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?