From info at arin.net Wed Jun 6 12:56:52 2018 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2018 12:56:52 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on the Proposed 2018 Fee Schedule Change is Now Closed Message-ID: <48cbb500-d169-dd91-a344-b3188dc2d3f5@arin.net> ARIN thanks those who provided valuable feedback during the Proposed 2018 Fee Schedule Change consultation. The Board considered the community input provided during the consultation at their meeting on 24 May 2018, and thus have adopted a new Fee Schedule. The new Fee Schedule will be effective on 1 July 2018, and the new fees will be reflected in invoices due on and after 1 July 2018. More information regarding the new Fee Schedule is now available through arin-announce as well as on ARIN's Fee Schedule webpage at: https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html We thank everyone who participated in this discussion for their feedback. Regards, John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From akg1330 at gmail.com Thu Jun 7 09:34:09 2018 From: akg1330 at gmail.com (Andrew Gallo) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2018 09:34:09 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] (late) comments on IRR roadmap Message-ID: I realize this is being sent well after the consultation closed, but I figured not sending it was a guaranteed way to be ignored, while sending it might have an effect (even if part of that effect is giving me grief for being so late!) Yes, improving the IRR is a good idea If the plan is to keep email templates, then for the love of all that is holy, please make them work better- fix (or at least document) password restrictions, fix mysterious syntax parsing failures. Web UI and/or REST API would be a welcome addition. What to do with the current service and data- deprecate the service, lock it as read-only, maybe change the FQDN to legacyrr.arin.net. Only allow objects to be copied once the maintainer reviews and approves. Interactions with RPKI- this is where things get interesting. For new routes created in the IRR, check RPKI. If no covering ROA exists, alert user, possibly prompt user to create a ROA. Even better, make it a check box (assuming use of the web UI). For ROAs that have no corresponding route object, what about automatically creating it and listing the source as 'ARIN RPKI.' This would make RPKI more useful to existing workflows that use IRR data. My last point may not be for ARIN specifically, but IRR operation in general. If you're going to run an IRR and accept proxy registrations, then the current and any future organizations holding those resources become de-facto, fee-free customers of both the IRR and organization requesting the proxy registration. Please don't ignore requests to remove and/or correct objects. From snoble at sonn.com Tue Jun 12 12:55:45 2018 From: snoble at sonn.com (Steve Noble) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 09:55:45 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on the Proposed 2018 Fee Schedule Change is Now Closed In-Reply-To: <48cbb500-d169-dd91-a344-b3188dc2d3f5@arin.net> References: <48cbb500-d169-dd91-a344-b3188dc2d3f5@arin.net> Message-ID: I am highly concerned that while the responses to your rate hike suggestion during the comment period were negative, this was still passed. I for one am awaiting the transcript of the meeting to better understand who advocated for this, why they did so and what information was provided about the comments received. Secondly, you are are also providing a FAQ that includes information about returning _IPv6_ space to save money. If your customers are looking to save money by returning IPv6 space due to your price changes, there is an issue with your price changes. You should be championing the use of IPv6, not discouraging it. Thirdly, it would be useful to understand how many of the affected organizations are ARIN members. Unless I misread it, we know that you specifically targeted the smaller organizations with this change per John's note to the list. Thank you, Steven . On Wed, Jun 6, 2018, 9:56 AM ARIN wrote: > ARIN thanks those who provided valuable feedback during the Proposed > 2018 Fee Schedule Change consultation. The Board considered the > community input provided during the consultation at their meeting on 24 > May 2018, and thus have adopted a new Fee Schedule. > > The new Fee Schedule will be effective on 1 July 2018, and the new fees > will be reflected in invoices due on and after 1 July 2018. More > information regarding the new Fee Schedule is now available through > arin-announce as well as on ARIN's Fee Schedule webpage at: > https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html > > We thank everyone who participated in this discussion for their feedback. > > Regards, > > John Curran > President and CEO > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Consult > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Consult Mailing > List (ARIN-consult at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the > ARIN Member Services > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bill at herrin.us Tue Jun 12 13:30:42 2018 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 13:30:42 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on the Proposed 2018 Fee Schedule Change is Now Closed In-Reply-To: References: <48cbb500-d169-dd91-a344-b3188dc2d3f5@arin.