Non-profit IP Registry

While I admit it is not completely clear reading the proposal
  outlined on the web page at, charging
  $2,500 for a /24 will *kill* the small business market, and the
  ISPs that exist to service that market. Most of the associations
  and small businesses we deal with choke when thay have to pay $750
  for a router to handle their dedicated Internet connection. Added
  to the fact that the LECs want to charge per minute charges for
  POTS lines used for dedicated dial-up, a $2,500 IP address charge
  will guarantee that the small business portion of the market will
  disappear. We all depend on the net for a living folks -- I don't
  think we should consider any proposal that would have a negative
  effect on our own industry.

  Dave Stoddard
  US Net Incorporated

If you need to get a /24 from the registry, you need to pay the price.

If you just want a /24, get one from your upstream. If they have a /17,
the cost per /24 drops down _quite_ a bit; $7500/128 = ~$60 for a one-time
fee. Generally speaking, right now you can not get a /24 from the
InterNIC and have everyone listen to your advertisment so this really
doesn't change that much for the small guy. I think it will, however,
cause a good number of people with legacy class Cs allocated a long time
ago to renumber into provider assigned space to reduce their costs.

I have some big concerns about some of the details; with some things I
don't like what I see (there seems to be more behind the ideas than what
is being stated; that "hidden agenda" of sorts isn't a bad one, but I
think it is hidden and that is bad), others there simply needs to be more
details on, however I don't think that the overall plan is as bad as you
make it out to be.

I think further discussion should really go to the naipr list that Kim
mentioned; some of the issues aren't clear, the details aren't finalized
yet and there is a potential for a lot of useless bickering.

There is a VERY serious flaw in this plan.

  The effective pricing drops with size. Yet the registry is
technically required to be stingy in its IP allocations.

  Can you say "lawsuit"? I knew you could.

  Imagine if ivory sold large bars and small bars and the small
bars were more cost effective. Then they would only sell you a small bar
because you wouldn't need the large bar for a few months, thus causing
you to pay more.

  Think about it.

  David Schwartz

That is why:

" The Advisory Council is to act on behalf of the membership on all issues including, but not limited to:

¤ Registry goals
¤ Future funding
¤ Allocation policy guidelines
¤ Training
¤ Nominations for Advisory Council
¤ Database maintenance
¤ Registry procedures "


"ARIN members will nominate candidates for the the Advisory Council."

This allows:

"The point has also been made that the management of the IP space should be put in the hands of those that depend on it - the users. Whether those users are ISPs, corporate entities, universities, etc., they should all play a role."

BTW, let's move this to the NAIPR list.