Re: PROPOSAL #2 - reform of the fee schedule (fwd)

[Steve Sobol <sjsobol () shell nacs net>]

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