From info at arin.net Tue Apr 6 09:09:30 2021 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2021 09:09:30 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] ACSP Consultation 2021.2 - Password Security for ARIN Online Accounts is now Closed Message-ID: <64047859-C0C6-4E78-B7C2-762DE547CBC6@arin.net> I would like to thank everyone who provided valuable feedback during this consultation on improving the security of the ARIN Online system. Input provided by the community is a vital part of our planning processes at ARIN, and after reviewing responses to the consultation, we have determined an appropriate path forward. The general consensus was that ARIN should change its password practices to better align with NIST SP800-63b guidelines for authentication security (as proposed in https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/suggestions/2018/2018-22/) . This change will include checking proposed passwords against a list that contains values known to be compromised, and then notifying the user of the easily compromised nature of their proposed password if found in the list and requiring an alternate selection. The password selection will be updated to not impose other composition rules (e.g., requiring mixtures of different character types or prohibiting consecutively repeated characters) for ARIN Online passwords. ARIN Online does not require account passwords to be changed arbitrarily (e.g., periodically), however, it will force a password change if there is evidence of compromise of the user account. We will improve our login authentication process to include a rate-limiting mechanism that effectively limits the number of failed authentication attempts that can be made against any single account over time and introduces CAPTCHA and incrementing timeout periods before allowing further attempts. Other future improvements include adding functionality to allow organizations to require two-factor authentication (2FA) for any user accounts connected to their organization. We will notify the community as these additional improvements are implemented. We will be implementing this improvement in phases, the first of which will be deployed in June when we will begin running this check when new accounts are created, when a user requests a password change, or when the system requires a password change. Thank you again to those who provided valuable feedback on this consultation. Regards, John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers From info at arin.net Fri Apr 9 16:38:21 2021 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2021 16:38:21 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees Message-ID: ARIN?s Fee Schedule has always been based on the principle of equitable cost recovery across our community through a stable and consistent fee schedule. In general, this means that ARIN has avoided making routine changes to the Fee Schedule (for example, making annual readjustments for changing costs) and instead has only made changes when deemed necessary. We are consulting with the community regarding changes to the ARIN Fee Schedule that are intended for implementation in January of 2022. These changes are: * Transitioning End Users from annual per-resource maintenance fees to the RSP (Registration Services Plan) Fee Schedule * Transitioning Legacy resource holders from annual per-resource maintenance fees to the RSP Fee Schedule while maintaining the annual cap of total maintenance fees (which will increase $25 per year) * Providing a temporary IPv6 fee waiver for organizations in the 3X-Small category that desire a larger address block * Implementing a $100 fee for OrgCreate and OrgRecovery transactions * Increasing the transfer processing fee to $500 As the use of the ARIN registry continues to grow, we continue to invest in our services in order to meet the changing needs. One significant change we have seen with the runout of IPv4 is the maturity of the transfer market, a development which has enabled better overall utilization of the fixed IPv4 address space and led to reutilization of IPv4 resource assignments to meet the growing needs of organizations of all types. ARIN provides equivalent services to end users and ISP customers, but it has had two very distinct fee schedules due to historical difference in use. For example, our investment in the ARIN Internet Routing Registry (IRR), Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) and DNSSEC services improve network security across the Internet and are being used by all types of ARIN customers. However, in many cases, organizations receiving similar services from ARIN are paying significantly different fees today ? for example, two hosting companies each with the same 65,000 IPv4 addresses (/16) may find that one is paying more than 25 times as much as the other despite receiving the same services from ARIN. In 2022, ARIN will transition all customers to the RSP fee schedule based on total IPv4 and IPv6 resources held. This change will ensure costs are distributed in an equitable manner by eliminating the current fee differentiation between ISP and end user organizations. The proposed fee change also brings those with resources issued before the formation of ARIN (legacy resource holders) into the new Fee Schedule, thus providing for uniform treatment of all ARIN customers. Legacy resource holders have enjoyed a cap on total registry maintenance fees, and this continues to be applied under the new Fee Schedule, although it is also made clear that the total cap will increase $25 per year, thus recognizing the contribution of the earliest Internet pioneers while enabling a long-term transition to equitable fees for all. In addition, it has been recognized that the increased numbers of transfers and related organizational record changes take significant ARIN resources, and could result in extended processing times without appropriate resources. This is addressed with fee changes in those specific transaction types to allow ARIN to continue to continue to provide timely services with equitable cost recovery. Finally, in response to a suggestion from the community, the ARIN Board of Trustees proposes a temporary waiver with regard to fees applicable to those requesting very small IPv6 blocks in order to avoid a fee category change, and the new Fee Schedule includes a specific waiver to address this situation. These changes have the added benefit of allowing ARIN to maintain robust and redundant operational infrastructures, so that we can guarantee our services are online and accessible at all times. It will also allow ARIN to continue to develop and provide the high-quality services demanded by our customers and the Internet community, including our routing security services which are increasingly crucial to all of our customers. Please view the proposed 2022 Fee Schedule at: https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/2022_fee_schedule/ This consultation will remain open for 30 days, after which a summary will be provided to the Board of Trustees for their consideration. Please provide comments to arin-consult at arin.net. You can subscribe to this mailing list at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult. Discussion on arin-consult at arin.net will close on 10 May. Regards, John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From farmer at umn.edu Fri Apr 9 19:47:43 2021 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2021 18:47:43 -0500 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 3:38 PM ARIN wrote: > > * Transitioning Legacy resource holders from annual per-resource > maintenance fees to the RSP Fee Schedule while maintaining the annual cap > of total maintenance fees (which will increase $25 per year) > As an example, to clarify the intent here, let's say a Legacy resource holder's total IPv4 holdings place it in the Large Catagory, which is Larger than /16, up to and including /14 of IPv4. In this example, the Legacy resource holder's 2021 fees are $150, 2022 fees will be $175, 2023 fees will be $200, etc... Basically, increasing by $25 each year for theoretically the next three (3) centuries and change, at which point the annual fee will eventually reach $8,000. Do I understand the intent correctly? Did I get the math correct? Nevertheless, I'm quite sure the fee structure will change many, many times between now and when the Legacy resource holder in the example above actually reaches the full Large Catagory annual fee of $8,000. Thank you. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu 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 =============================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Fri Apr 9 21:11:31 2021 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2021 01:11:31 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 9 Apr 2021, at 7:47 PM, > > wrote: From: David Farmer > Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees Date: 9 April 2021 at 7:47:43 PM EDT To: ">" > On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 3:38 PM ARIN > wrote: * Transitioning Legacy resource holders from annual per-resource maintenance fees to the RSP Fee Schedule while maintaining the annual cap of total maintenance fees (which will increase $25 per year) As an example, to clarify the intent here, let's say a Legacy resource holder's total IPv4 holdings place it in the Large Catagory, which is Larger than /16, up to and including /14 of IPv4. In this example, the Legacy resource holder's 2021 fees are $150, 2022 fees will be $175, 2023 fees will be $200, etc... Basically, increasing by $25 each year for theoretically the next three (3) centuries and change, at which point the annual fee will eventually reach $8,000. Do I understand the intent correctly? Yes - that is correct. Best wishes, /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Sat Apr 10 02:11:07 2021 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2021 23:11:07 -0700 Subject: [arin-announce] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: <7D33AAB4-5094-446B-8B0D-338F393824A5@arin.net> References: <7D33AAB4-5094-446B-8B0D-338F393824A5@arin.net> Message-ID: <50FBDE59-2212-4856-9CD2-A0503841D0FE@delong.com> > On Apr 9, 2021, at 1:10 PM, ARIN wrote: > > ARIN?s Fee Schedule has always been based on the principle of equitable cost recovery across our community through a stable and consistent fee schedule. In general, this means that ARIN has avoided making routine changes to the Fee Schedule (for example, making annual readjustments for changing costs) and instead has only made changes when deemed necessary. > > We are consulting with the community regarding changes to the ARIN Fee Schedule that are intended for implementation in January of 2022. These changes are: > > * Transitioning End Users from annual per-resource maintenance fees to the RSP (Registration Services Plan) Fee Schedule Opposed unless the RSP fees for ?