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 12:55 PM, Steve Noble wrote: > I am highly concerned that while the responses to your rate hike suggestion > during the comment period were negative, this was still passed. I for one am > awaiting the transcript of the meeting to better understand who advocated > for this, why they did so and what information was provided about the > comments received. I'm concerned that: (A) As revealed in the consultation, the board was presented with only one proposal for how to reshuffle fees. (B) Despite fees being a contentious issue, the board was so damn LAZY that no member asked to be presented with alternate proposals for how to reshuffle fees. You folks weren't elected to put a rubber stamp on things. If you think you were, please resign to make way for people willing to make the effort. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From jcurran at arin.net Tue Jun 12 13:48:41 2018 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 17:48:41 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on the Proposed 2018 Fee Schedule Change is Now Closed In-Reply-To: References: <48cbb500-d169-dd91-a344-b3188dc2d3f5@arin.net> Message-ID: On 12 Jun 2018, at 12:30 PM, William Herrin wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 12:55 PM, Steve Noble wrote: >> I am highly concerned that while the responses to your rate hike suggestion >> during the comment period were negative, this was still passed. I for one am >> awaiting the transcript of the meeting to better understand who advocated >> for this, why they did so and what information was provided about the >> comments received. > > I'm concerned that: > > (A) As revealed in the consultation, the board was presented with only > one proposal for how to reshuffle fees. Bill (and Steve) - As noted in the Fee Schedule change announcement, the adopted fee change that was adopted was altered based on the feedback received during this consultation. There was significant feedback about raising fees for end-users, but predominately that feedback focused on the impact to legacy end-users under LRSA agreement, who had expectations that their fees would not increase significantly when entering voluntarily under the LRSA agreement. As a result of the concerns expressed, the Board reviewed an alternative fee change proposal, the same in all aspects to the proposed fee change, only with the addition of extending the annual cap on maintenance fees (that early LRSA holders have) to all legacy resource holders. In this manner, the fee change will have nominal impact for those legacy holders (and may be a reduction in some cases.) Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From snoble at sonn.com Tue Jun 26 02:27:23 2018 From: snoble at sonn.com (Steve Noble) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 23:27:23 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on the Proposed 2018 Fee Schedule Change is Now Closed In-Reply-To: References: <48cbb500-d169-dd91-a344-b3188dc2d3f5@arin.net> Message-ID: Hi John, I attempted to determine from the discussion on arin-consult at arin.net where you gleaned this information. If you can point out the messages/threads that support your statement, I would be appreciative. It is easy to see that there were discussions about overspending, staff that was supposed to be temporary and excessive engineering costs. But I don't see anywhere that a consensus was reached that the only issue was the LRSA. Past the LRSA issue, I did not see a consensus that putting the fees on your small customers was acceptable. In fact, I see the opposite. As for approval, I am interested to know who voted for this and what their reasoning was. It would also be good to know if the issues stated above were brought to the board and proper discussions were had so that the board members could understand the ramifications of their decision. You raised the fees by 50% and as you have a locked in customer base, there must have been very good reasons why none of the other options were taken. On Tue, Jun 12, 2018, 10:48 AM John Curran wrote: > On 12 Jun 2018, at 12:30 PM, William Herrin wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 12:55 PM, Steve Noble wrote: > >> I am highly concerned that while the responses to your rate hike > suggestion > >> during the comment period were negative, this was still passed. I for > one am > >> awaiting the transcript of the meeting to better understand who > advocated > >> for this, why they did so and what information was provided about the > >> comments received. > > > > I'm concerned that: > > > > (A) As revealed in the consultation, the board was presented with only > > one proposal for how to reshuffle fees. > > Bill (and Steve) - > > As noted in the Fee Schedule change announcement, the adopted fee > change that was adopted was altered based on the feedback received during > this consultation. > > There was significant feedback about raising fees for end-users, but > predominately that feedback focused on the impact to legacy end-users under > LRSA agreement, who had expectations that their fees would not increase > significantly when entering voluntarily under the LRSA agreement. > > As a result of the concerns expressed, the Board reviewed an > alternative fee change proposal, the same in all aspects to the proposed > fee change, only with the addition of extending the annual cap on > maintenance fees (that early LRSA holders have) to all legacy resource > holders. In this manner, the fee change will have nominal impact for those > legacy holders (and may be a reduction in some cases.) > > Thanks, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: