> Our rate hike alone covers the cost of responding to concerned organizations >> questioning why such a massive rate hike is needed that targets the

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

> On Sep 19, 2021, at 05:06 , John Curran wrote: > > On 18 Sep 2021, at 11:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> ... >> We’re taking about the fact that if you’re an end user, this latest fee hike >> is pretty abominable, while it’s a pretty nice subsidy for most LIRs paid >> for on the backs of the

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

Your and my view of rich are obviously different but let's put that aside. But my point was very specific, if people are talking about ARIN running a deficit and having to raise rates, you should look at the costs of the organization. If you are complaining to John that the rate increases are

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

What does being non-profit have to do with not paying the executives that run the day by day of the organization ? Fernando On Sun, 19 Sep 2021, 01:33 Steve Noble, wrote: > Since they are a non-profit, they could also cut executive salaries. As of > 2019, John was being paid over $546,000 to

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 12:33 AM Steve Noble wrote: > Since they are a non-profit, they could also cut executive salaries. As of > 2019, John was being paid over $546,000 to respond to posts on mailing > lists. > > https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/541860956 > Key

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

On 19 Sep 2021, at 12:15 AM, Mark McDonald mailto:ma...@siteserver.com>> wrote: Our rate hike alone covers the cost of responding to concerned organizations questioning why such a massive rate hike is needed that targets the smallest half of ARIN’s user base. You realize the only reason

Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

On 18 Sep 2021, at 11:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > ... > We’re taking about the fact that if you’re an end user, this latest fee hike > is pretty abominable, while it’s a pretty nice subsidy for most LIRs paid for > on the backs of the end users. Saying “if you’re an end user, this latest fee