/22 (v4) and/or ?/36 (v6) are reduced to ?$250 ? This subsidizes ISPs on the backs of end users by making the minimum charge for an end-user much higher. For example, an end-user who currently has a /22 and a /48 would be charged $300 under the current structure and $500 under the RSP. While it does come with the advantage of ARIN membership, the reality is that if End Users felt that was worth $500 per year, we would already have many more end users opting into the RSP. Many end user organizations who have smaller blocks (e.g. ?/22 of IPv4 space) would, therefore, be facing a significant annual increase in costs. What percentage of end users have opted into this program voluntarily? Especially considering how ARIN has essentially buried information about this option for end users looking for it on the fee structure page, if it?s not extremely high, I would say that?s a pretty clear case for not inflicting it upon them unless there is some reduction in the current RSP pricing at the lower tiers to compensate for this. > * Transitioning Legacy resource holders from annual per-resource maintenance fees to the RSP Fee Schedule while maintaining the annual cap of total maintenance fees (which will increase $25 per year) LRSA signatories should not be treated differently from RSA holders other than living up to the agreed upon $25/year cap on fee increases. > * Providing a temporary IPv6 fee waiver for organizations in the 3X-Small category that desire a larger address block I would rather see the 3X-small category permanently increased to encompass /36. I would be willing to accept a structure where ARIN caps the 3X-small category based on the NRPM defined PAU and limits the category to 4096 PAUs rather than a straight /36. This would remove financial incentives for providers to short-change their end-users and remove current financial disincentives for smaller providers to implement IPv6, while preventing the perverse financial incentive for larger providers to try and squeeze more than 4095 customers into a /36. > * Implementing a $100 fee for OrgCreate and OrgRecovery transactions I have no problem with this idea. > * Increasing the transfer processing fee to $500 I support this idea. > As the use of the ARIN registry continues to grow, we continue to invest in our services in order to meet the changing needs. One significant change we have seen with the runout of IPv4 is the maturity of the transfer market, a development which has enabled better overall utilization of the fixed IPv4 address space and led to reutilization of IPv4 resource assignments to meet the growing needs of organizations of all types. ARIN provides equivalent services to end users and ISP customers, but it has had two very distinct fee schedules due to historical difference in use. For example, our investment in the ARIN Internet Routing Registry (IRR), Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) and DNSSEC services improve network security across the Internet and are being used by all types of ARIN customers. However, in many cases, organizations receiving similar services from ARIN are paying significantly different fees today ? for example, two hosting companies each with the same 65,000 IPv4 addresses (/16) may find that one is paying more than 25 times as much as the other despite receiving the same services from ARIN. In general, end users are not expected to be submitting reassignments and cannot reallocate space. As such, their use of services like RPKI and DNSSEC should be much much simpler than the use of a dynamic ISP with high rates of customer churn, active SWIPS, multiple updates to ROAs, etc. I would expect that the majority of end-users would require relatively few database updates, often going multiple years between significant changes whereas an ISP that goes more than a month or two without any required updates would be quite a surprise. > In 2022, ARIN will transition all customers to the RSP fee schedule based on total IPv4 and IPv6 resources held. This change will ensure costs are distributed in an equitable manner by eliminating the current fee differentiation between ISP and end user organizations. Given the fact that there still remains a significant difference in the profile of ARIN service utilization between ISPs and those who should qualify as end users under policy, I think this is a very misguided use of the term ?equitable?. Equal isn?t always equitable. Asking a small entity running a SMB that requires an internet presence, but is not in the business of providing internet services and is not actively interacting with ARIN databases on a frequent basis to pay the same amount as an ISP who is handling tens of transactions in the ARIN databases per month may be equal, but is not, IMHO, equitable. > The proposed fee change also brings those with resources issued before the formation of ARIN (legacy resource holders) into the new Fee Schedule, thus providing for uniform treatment of all ARIN customers. Legacy resource holders have enjoyed a cap on total registry maintenance fees, and this continues to be applied under the new Fee Schedule, although it is also made clear that the total cap will increase $25 per year, thus recognizing the contribution of the earliest Internet pioneers while enabling a long-term transition to equitable fees for all. There are two classes of legacy resource holder today. There used to be 3. There are the ones who were smart enough to see the traps inherent in the LRSA and refused to sign and therefore still pay no fees and there are the ones like me who made the mistake of signing it. The third category used to be those who signed a later version of the LRSA without the fee cap in the language and really got shafted for a few years before the cap was reset. LRSA signatories (which are the only legacy resources the above statement is applied to) signed an agreement with the understanding that end users paid a single annual maintenance fee of $100 with the expectation that that fee could only go up by $25/year. Further, if they had non-legacy end-user resources, they were convinced that said fee was one and the same with the fee they would have to pay for their non-legacy resources. (ARIN staff spent a great deal of time explaining it to the community in these terms). Why not bring your legacy resources under LRSA? It won?t cost you any more than you?re paying for your non-legacy resources anyway. A few years later, ARIN shifted end users from a single fee per account to separate fees for each resource. At that time, they forced LRSA signatories that had RSA resources as well into becoming two organizations (e.g. EXAMPLE and EXAMPLE-Z) which were billed separately. The EXAMPLE org fees only went up $25/year, but EXAMPLE-Z was suddenly charged separately at the full $150 rate, so and org with 3 resources (2 LRSA and 1 RSA) that was paying $100/year was suddenly on the hook not for $125/year, but $275/year ? $125 for the LRSA and $150 for the RSA. > In addition, it has been recognized that the increased numbers of transfers and related organizational record changes take significant ARIN resources, and could result in extended processing times without appropriate resources. This is addressed with fee changes in those specific transaction types to allow ARIN to continue to continue to provide timely services with equitable cost recovery. I support increasing transfer fees and ORG creation/recovery fees to truly recover the costs of all transactions related to transfers. I would, however, advocate for a fee credit for ORG creation fees where there is an IPv6 initial allocation within 3 months of ORG creation and said ORG does not engage in transfers during their first year. A truly new organization should not be required to subsidize the transfer market. > Finally, in response to a suggestion from the community, the ARIN Board of Trustees proposes a temporary waiver with regard to fees applicable to those requesting very small IPv6 blocks in order to avoid a fee category change, and the new Fee Schedule includes a specific waiver to address this situation. The community has asked you to solve the fee step-up problem that blocks providers from adopting IPv6 because a provider that is doing just fine on a /24 of IPv4 can?t get less than a /36 and doing so would double their ARIN annual fees. A temporary fee waiver is a pretty poor response IMHO. It will be easily seen through as a band-aid that provides no real relief. Instead, it hopes to paper over the fee step-up and then once these providers have deployed IPv6 and have no way back, at the whim of the ARIN board, their fees still end up doubling. What is needed is a permanent solution to a disparity in fees for very very small ISPs. > These changes have the added benefit of allowing ARIN to maintain robust and redundant operational infrastructures, so that we can guarantee our services are online and accessible at all times. It will also allow ARIN to continue to develop and provide the high-quality services demanded by our customers and the Internet community, including our routing security services which are increasingly crucial to all of our customers. Can the board let the community know how much revenue increase is expected from each of these proposals? Can the board also compare and/or contrast that to the following alternatives: 1. Reduce the 2X category to $250/year and eliminate the 3X category. Increase fees for Large and above by 1%. Advantages: Instead of subsidizing larger organizations that have exponentially more use of ARIN services and a great deal of transaction activity in ARIN databases at the expense of very small organizations, a relatively modest increase ($2,560 for an organization holding a /6 or ore and $800 for an organization holding more than a /16 but ?/14) might provide a more equitable (though admittedly less equal) cost burden. 