PROPOSAL #2 - reform of the fee schedule (fwd)
I am expanding the discussion list to NANOG and the ARIN Members mailing lists. Please post comments PUBLICALLY, or if you feel you cannot do so without "cloaking" yourself, through someone else (who you trust to strip the attribution). Towards a more fair fee proposal: I would like to ask the AC to direct Kim Hubbard to produce a list of the number of allocations in each of the fee categories currently listed, along with the documentation required to process each.
From this I believe we will find:
1) *TO BE FAIR*, one must document all allocations and use in all existing space at least bi-annually (once every two years) when coming back for more space. 2) A smaller allocation history naturally has less to produce. Therefore, I argue that the fees should be *proportionate* to the existing space. The smallest allocation, a /19, is 8192 addresses. Let's say that we set the "desired entry price" at $2,000. Therefore, the "cost per address allocated, including the current request", is set at, say, $0.25. Now Mr. Big Provider comes in and wants space. They have, let's say, the equivalent of an /8. They pay ~$4M under this formula. Obviously, we have just set the cost too high. Ok. ARIN has an operating budget of $2M. So we cut the base cost by 90%. Therefore, the /19 requestor pays $200 (!), or 0.025 cents per address IN USE, including the NEW requested allocation. Mr. Big Provider pays ~$400,000 Annually. The first allocation you request in a calendar year, you get assessed for ALL space you have, including the request you put in for. So if you have a /16, and ask for another /16, you get assessed for 65536 * 2, or 128k addresses. This works out to a fee of $3276.80. Note that if you ask for less, the fee is lower. There's your resistor on people asking for more than they need - it costs money (regardless of whether or not you get approved!) This is *FAIR*. We're now charging for the amount of verification work to be performed and EVERY allocation is treated equally. Now the reality is that this will put us WAY over budget. This is GOOD. What we need to do then is cut the base membership fee to something that ordinary people can afford - $50/year. The stakeholders should have a say in this, and the stakeholders, folks, are the average users. Would someone please tell me why this isn't a more proper fee strategy? -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly / All Lines K56Flex/DOV | NEW! Corporate ISDN Prices dropped by up to 50%! Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost
On Thu, 28 May 1998, Karl Denninger wrote:
I would like to ask the AC to direct Kim Hubbard to produce a list of the number of allocations in each of the fee categories currently listed, along with the documentation required to process each.
I'd love to see all these documents but currently the ARIN folks sign NDAs and won't let anyone see this stuff, not AC members or BoT members. Before I deal with this I'd like to get an idea from the members how many of you would sue me personally if I voted for a proposal to order ARIN employees to break the NDAs that they signed with your company.
Would someone please tell me why this isn't a more proper fee strategy?
Because it is based entirely on hypothesis with no hard data to back it up. The first step is to get the data, second step is to analyze it and only after the analysis is done can we effectively design a revised funding scheme for IANA. I suggest we focus on how to accomplish the first two steps and if too much of the data is covered by NDAs then I suggest we hire another ARIN employee with statistical training to go through the data and analyze it on our behalf while ensuring that confidential member data is not accidentally outed. -- Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Communications Inc. - E-mail: michael@memra.com http://www.memra.com - *check out the new name & new website*
On Thu, May 28, 1998 at 06:15:33PM -0700, Michael Dillon wrote:
On Thu, 28 May 1998, Karl Denninger wrote:
I would like to ask the AC to direct Kim Hubbard to produce a list of the number of allocations in each of the fee categories currently listed, along with the documentation required to process each.
I'd love to see all these documents but currently the ARIN folks sign NDAs and won't let anyone see this stuff, not AC members or BoT members. Before I deal with this I'd like to get an idea from the members how many of you would sue me personally if I voted for a proposal to order ARIN employees to break the NDAs that they signed with your company.
An NDA cannot cover publically available information Michael (and to the extent it does, its unenforceable). Please cut the strawmen; I have already explained this in detail twice (and in fact the proposal does so). The fact that a business plan was requested is not confidential. That a business plan was produced isn't either (neither rises to the level of a trade secret, nor can it). The CONTENTS of the document may be confidential. It is not necessay to produce the CONTENTS to show the documentary trail. This is the second time you've raised this strawman, and its just as invalid this time as it was the last. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly / All Lines K56Flex/DOV | NEW! Corporate ISDN Prices dropped by up to 50%! Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost
On Thu, May 28, 1998 at 07:27:39PM -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
Therefore, I argue that the fees should be *proportionate* to the existing space.
A good idea. While working fulltime for NACS.NET (I don't any longer), a few months ago, I checked out ARIN's site to find out how much a /19 would be, because NACS is going to need some more IP's soon. The price was, ahhhh, shall we say, a little high :)
This is *FAIR*. We're now charging for the amount of verification work to be performed and EVERY allocation is treated equally.
Now the reality is that this will put us WAY over budget. This is GOOD. What we need to do then is cut the base membership fee to something that ordinary people can afford - $50/year.
Um, yeah.
The stakeholders should have a say in this, and the stakeholders, folks, are the average users.
Um, yeah. :)
Would someone please tell me why this isn't a more proper fee strategy?
[wisecracks withheld] ;) Karl, I think that makes a lot more sense than the justification I got over the phone from one of the people at ARIN... "we're not government- subsidized any more" -- which may be TRUE, but it's not justification for the fees they're asking for. -- Steven J. Sobol - Founding Member, Postmaster/Webmaster, ISP Liaison -- Forum for Responsible & Ethical E-mail (FREE) - Dedicated to education about, and prevention of, Unsolicited Broadcast E-mail (UBE), also known as SPAM. Info: http://www.ybecker.net
Would someone please tell me why this isn't a more proper fee strategy?
-- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin
It makes perfect sense, Karl. I would like to see the numbers reported by Kim first, however. It might make sense to bump the entry level fee somewhat with some sort of a "First Time Buyers" fee that includes ARIN membership - that way anyone who acutally has to pay part or any of the funding of ARIN would have the ability to participate in its governance. -- Jason Weisberger Chief Technology Officer SoftAware, Inc. - 310/305-0275 In any moment of decision the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing. --Theodore Roosevelt
participants (4)
-
Jason L. Weisberger -
Karl Denninger -
Michael Dillon -
Steve Sobol