> On Sep 17, 2021, at 10:57 , David Farmer via ARIN-PPML <[email protected]> > wrote: > > The lines between what is an end-user and what is an ISP are getting very > blurry these days. Is there really a difference between a data center, a > university campus network, an enterprise network, and a small ISP each with a > /20?
The use of the term ISP is what makes them blurry… s/ISP/LIR/ and it gets a lot simpler. Are you running an IP registry where you assign and/or allocate addresses to external downstream organizations? YES-> LIR… NO-> End User. Pretty much that simple. > No, this isn't revenue neutral for ARIN, but they have been running deficits > the past few years, and need additional revenue anyway. They’ve been running deficits because they chose to draw down reserves in order to clear off some technical debt. This should not be an ongoing problem. (Unless they’ve been misleading us in the previous financial reports when they explained those deficits). > You know the saying, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can make it > drink." Well unfortunately, there is a corollary, "some people don't pay > attention, until they get the bill." I can’t speak for those claiming unfair surprise as I was not surprised and I am not making that claim. I clearly and vocally objected to the proposal. So vocally, in fact, that Mr. Abejuela chose to send me a legal nastygram threatening to sue if I didn’t stop calling the way I’d been treated under the LRSA a scam. (See my previous email). > I'm not sure I completely agree with all the decisions, but there has been a > lot of outreach and the series or decisions that lead us here hasn't been > done in secret, as far as I'm concerned it all has been above boards. Yes, we’ve been completely screwed entirely on the up-and-up, but it’s still a grade-a hosing for a lot of us and apparently I’m not the only one who isn’t happy about it after all. Owen > > Thanks > > On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 11:32 AM Mark McDonald <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > John, > > I just came across your spreadsheet of fee increases. It pretty much > summarizes what I’ve been saying - this isn’t a neutral harmonization of > fees, it’s a 20% rate hike on roughly 40% of ARIN’s customers that > disproportionally affects ARIN’s smaller customers, with Large being the > middle tier in ARIN’s fee schedule, while targeting end users that use a > fraction of the services of an ISP. In nearly 20 years we’ve opened 5 ticket > and in all cases, chose to better optimize IP space rather than pull from a > finite resource (IPv4 address space). That works out to about $1000/ticket - > does it really cost ARIN more than $1000 to respond to a ticket? > > It would be nice to show in that spreadsheet how many IP’s are > represented in each Category - both RSP and End User. My assumption, and I > could be wrong, is that these fees are going towards users who are already > paying 30-40x more than those utilizing the most resources. The previously > proposed $800/object almost seems like a bargain compared to what’s being > proposed for us. This isn’t about the money, it’s about the principal of > what users ARIN is raising fees on. > > I’m curious as to who made/makes up ARIN’s Fee Structure Review Panel > and why wasn’t outreach done back then? I was sure notified from 3 different > departments when ARIN blasted out fee increases of 650% so it seems capable > of better communication. > > What should happen is ARIN truly engages it’s customers and if it needs > 20% more revenue so badly, perhaps look at taking it from the companies that > have profited most from the services you provide and who already pay a tiny > fraction of what smaller users do for the resources (IPv4 addresses) they > consume. > > I need to get back to vendor negotiations. I’m trying to get Verisign > to reduce our domain renewal rates by 99.61% because we only use their API > and don’t consume even a tiny fraction of resources of what a retail customer > does and they only discount our rates by like 8% - crazy right?! They’re > pushing back stating that domain names are a limited resource and we’re going > to make a boat-load of money off of my proposal by buying nearly every domain > at 3/10ths of 1% of their normal customer but they simply don’t understand > the volume we’ll be able to bring. I’ll keep you posted on how my > negotiations go. > > -Mark > >> On Sep 17, 2021, at 4:36 AM, John Curran <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> 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] >> <mailto:[email protected]>). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> <https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml> >> Please contact [email protected] <mailto:[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] > <mailto:[email protected]>). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > <https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml> > Please contact [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> if you experience any > issues. > > > -- > =============================================== > David Farmer Email:[email protected] > <mailto:email%[email protected]> > Networking & Telecommunication Services > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota > 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 > =============================================== > _______________________________________________ > 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.