2. Instead of forcing end-users into an RSP, return to per-org pricing, but at $300/year per org with ARIN membership as a benefit. ORGs which have both RSA and LRSA resources would have the option of consolidating into a single ORG and paying $300/year or maintaining the current split system and paying $300/year for their RSA org and paying $25/year more each year for their LRSA ORG until reaching parity with the RSA fees. Such option to be reversible any time the fee structure is changed in the future. Raise the transfer fee to $750 and increase the new-org fee to $250. For a new org which receives an IPv6 initial allocation within 3 months and does not engage in transfers during their first year, apply the $250 to their renewal fees for the second year. Owen From rlaager at wiktel.com Sat Apr 10 03:23:07 2021 From: rlaager at wiktel.com (Richard Laager) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2021 02:23:07 -0500 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9d67fcee-5a6b-dc5f-9b16-82e798b3448f@wiktel.com> On 4/9/21 3:38 PM, ARIN wrote: > Transitioning Legacy resource holders from annual per-resource > maintenance fees to the RSP Fee Schedule while maintaining the annual > cap of total maintenance fees (which will increase $25 per year) Hypothetically, if all legacy resource holders were on the standard fee schedule now, how much more revenue would be raised? If that would raise another x%, then (for a fixed revenue need, to meet ARIN costs) non-legacy holders are paying x% more to subsidize legacy resource holders. It's actually more than that, since here "legacy resource holders" means those that have signed an LRSA and pay, and excludes those that have not and do not. On the other hand, perhaps these days a lot of legacy resource holders also have IPv6 under an RSA and are already paying based on the fee schedule. If the difference is a trivial number, then there's no need to stand on principle. If it's material, then 300 years is technically better than infinity, but I'd like to see ARIN harmonize the fee schedules much faster. Perhaps ~10 years, implemented like this (per entity): $last_year + ($standard - $last_year) / $years_left # no change for 2022 125 + (8000 - 125) / 9 = 1000 1000 + (8000 - 1000) / 8 = 1875 1875 + (8000 - 1875) / 7 = 2750 ... 7125 + (8000 - 7125) / 1 = 8000 That algorithm will harmonize over a fixed time period, regardless of the current or future tier that a given legacy resource holder falls into or the fee schedule changes that occur along the way. However, if $25/year is a contractual maximum increase in some older LRSAs, then it can't be sped up for those legacy resource holders. From Owen's response, it seems like it was. On 4/10/21 1:11 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > an ISP that goes more than a month or two without any required updates > would be quite a surprise. In my (direct and indirect) experience, small ISPs do not interact with ARIN on anywhere near a monthly basis. -- Richard From gert at space.net Sat Apr 10 04:47:42 2021 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2021 10:47:42 +0200 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: References: <7D33AAB4-5094-446B-8B0D-338F393824A5@arin.net> Message-ID: Hi, On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 11:11:07PM -0700, Owen DeLong via ARIN-consult wrote: > I would rather see the 3X-small category permanently increased to > encompass /36. This is actually something that I have never understood. ARIN ist the only RIR that went backwards with the IPv6-policy, from "a member can get a /35, no questions asked" to a *smaller* size, while all the other RIRs went to a /32 or even bigger. It's not like there is a foreseeable shortage in /32s... Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From farmer at umn.edu Sat Apr 10 08:00:38 2021 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2021 07:00:38 -0500 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: References: <7D33AAB4-5094-446B-8B0D-338F393824A5@arin.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 03:47 Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 11:11:07PM -0700, Owen DeLong via ARIN-consult > wrote: > > I would rather see the 3X-small category permanently increased to > > encompass /36. > > This is actually something that I have never understood. > > ARIN ist the only RIR that went backwards with the IPv6-policy, from > "a member can get a /35, no questions asked" to a *smaller* size, while > all the other RIRs went to a /32 or even bigger. > > It's not like there is a foreseeable shortage in /32s... > You can and should, at least in my opinion, get at least a /32, you may elect to receive a /36 or even a /40, if you wish to minimizing $, instead of maximizing your future flexibility, it is the ISP?s choice. Note: even if you elect to get a smaller block, you can go back up to /32 any time you wish, without any further justification. Furthermore, any real ISP, with a kind of actual footprint, can justify a /28 with a minimal justification. The ARIN community just doesn?t dictate a business model to ISPs, it lets them choose the business model that works for them, despite what IPv6 know it alls like you, me, and Owen think is best for them. Thanks. _______________________________________________ > 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. > -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu 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 =============================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Sat Apr 10 08:39:05 2021 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2021 12:39:05 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: References: <7D33AAB4-5094-446B-8B0D-338F393824A5@arin.net> Message-ID: <75F8BA25-6CC8-4FD1-A199-ECA65B0275E9@arin.net> On 10 Apr 2021, at 2:11 AM, arin-consult at arin.net wrote: From: Owen DeLong > Subject: Re: [arin-announce] Consultation on ARIN Fees Date: 10 April 2021 at 2:11:07 AM EDT To: ">" > On Apr 9, 2021, at 1:10 PM, ARIN > wrote: ARIN?s Fee Schedule has always been based on the principle of equitable cost recovery across our community through a stable and consistent fee schedule. In general, this means that ARIN has avoided making routine changes to the Fee Schedule (for example, making annual readjustments for changing costs) and instead has only made changes when deemed necessary. We are consulting with the community regarding changes to the ARIN Fee Schedule that are intended for implementation in January of 2022. These changes are: * Transitioning End Users from annual per-resource maintenance fees to the RSP (Registration Services Plan) Fee Schedule Opposed unless the RSP fees for ?/22 (v4) and/or ?/36 (v6) are reduced to ?$250 ? This subsidizes ISPs on the backs of end users by making the minimum charge for an end-user much higher. For example, an end-user who currently has a /22 and a /48 would be charged $300 under the current structure and $500 under the RSP. That is correct. Note that for those organizations that also have an ASN (quite a few) or have discontiguous IPv4 holdings, they are paying $450, $600, or more today. The average per end-user customer today is $380 USD annually. An end-user customer who has a /24 and up to a /40 in IPv6 space and an ASN would pay $250 under the RSP fee schedule ? this is the profile of the typical end-user customer. While it does come with the advantage of ARIN membership, the reality is that if End Users felt that was worth $500 per year, we would already have many more end users opting into the RSP. Many end user organizations who have smaller blocks (e.g. ?/22 of IPv4 space) would, therefore, be facing a significant annual increase in costs. There are approximately 8000 user end-user customers today - the fee change will result in 4,800 of them paying more annually ? although the majority of these will see an increase of $200 or less. The remaining 3,200 end-user customers changing to the RSP fee schedule will pay less than they presently pay under the end-user fee schedule as noted above. * Transitioning Legacy resource holders from annual per-resource maintenance fees to the RSP Fee Schedule while maintaining the annual cap of total maintenance fees (which will increase $25 per year) LRSA signatories should not be treated differently from RSA holders other than living up to the agreed upon $25/year cap on fee increases. That is what is proposed - legacy resource holders under LRSA move along with end-users to the same fee schedule, and because a small number of LRSA?s contain a fee cap on total legacy resource fees which may not increase more than $25 per year, we will continue apply that cap to all legacy resource holders after the change. As the use of the ARIN registry continues to grow, we continue to invest in our services in order to meet the changing needs. One significant change we have seen with the runout of IPv4 is the maturity of the transfer market, a development which has enabled better overall utilization of the fixed IPv4 address space and led to reutilization of IPv4 resource assignments to meet the growing needs of organizations of all types. ARIN provides equivalent services to end users and ISP customers, but it has had two very distinct fee schedules due to historical difference in use. For example, our investment in the ARIN Internet Routing Registry (IRR), Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) and DNSSEC services improve network security across the Internet and are being used by all types of ARIN customers. However, in many cases, organizations receiving similar services from ARIN are paying significantly different fees today ? for example, two hosting companies each with the same 65,000 IPv4 addresses (/16) may find that one is paying more than 25 times as much as the other despite receiving the same services from ARIN. In general, end users are not expected to be submitting reassignments and cannot reallocate space. As such, their use of services like RPKI and DNSSEC should be much much simpler than the use of a dynamic ISP with high rates of customer churn, active SWIPS, multiple updates to ROAs, etc. End-user customers tend to have far less support staff, and in particular less staff that have deep experience with the registry and its services. As such, they often require more support in utilization of ARIN services than larger organizations who have either someone who handles these tasks routinely and/or a dedicated team. I would expect that the majority of end-users would require relatively few database updates, often going multiple years between significant changes whereas an ISP that goes more than a month or two without any required updates would be quite a surprise. As noted above, the ISP often has more experienced personal doing those requests, and is paying significantly more because of the total amount of number resources in the registry ? whereas the actual services and support costs are far more likely to be predicated on registering/updating/routing/attesting on a per-address-block basis (even reassignment is something that is generally setup for an entire block, and then automation handles the individual updates.) The RSP customers are paying annual fees that are several times larger then end-user customers, but make requests that are quite comparable in processing effort. In 2022, ARIN will transition all customers to the RSP fee schedule based on total IPv4 and IPv6 resources held. This change will ensure costs are distributed in an equitable manner by eliminating the current fee differentiation between ISP and end user organizations. Given the fact that there still remains a significant difference in the profile of ARIN service utilization between ISPs and those who should qualify as end users under policy, I think this is a very misguided use of the term ?equitable?. Equal isn?t always equitable. Asking a small entity running a SMB that requires an internet presence, but is not in the business of providing internet services and is not actively interacting with ARIN databases on a frequent basis to pay the same amount as an ISP who is handling tens of transactions in the ARIN databases per month may be equal, but is not, IMHO, equitable. In 2013 and 2014 we had extensive discussions about the fact that many organizations (both end-user and ISP) have little interaction on a routine basis with ARIN, and yet all benefit from the registry. We explored (via the ARIN Fee Structure Review Panel - < https://www.arin.net/vault/participate/acsp/community_consult/fee-structure-review.pdf>) many potential models for cost-recovery, including purely transaction based, evenly by all customers, linear/algorithmic, etc. As a result of this, we lowered fees, realigned IPv6 categories to allow larger blocks, and raised the top of the fee schedule for those with large address holdings. At noted, we see that many end-user organizations are actually paying very similar (or higher fees) on the per-object basis than they will under the RSP fee schedule, and the change to a single fee schedule will provide clarity and uniform treatment to all customers, I readily acknowledge that this may result in circumstances where a very experienced end-user customer that has more IP address space than typical and who makes few requests of ARIN may see an small increase in fees, but observe that they?ll be paying the same fees as those on the RSP schedule have been, even ISPs that make little or no support requests. All of the customers benefit from the ARIN registry ? even those who don?t make any requests but simple utilize the services that we provide. Obviously we could look at other more complex models that more heavily burden those who need additional support using our services, but the reality is that we want all the customers using the services, since having updated registry records, utilizing DNSSEC, and securing routing via IRR and RPKI benefit everyone ? not just the particularly party that might be needing the help this time around. Can the board let the community know how much revenue increase is expected from each of these proposals? Can the board also compare and/or contrast that to the following alternatives: At this time we?re going to focus the discussion on the proposed 2022 fee increase that is under consultation, and so I?m going to defer on the alternative proposals that you suggested for the time being. Regarding the revenue impact of the proposed change, the following information may help provide context: ARIN has approximately 6,500 customers paying under the Registration Services Plan (RSP) fee schedule and approximately 8,000 customers with IPv4 and/or IPv6 resources paying under the end-user fee schedule. The average registration services fee paid by the RSP customers today is $2,341 annually, whereas the end-user customers with IPv4 or IPv6 number resources presently pay maintenance fees of $380 annually on average. Transition of the end-user customers to the RSP fee schedule will result in 4,800 of these customers paying more annually and 3,200 of them paying less annually. As these customers generally have substantially smaller total number resource holdings than present RSP customers, they will still be paying less on average ? $860 annually as compared to the $2,341 annually paid by present RSP customers on average. After the change, all customers with the same amount of number resources will be paying the same fees. As noted earlier, of the 4,800 end-users who will pay more, the majority of these customers will see an increase of $200 or less due to having modest number resource holdings, but ARIN will indeed see significant additional revenue as a result of those who have substantial number resources in the registry ? and who are presently paying fees much lower than other community members. It is unclear the degree of consolidation or migration that might result from transitioning these customers but it could be as high as $3.8M USD annually. ARIN could have proposed the fee change on a revenue-neutral basis but chose otherwise in order to fully meet our operating cost requirements. As is typical of most organizations due to cost-of-living increases, ARIN sees an growth in our operating costs of between 2% and 3% each year ? but we do not change our fees each year to cover this change in costs. This results in a gap between total revenues and operating costs that increases over time and must be addressed periodically. Moving to a uniform fee schedule allows ARIN to fully cover its operating costs and, in addition, removes our existing reliance on utilizing the net proceeds from our financial reserves investment that has traditionally been used to cover the gap between revenues and expenses, and most importantly it provides the community more equitable fees in an era where all of our customers are increasing utilizing their address blocks in similar manner and deriving similar benefit from the ARIN registry and its services. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Sat Apr 10 15:18:23 2021 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2021 12:18:23 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: References: <7D33AAB4-5094-446B-8B0D-338F393824A5@arin.net> Message-ID: <3960107A-68B2-4C91-8119-21AEB82B7F47@delong.com> > The ARIN community just doesn?t dictate a business model to ISPs, it lets them choose the business model that works for them, despite what IPv6 know it alls like you, me, and Owen think is best for them. True, but we do create a perverse incentive for them to screw their customers through our economic policies. At least according to this IPv6 know-it-all. Owen From owen at delong.com Sat Apr 10 15:52:12 2021 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2021 12:52:12 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: <75F8BA25-6CC8-4FD1-A199-ECA65B0275E9@arin.net> References: <7D33AAB4-5094-446B-8B0D-338F393824A5@arin.net> <75F8BA25-6CC8-4FD1-A199-ECA65B0275E9@arin.net> Message-ID: <5879FCB0-E219-462A-B917-F13D9F219C2B@delong.com> > On Apr 10, 2021, at 05:39 , John Curran wrote: > > On 10 Apr 2021, at 2:11 AM, arin-consult at arin.net wrote: >> >> >> From: Owen DeLong > >> Subject: Re: [arin-announce] Consultation on ARIN Fees >> Date: 10 April 2021 at 2:11:07 AM EDT >> To: ">" > >> >> >>> On Apr 9, 2021, at 1:10 PM, ARIN > wrote: >>> >>> ARIN?s Fee Schedule has always been based on the principle of equitable cost recovery across our community through a stable and consistent fee schedule. In general, this means that ARIN has avoided making routine changes to the Fee Schedule (for example, making annual readjustments for changing costs) and instead has only made changes when deemed necessary. >>> >>> We are consulting with the community regarding changes to the ARIN Fee Schedule that are intended for implementation in January of 2022. These changes are: >>> >>> * Transitioning End Users from annual per-resource maintenance fees to the RSP (Registration Services Plan) Fee Schedule >> >> Opposed unless the RSP fees for ?/22 (v4) and/or ?/36 (v6) are reduced to ?$250 ? This subsidizes ISPs on the backs of end users by making the minimum charge for an end-user much higher. >> >> For example, an end-user who currently has a /22 and a /48 would be charged $300 under the current structure and $500 under the RSP. > > That is correct. Note that for those organizations that also have an ASN (quite a few) or have discontiguous IPv4 holdings, they are paying $450, $600, or more today. The average per end-user customer today is $380 USD annually. An end-user customer who has a /24 and up to a /40 in IPv6 space and an ASN would pay $250 under the RSP fee schedule ? this is the profile of the typical end-user customer. I have no problem with end-user customers who wish to opting into an RSP? That?s available today. The proposed change is to force those for whom it would be economically disadvantageous into this situation which is what I am expressing opposition to. >> While it does come with the advantage of ARIN membership, the reality is that if End Users felt that was worth $500 per year, we would already have many more end users opting into the RSP. Many end user organizations who have smaller blocks (e.g. ?/22 of IPv4 space) would, therefore, be facing a significant annual increase in costs. > > There are approximately 8000 user end-user customers today - the fee change will result in 4,800 of them paying more annually ? although the majority of these will see an increase of $200 or less. The remaining 3,200 end-user customers changing to the RSP fee schedule will pay less than they presently pay under the end-user fee schedule as noted above. Those 3200 can opt-in to it today if they so choose (though it is a one-way gate which may be why some of them haven?t). You say above that the average end-user customer is $380 and admit that the majority of end-user customers would see a fee increase. > >>> * Transitioning Legacy resource holders from annual per-resource maintenance fees to the RSP Fee Schedule while maintaining the annual cap of total maintenance fees (which will increase $25 per year) >> >> LRSA signatories should not be treated differently from RSA holders other than living up to the agreed upon $25/year cap on fee increases. > > That is what is proposed - legacy resource holders under LRSA move along with end-users to the same fee schedule, and because a small number of LRSA?s contain a fee cap on total legacy resource fees which may not increase more than $25 per year, we will continue apply that cap to all legacy resource holders after the change. Yes, I recognize that you?re proposing to shaft LRSA holders in nearly the same manner as you propose to shaft RSA end-users. I was agreeing with you that this should be the case, while also attempting to convey that I have the same oppositions to doing this to LRSA holders that I do for RSA holders. >>> As the use of the ARIN registry continues to grow, we continue to invest in our services in order to meet the changing needs. One significant change we have seen with the runout of IPv4 is the maturity of the transfer market, a development which has enabled better overall utilization of the fixed IPv4 address space and led to reutilization of IPv4 resource assignments to meet the growing needs of organizations of all types. ARIN provides equivalent services to end users and ISP customers, but it has had two very distinct fee schedules due to historical difference in use. For example, our investment in the ARIN Internet Routing Registry (IRR), Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) and DNSSEC services improve network security across the Internet and are being used by all types of ARIN customers. However, in many cases, organizations receiving similar services from ARIN are paying significantly different fees today ? for example, two hosting companies each with the same 65,000 IPv4 addresses (/16) may find that one is paying more than 25 times as much as the other despite receiving the same services from ARIN. >> >> In general, end users are not expected to be submitting reassignments and cannot reallocate space. As such, their use of services like RPKI and DNSSEC should be much much simpler than the use of a dynamic ISP with high rates of customer churn, active SWIPS, multiple updates to ROAs, etc. > > End-user customers tend to have far less support staff, and in particular less staff that have deep experience with the registry and its services. As such, they often require more support in utilization of ARIN services than larger organizations who have either someone who handles these tasks routinely and/or a dedicated team. I keep hearing this, but is there any sort of time accounting that can be made available to show which class of users ARIN staff are spending their time on or are we both just speculating here? I don?t doubt that each interaction with many of the smaller end-user organizations that choose to represent themselves with ARIN takes more ARIN staff time. OTOH, I suspect that this is more than compensated for by the significantly lower frequency of interaction. I also know that many end-user customers hire consultants to handle their ARIN interactions. While I can?t speak to the competency of all consultants, I can say that the transactions involving my clients tend to go relatively smoothly and with minimal staff time consumption. >> I would expect that the majority of end-users would require relatively few database updates, often going multiple years between significant changes whereas an ISP that goes more than a month or two without any required updates would be quite a surprise. > > As noted above, the ISP often has more experienced personal doing those requests, and is paying significantly more because of the total amount of number resources in the registry ? whereas the actual services and support costs are far more likely to be predicated on registering/updating/routing/attesting on a per-address-block basis (even reassignment is something that is generally setup for an entire block, and then automation handles the individual updates.) The RSP customers are paying annual fees that are several times larger then end-user customers, but make requests that are quite comparable in processing effort. The ISP is paying considerably less per address on average if we consider the RSP pricing structure. Yes, they are paying more in toto, but for every doubling of fees, they square the number of addresses they get providing one of the fastest escalating volume discount schedules I?ve ever seen. If I could get a pricing like that for electronic components, I?d be buying LED reels in 100 packs and reselling them as singles (which, come to think of it isn?t that far off from the ISP business model with regards to internet addresses). Especially in IPv4, the majority of ISPs are actually monetizing the addresses themselves through surcharges for more than one address or other pricing mechanisms. The majority of end-users, OTOH, see IP addresses and ARIN as a cost center that is necessary to their business, but not as a resale item for profit. >>> In 2022, ARIN will transition all customers to the RSP fee schedule based on total IPv4 and IPv6 resources held. This change will ensure costs are distributed in an equitable manner by eliminating the current fee differentiation between ISP and end user organizations. >> >> Given the fact that there still remains a significant difference in the profile of ARIN service utilization between ISPs and those who should qualify as end users under policy, I think this is a very misguided use of the term ?equitable?. >> >> Equal isn?t always equitable. Asking a small entity running a SMB that requires an internet presence, but is not in the business of providing internet services and is not actively interacting with ARIN databases on a frequent basis to pay the same amount as an ISP who is handling tens of transactions in the ARIN databases per month may be equal, but is not, IMHO, equitable. > > In 2013 and 2014 we had extensive discussions about the fact that many organizations (both end-user and ISP) have little interaction on a routine basis with ARIN, and yet all benefit from the registry. We explored (via the ARIN Fee Structure Review Panel - < https://www.arin.net/vault/participate/acsp/community_consult/fee-structure-review.pdf >) many potential models for cost-recovery, including purely transaction based, evenly by all customers, linear/algorithmic, etc. As a result of this, we lowered fees, realigned IPv6 categories to allow larger blocks, and raised the top of the fee schedule for those with large address holdings. Yes? Some of that was good and I said so at the time. > At noted, we see that many end-user organizations are actually paying very similar (or higher fees) on the per-object basis than they will under the RSP fee schedule, and the change to a single fee schedule will provide clarity and uniform treatment to all customers, I readily acknowledge that this may result in circumstances where a very experienced end-user customer that has more IP address space than typical and who makes few requests of ARIN may see an small increase in fees, but observe that they?ll be paying the same fees as those on the RSP schedule have been, even ISPs that make little or no support requests. All of the customers benefit from the ARIN registry ? even those who don?t make any requests but simple utilize the services that we provide. And yet, as noted, the majority (nearly 5/8ths) of end users will see higher fees under the RSP. Further, even under the current fee structure, those 3,200 alleged beneficiaries are free to opt into an RSP at this time. I guess the big question would be ?Why aren?t they?? If you were to leave the RSP as an optional transition, I would not be opposing it, but inflicting a mandatory fee increase on the majority of end users is not, IMHO, justified at this time. > Obviously we could look at other more complex models that more heavily burden those who need additional support using our services, but the reality is that we want all the customers using the services, since having updated registry records, utilizing DNSSEC, and securing routing via IRR and RPKI benefit everyone ? not just the particularly party that might be needing the help this time around. I remain thoroughly unconvinced that widespread RPKI does more than provide cryptographically signed clues as to how to best spoof a believable hijack. Yes, DNSSEC could provide some benefit if it saw wide enough adoption, though frankly, it?s value on reverse zones is dubious at best? Most of the attacks thwarted by DNSSEC apply to forward zones. I am glad to see the IRR being tightened up and improved, but even there, the rejection of non-RSA AS numbers for route objects with RSA addresses held by the same organization has created unnecessary problems. >> Can the board let the community know how much revenue increase is expected from each of these proposals? Can the board also compare and/or contrast that to the following alternatives: > > At this time we?re going to focus the discussion on the proposed 2022 fee increase that is under consultation, and so I?m going to defer on the alternative proposals that you suggested for the time being. What a surprise. > Regarding the revenue impact of the proposed change, the following information may help provide context: > > ARIN has approximately 6,500 customers paying under the Registration Services Plan (RSP) fee schedule and approximately 8,000 customers with IPv4 and/or IPv6 resources paying under the end-user fee schedule. The average registration services fee paid by the RSP customers today is $2,341 annually, whereas the end-user customers with IPv4 or IPv6 number resources presently pay maintenance fees of $380 annually on average. Transition of the end-user customers to the RSP fee schedule will result in 4,800 of these customers paying more annually and 3,200 of them paying less annually. As these customers generally have substantially smaller total number resource holdings than present RSP customers, they will still be paying less on average ? $860 annually as compared to the $2,341 annually paid by present RSP customers on average. After the change, all customers with the same amount of number resources will be paying the same fees. So from those numbers, we can interpret that on average, organizations currently paying under the end-user plan who would end up averaging $860 annually tend to hold less than a /20 while on average present RSP customers tend to hold more than a /18. Further, since there are a few outliers in the 4x and 5x categories that hold more than a /8, the incredible bargain these very few organizations receive is obscured in the way that figure is consolidated. Still, if we consider a /20 which is 4096 address at $860 per year (the most advantageous representation I can make of your figures above), that?s an annual fee of roughly $0.21 per address. Sounds cheap enough if you?re charging $5-$15/address (as many ISPs do today), but let?s look at how it compares to the RSP participants? Again, using the most favorable to your case version of the numbers above), a /18 being 16,384 addresses at $2,341 per year is only $0.14 per address per year. > As noted earlier, of the 4,800 end-users who will pay more, the majority of these customers will see an increase of $200 or less due to having modest number resource holdings, but ARIN will indeed see significant additional revenue as a result of those who have substantial number resources in the registry ? and who are presently paying fees much lower than other community members. It is unclear the degree of consolidation or migration that might result from transitioning these customers but it could be as high as $3.8M USD annually. Will the majority of them see any new services that won?t be provided to those receiving a discount at their expense? How many organizations would be providing this additional $3.8M? I?d expect those organizations to be screaming bloody murder about this relatively soon or at least as soon as they become aware of it. It certainly isn?t 4800 customers that will see an increase of $200 or less, because that only accounts for $960,000, barely more than 25% of your claimed benefit. > ARIN could have proposed the fee change on a revenue-neutral basis but chose otherwise in order to fully meet our operating cost requirements. As is typical of most organizations due to cost-of-living increases, ARIN sees an growth in our operating costs of between 2% and 3% each year ? but we do not change our fees each year to cover this change in costs. This results in a gap between total revenues and operating costs that increases over time and must be addressed periodically. Moving to a uniform fee schedule allows ARIN to fully cover its operating costs and, in addition, removes our existing reliance on utilizing the net proceeds from our financial reserves investment that has traditionally been used to cover the gap between revenues and expenses, and most importantly it provides the community more equitable fees in an era where all of our customers are increasing utilizing their address blocks in similar manner and deriving similar benefit from the ARIN registry and its services. I have no problem with ARIN increasing its fees to cover costs. I just want to see it done on an equitable basis and not on the backs of the smallest end users. Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Sat Apr 10 18:40:51 2021 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2021 22:40:51 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: <5879FCB0-E219-462A-B917-F13D9F219C2B@delong.com> References: <7D33AAB4-5094-446B-8B0D-338F393824A5@arin.net> <75F8BA25-6CC8-4FD1-A199-ECA65B0275E9@arin.net> <5879FCB0-E219-462A-B917-F13D9F219C2B@delong.com> Message-ID: <011CBCE2-9F21-4E24-9AA9-74379A565E40@arin.net> On 10 Apr 2021, at 3:52 PM, Owen DeLong > wrote: I also know that many end-user customers hire consultants to handle their ARIN interactions. While I can?t speak to the competency of all consultants, I can say that the transactions involving my clients tend to go relatively smoothly and with minimal staff time consumption. Owen - I suspect that use of consultants are far more the exception than the rule, as ARIN deals with hundreds of requests each month and when dealing with the smallest customers we are facing operations more typically categorized as family operations or sole proprietorships. Needless to say, these customers are contacting us and expecting to get support from ARIN on what they see are often simple requests (changing their name server, turning on DNSSEC, updating old contacts) and they idea of hiring a consultantt to make such requests would be completely foreign to them. And yet, as noted, the majority (nearly 5/8ths) of end users will see higher fees under the RSP. 60% (4800) will pay more and 40% (3200) will pay less. So from those numbers, we can interpret that on average, organizations currently paying under the end-user plan who would end up averaging $860 annually tend to hold less than a /20 while on average present RSP customers tend to hold more than a /18. ? How many organizations would be providing this additional $3.8M? I?d expect those organizations to be screaming bloody murder about this relatively soon or at least as soon as they become aware of it. It certainly isn?t 4800 customers that will see an increase of $200 or less, because that only accounts for $960,000, barely more than 25% of your claimed benefit. As noted earlier ? of the 4800 seeing an increase, more than half of them will see an increase of $200 or less. The smaller end-users that you reference above are definitely not the ones bearing the brunt of the increase - $2.9M of the potential $3.8M USD change in fees occurs from just 870 of the customers who have larger than a /20 of IPv4 of number resources but are presently paying far less than the RSP customers at ARIN with similar number resource holdings. I have no problem with ARIN increasing its fees to cover costs. I just want to see it done on an equitable basis and not on the backs of the smallest end users. You should be pleased then, as the proposed fee change is not on the backs of the smallest end-users ? the average change for those with /20 in IPv4 number resources or less (7130 customers of the 8000)) is an increase of $126 (i.e. approximately $900K of the $3.8M total.) Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Sat Apr 10 21:16:42 2021 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2021 18:16:42 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: <011CBCE2-9F21-4E24-9AA9-74379A565E40@arin.net> References: <7D33AAB4-5094-446B-8B0D-338F393824A5@arin.net> <75F8BA25-6CC8-4FD1-A199-ECA65B0275E9@arin.net> <5879FCB0-E219-462A-B917-F13D9F219C2B@delong.com> <011CBCE2-9F21-4E24-9AA9-74379A565E40@arin.net> Message-ID: <385DE9DB-F999-4F1F-A273-827A3C6517AE@delong.com> > On Apr 10, 2021, at 3:40 PM, John Curran wrote: > > On 10 Apr 2021, at 3:52 PM, Owen DeLong > wrote: >> >> I also know that many end-user customers hire consultants to handle their ARIN interactions. While I can?t speak to the competency of all consultants, I can say that the transactions involving my clients tend to go relatively smoothly and with minimal staff time consumption. > > > Owen - > > I suspect that use of consultants are far more the exception than the rule, as ARIN deals with hundreds of requests each month and when dealing with the smallest customers we are facing operations more typically categorized as family operations or sole proprietorships. Needless to say, these customers are contacting us and expecting to get support from ARIN on what they see are often simple requests (changing their name server, turning on DNSSEC, updating old contacts) and they idea of hiring a consultantt to make such requests would be completely foreign to them. > >> And yet, as noted, the majority (nearly 5/8ths) of end users will see higher fees under the RSP. > > 60% (4800) will pay more and 40% (3200) will pay less. Sure? 60% is nearly 62.5% (5/8). >> So from those numbers, we can interpret that on average, organizations currently paying under the end-user plan who would end up averaging $860 annually tend to hold less than a /20 while on average present RSP customers tend to hold more than a /18. >> ? >> How many organizations would be providing this additional $3.8M? I?d expect those organizations to be screaming bloody murder about this relatively soon or at least as soon as they become aware of it. >> >> It certainly isn?t 4800 customers that will see an increase of $200 or less, because that only accounts for $960,000, barely more than 25% of your claimed benefit. > > As noted earlier ? of the 4800 seeing an increase, more than half of them will see an increase of $200 or less. > > The smaller end-users that you reference above are definitely not the ones bearing the brunt of the increase - $2.9M of the potential $3.8M USD change in fees occurs from just 870 of the customers who have larger than a /20 of IPv4 of number resources but are presently paying far less than the RSP customers at ARIN with similar number resource holdings. > >> I have no problem with ARIN increasing its fees to cover costs. I just want to see it done on an equitable basis and not on the backs of the smallest end users. > > You should be pleased then, as the proposed fee change is not on the backs of the smallest end-users ? the average change for those with /20 in IPv4 number resources or less (7130 customers of the 8000)) is an increase of $126 (i.e. approximately $900K of the $3.8M total.) Sure? I?ve always felt that there was an equity issue with the larger end-users paying so little, but how is that remaining $2.9M distributed? Further, while $126/year or even $200/year doesn?t seem like a huge number in absolute terms (which is probably why you keep focusing in that direction), for an end user paying just $150/year, it?s an 84% price annual price hike and even for a user paying $300/year, it?s still a 42% increase in annual costs. The current fee structure was adopted in 2018. This structure is proposed for 2022, so we?re talking about a 4-year cost-of living increase at 3% per year according to your previous statements. That?s roughly 16% (1.03^4-1) overall, so while the brunt of the $3.8M isn?t on the backs of these smaller end users, in reality, they are still suffering a rather steep increase compared to the supposed justification for it. As such, no, I?m not all that pleased. Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Sun Apr 11 14:18:13 2021 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2021 18:18:13 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: <385DE9DB-F999-4F1F-A273-827A3C6517AE@delong.com> References: <7D33AAB4-5094-446B-8B0D-338F393824A5@arin.net> <75F8BA25-6CC8-4FD1-A199-ECA65B0275E9@arin.net> <5879FCB0-E219-462A-B917-F13D9F219C2B@delong.com> <011CBCE2-9F21-4E24-9AA9-74379A565E40@arin.net> <385DE9DB-F999-4F1F-A273-827A3C6517AE@delong.com> Message-ID: <1435FD4F-6E75-43F7-B88C-C3381B162273@arin.net> On 10 Apr 2021, at 9:16 PM, Owen DeLong > wrote: On Apr 10, 2021, at 3:40 PM, John Curran > wrote: (Owen wrote) I have no problem with ARIN increasing its fees to cover costs. I just want to see it done on an equitable basis and not on the backs of the smallest end users. You should be pleased then, as the proposed fee change is not on the backs of the smallest end-users ? the average change for those with /20 in IPv4 number resources or less (7130 customers of the 8000)) is an increase of $126 (i.e. approximately $900K of the $3.8M total.) Sure? I?ve always felt that there was an equity issue with the larger end-users paying so little, but how is that remaining $2.9M distributed? Owen - As sought, here is the distribution of the fee change, as summarized by registration service plan fee category ? [cid:image001.png at 01D72ECA.37D77EA0] (I?d also like to thank the folks inside ARIN who made this chart appear in record time? :-) I will note that customers with up to a /16 in IPv4 space (Medium Category) and /14 in IPv4 space (Large Category) [up to /24 & /20 in IPv6 resources respectively] are the ones who bear the brunt of the fee change ? these customers have been paying approx $500 and $1000 annually compared to others with similar holdings who have been paying $4000 and $8000 respectively on an annual basis for the same registry services from ARIN. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 152772 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: From andrew.dul at quark.net Sun Apr 11 21:14:18 2021 From: andrew.dul at quark.net (Andrew Dul) Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2021 18:14:18 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 4/9/21 1:38 PM, ARIN wrote: > * Implementing a $100 fee for OrgCreate and OrgRecovery transactions Does the orgcreate fee apply when an org wishes to create an orgrecord for the purposes of receiving a detailed reassignment from a existing ARIN member? Thanks, Andrew From jcurran at arin.net Mon Apr 12 10:07:42 2021 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 14:07:42 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: <9d67fcee-5a6b-dc5f-9b16-82e798b3448f@wiktel.com> References: <9d67fcee-5a6b-dc5f-9b16-82e798b3448f@wiktel.com> Message-ID: <51799316-9B60-4AFA-A54A-B00642C8BE8F@arin.net> On 10 Apr 2021, at 3:23 AM, Richard Laager > wrote: However, if $25/year is a contractual maximum increase in some older LRSAs, then it can't be sped up for those legacy resource holders. From Owen's response, it seems like it was. Richard - The $25/year limit in increase was included in the LRSA agreement for a number of years, and we have been handling it as if present for all LRSA agreements to maintain equitable fees for similar customers in comparable situations. It is true that it is a substantial benefit for legacy resources holders who enter into formal agreement for services with ARIN, but beats the alternative - see below. The far larger issue is that there are more than fifteen thousand legacy resource holders that are receiving ARIN?s basic registry services for free ? this is because at the time of ARIN?s formation, the initial Board decided that those registry services would to be provided to existing number resource holders without the need to enter into an agreement and/or pay a fee (in recognition of their contributions to the early Internet) ? a policy has been continued to this day. It?s been more than two decades and these services continue to be effectively subsidized by the entire ARIN community, raising a valid question of how long that policy should be continued? Alas, that?s probably a discussion best for another day as it is fairly far afield from the topic of this particular fee consultation. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Mon Apr 12 11:06:41 2021 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 15:06:41 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11 Apr 2021, at 9:14 PM, Andrew Dul wrote: > > > On 4/9/21 1:38 PM, ARIN wrote: >> * Implementing a $100 fee for OrgCreate and OrgRecovery transactions > > Does the orgcreate fee apply when an org wishes to create an orgrecord for the purposes of receiving a detailed reassignment from a existing ARIN member? Andrew - Yes, we are proposing the Organization create fee in order to cover the administration in setting up a new organization with ARIN ? this includes the vetting of the organizational record and points-of-contact. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers From chris at semihuman.com Mon Apr 12 12:05:07 2021 From: chris at semihuman.com (Chris Woodfield) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 09:05:07 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andrew.dul at quark.net Mon Apr 12 12:06:53 2021 From: andrew.dul at quark.net (Andrew Dul) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 09:06:53 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6ac8739d-cf42-309a-0edb-8ff7496ada58@quark.net> On 4/12/2021 8:06 AM, John Curran wrote: > On 11 Apr 2021, at 9:14 PM, Andrew Dul wrote: >> >> On 4/9/21 1:38 PM, ARIN wrote: >>> * Implementing a $100 fee for OrgCreate and OrgRecovery transactions >> Does the orgcreate fee apply when an org wishes to create an orgrecord for the purposes of receiving a detailed reassignment from a existing ARIN member? > Andrew - > > Yes, we are proposing the Organization create fee in order to cover the administration in setting up a new organization with ARIN ? this includes the vetting of the organizational record and points-of-contact. > > Thanks, > /John While I understand the desire to recover costs associated with formally setting up a new org in the database.? I would suggest that we don't want create a significant financial disincentive for members to not appropriately create detailed reassignments for organizations where they should be created. I suggest that an existing member could be permitted to 'sponsor' orgcreation for a number of new orgs per 'year'.? e.g. an X-Large member could sponsor the orgcreation of 10 new orgs for the purpose of detailed reassignments per year. I realize this is perhaps more complicated than just a fee per org creation. Andrew From jcurran at arin.net Mon Apr 12 12:27:51 2021 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 16:27:51 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: <6ac8739d-cf42-309a-0edb-8ff7496ada58@quark.net> References: <6ac8739d-cf42-309a-0edb-8ff7496ada58@quark.net> Message-ID: <8C1D942C-0277-4039-8DA8-C4F6D988BAF8@arin.net> On 12 Apr 2021, at 12:06 PM, Andrew Dul wrote: > > On 4/12/2021 8:06 AM, John Curran wrote: >> On 11 Apr 2021, at 9:14 PM, Andrew Dul wrote: >>> >>> On 4/9/21 1:38 PM, ARIN wrote: >>>> * Implementing a $100 fee for OrgCreate and OrgRecovery transactions >>> Does the orgcreate fee apply when an org wishes to create an orgrecord for the purposes of receiving a detailed reassignment from a existing ARIN member? >> Andrew - >> >> Yes, we are proposing the Organization create fee in order to cover the administration in setting up a new organization with ARIN ? this includes the vetting of the organizational record and points-of-contact. >> >> Thanks, >> /John > > While I understand the desire to recover costs associated with formally setting up a new org in the database. I would suggest that we don't want create a significant financial disincentive for members to not appropriately create detailed reassignments for organizations where they should be created. > > I suggest that an existing member could be permitted to 'sponsor' orgcreation for a number of new orgs per 'year'. e.g. an X-Large member could sponsor the orgcreation of 10 new orgs for the purpose of detailed reassignments per year. > > I realize this is perhaps more complicated than just a fee per org creation. Andrew - I share your concern, but note that organizations that receive detailed reassignments have full use of ARIN services and that means there is inevitably more process involved - i.e. vetting the organization & PoCs, and entry into an RSA. A small fee helps provide sufficient consideration for the agreement, so we?ll need to ponder this some. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers From farmer at umn.edu Mon Apr 12 14:42:40 2021 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 13:42:40 -0500 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 8:18 PM John Curran wrote: > On 9 Apr 2021, at 7:47 PM, David Farmer wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 3:38 PM ARIN wrote: > >> >> * Transitioning Legacy resource holders from annual per-resource >> maintenance fees to the RSP Fee Schedule while maintaining the annual cap >> of total maintenance fees (which will increase $25 per year) >> > > As an example, to clarify the intent here, let's say a Legacy resource > holder's total IPv4 holdings place it in the Large Catagory, which is > Larger than /16, up to and including /14 of IPv4. In this example, the > Legacy resource holder's 2021 fees are $150, 2022 fees will be $175, 2023 > fees will be $200, etc... Basically, increasing by $25 each year for > theoretically the next three (3) centuries and change, at which point the > annual fee will eventually reach $8,000. > > Do I understand the intent correctly? > > > Yes - that is correct. > To follow up on my question during the presentation today, as part of ARIN 47; (text of the questions has been corrected below) If a Legacy holder was willing to accelerate their true-up, is ARIN willing to negotiate on this issue, without jumping straight to the final result in one year? To expand a bit, I would like to suggest ARIN offer an option for an accelerated true-up, maybe over something like 5 - 10 years instead of 1 year, in the case of direct conversion, or 300+ years, that the current $25 a year increase represents for a Large Catagory Legacy Holder. In the case of the Large Catagory Legacy Holder example above, a 300+ year true-up is kind of laughable and not very equitable in one direction, but neither is more than a 5000% increase in one year a very equitable alternative. Thanks -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu 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 =============================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Mon Apr 12 15:27:11 2021 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 19:27:11 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 12 Apr 2021, at 2:42 PM, David Farmer wrote: > ... > To follow up on my question during the presentation today, as part of ARIN 47; (text of the questions has been corrected below) > > If a Legacy holder was willing to accelerate their true-up, is ARIN willing to negotiate on this issue, without jumping straight to the final result in one year? > > To expand a bit, I would like to suggest ARIN offer an option for an accelerated true-up, maybe over something like 5 - 10 years instead of 1 year, in the case of direct conversion, or 300+ years, that the current $25 a year increase represents for a Large Catagory Legacy Holder. > > In the case of the Large Catagory Legacy Holder example above, a 300+ year true-up is kind of laughable and not very equitable in one direction, but neither is more than a 5000% increase in one year a very equitable alternative. David - Thanks for elaborating - we can certainly do this if an organization wishes ? and I?m happy to consider a standard option for such if you think there would be demand. In trying understand the potential demand, do you anticipate that organizations would seek this option out of alltrustism, or are there other motivations potentially involved? Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers From farmer at umn.edu Mon Apr 12 16:09:15 2021 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 15:09:15 -0500 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: <1435FD4F-6E75-43F7-B88C-C3381B162273@arin.net> References: <7D33AAB4-5094-446B-8B0D-338F393824A5@arin.net> <75F8BA25-6CC8-4FD1-A199-ECA65B0275E9@arin.net> <5879FCB0-E219-462A-B917-F13D9F219C2B@delong.com> <011CBCE2-9F21-4E24-9AA9-74379A565E40@arin.net> <385DE9DB-F999-4F1F-A273-827A3C6517AE@delong.com> <1435FD4F-6E75-43F7-B88C-C3381B162273@arin.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 1:18 PM John Curran wrote: ... > As sought, here is the distribution of the fee change, as summarized by > registration service plan fee category ? > > > (I?d also like to thank the folks inside ARIN who made this chart appear > in record time? :-) > > I will note that customers with up to a /16 in IPv4 space (Medium > Category) and /14 in IPv4 space (Large Category) [up to /24 & /20 in IPv6 > resources respectively] are the ones who bear the brunt of the fee change ? > these customers have been paying approx $500 and $1000 annually compared to > others with similar holdings who have been paying $4000 and $8000 > respectively on an annual basis for the same registry services from ARIN. > Thanks for this information, it is very helpful. Does this include Legacy Holders? I assume not. Would it be possible to get at least the distribution by Category for the Legacy Holders with LRSAs, the financials are going to be quite different, but the distribution for Legacy Holders would also be informative. I would like to suggest you consider a plan for notification, especially for end-users with the largest increases. Maybe something like the following; 1. A note with everyone's 2021 Invoice calling attention to how the 2022 fee scheduled changes will impact them. 2. A registered letter to any Organization with an increase above a certain threshold, maybe $2,000. 3. Further, direct staff contact with any Organization with an increase above an even larger threshold, maybe $10,000. I'm also concerned with the timing of the increases, especially for anyone who has already received their 2021 Invoice already, or that will receive their Invoice prior to finalizing the 2022 fee schedule. Most organizations budget for cost increases, but for many involved here this is a rather sizable increase, well beyond what most organizations would typically put in their budget. As a general rule, I would like to see anyone with a sizable increase receive at least 12 months notice, and 18 months would be even better. Thanks. =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu 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 =============================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 152772 bytes Desc: not available URL: From athompso at athompso.net Mon Apr 12 16:11:16 2021 From: athompso at athompso.net (Adam Thompson) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 15:11:16 -0500 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <480fb7d99e4b6e323e1762828828ba08@athompso.net> On 2021-04-12 14:27, John Curran wrote: > On 12 Apr 2021, at 2:42 PM, David Farmer wrote: >> ... >> To follow up on my question during the presentation today, as part of >> ARIN 47; (text of the questions has been corrected below) >> >> If a Legacy holder was willing to accelerate their true-up, is ARIN >> willing to negotiate on this issue, without jumping straight to the >> final result in one year? >> >> To expand a bit, I would like to suggest ARIN offer an option for an >> accelerated true-up, maybe over something like 5 - 10 years instead of >> 1 year, in the case of direct conversion, or 300+ years, that the >> current $25 a year increase represents for a Large Catagory Legacy >> Holder. >> >> In the case of the Large Catagory Legacy Holder example above, a 300+ >> year true-up is kind of laughable and not very equitable in one >> direction, but neither is more than a 5000% increase in one year a >> very equitable alternative. > > David - > > Thanks for elaborating - we can certainly do this if an organization > wishes ? and I?m happy to consider a standard option for such if you > think there would be demand. > > In trying understand the potential demand, do you anticipate that > organizations would seek this option out of alltrustism, or are there > other motivations potentially involved? Speaking only for my own employer, it's difficult to manage future liabilities like that: from a PITA perspective, it's better just to pay it all off in one fiscal year. -Adam From rlaager at wiktel.com Mon Apr 12 16:35:43 2021 From: rlaager at wiktel.com (Richard Laager) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 15:35:43 -0500 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: <51799316-9B60-4AFA-A54A-B00642C8BE8F@arin.net> References: <9d67fcee-5a6b-dc5f-9b16-82e798b3448f@wiktel.com> <51799316-9B60-4AFA-A54A-B00642C8BE8F@arin.net> Message-ID: <9e789354-a4da-5fba-7d47-4dee70e76803@wiktel.com> I think we're on the same page that there are four categories relevant here: 1: Legacy holders with no agreement: $0 2: Legacy holders with older LRSA: $125 + $25/year until regular fee; takes e.g. 300 years. 3: Legacy holders with newer (L)RSA: ARIN proposed $125 + $25/year until regular fee; takes e.g. 300 years. I proposed: $125 + something/year until regular fee; takes e.g. 10 years. 4: Non-legacy holders with RSA: regular fee You have noted that category 1 is significant. But if ARIN is not able or willing to compel them to pay fees, that's mostly irrelevant for this discussion. I realize that raising fees on category 3 disincentives organizations in category 1 from signing, but if they haven't by now, I'm not sure what else can be done to make them (and this isn't that discussion anyway). If fees are the reason, you can't unring that bell; they presumably understand the stated intention to harmonize fees whether you actually make this move now or not, and on what schedule. I didn't see any answer to my question about whether categories 2 + 3 are material on fees. I want to be pragmatic here; if this is costing category 4 organizations $10/year more, it's probably not worth arguing about. But absent an answer, I guess I'll assume it is material? Legacy holders who moved from category 1 to 2 or 3 by signing an LRSA might consider that to have been a bad idea and that the results are unfair relative to their original state 1, now that they're being asked to pay more. While I understand their position, I have little sympathy for it, given that they are asking others to subsidize them indefinitely. I do have sympathy for them regarding a sudden large increase. A one year jump seems unreasonable. That's why I proposed a longer, but still reasonable timeframe of e.g. 10 years. Whatever happens, I also encourage ARIN to work with any that wish to voluntarily accelerate the transition, as David Farmer brought up. I, as someone who works at a company in category 4, consider the continued existence of the other categories inequitable. Legacy holders, in many cases, received large allocations (which, if not fully utilized, now have significant resale value). We can't change that, any more than the fact that some organizations previously received allocations from ARIN for free and now we have to pay on the transfer market. (My employer has both.) But that's different from an ongoing inequitable annual cost recovery, which can be addressed. You have been "handling it as if [the $25/year cap was] present for all LRSA agreements to maintain equitable fees for similar customers in comparable situations". I understand that you consider "legacy resource holder" to be "similar customer" here. From my perspective, we are all similar customers. (I realize that category 1 is a bit different, as they may not get full ARIN services.) Removing the $25/year cap from the agreements was not an accident. ARIN did this for a reason, AFAIK specifically to allow eventually harmonizing the fees. Now you are there, but you are proposing to not do so even in cases (category 3) where you could. I maintain my position that you should harmonize the fees faster, where contractually permitted. -- Richard -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Mon Apr 12 17:45:02 2021 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 21:45:02 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: <9e789354-a4da-5fba-7d47-4dee70e76803@wiktel.com> References: <9d67fcee-5a6b-dc5f-9b16-82e798b3448f@wiktel.com> <51799316-9B60-4AFA-A54A-B00642C8BE8F@arin.net> <9e789354-a4da-5fba-7d47-4dee70e76803@wiktel.com> Message-ID: <8ADCC727-C7E5-4434-B788-7F22C2EC2774@arin.net> On 12 Apr 2021, at 4:35 PM, Richard Laager > wrote: I think we're on the same page that there are four categories relevant here: 1: Legacy holders with no agreement: $0 2: Legacy holders with older LRSA: $125 + $25/year until regular fee; takes e.g. 300 years. 3: Legacy holders with newer (L)RSA: ARIN proposed $125 + $25/year until regular fee; takes e.g. 300 years. I proposed: $125 + something/year until regular fee; takes e.g. 10 years. 4: Non-legacy holders with RSA: regular fee Richard - Thanks for taking the time to write this - I believe your categorization is quite helpful. You have noted that category 1 is significant. But if ARIN is not able or willing to compel them to pay fees, that's mostly irrelevant for this discussion. I realize that raising fees on category 3 disincentives organizations in category 1 from signing, but if they haven't by now, I'm not sure what else can be done to make them (and this isn't that discussion anyway). If fees are the reason, you can't unring that bell; they presumably understand the stated intention to harmonize fees whether you actually make this move now or not, and on what schedule. The 732 customers who have over the past decade have entered into an LRSA with ARIN have done so for a variety of reasons: - They?d like to have some clear legal documentation of their rights to the asserted entries in the ARIN registry - They desire some newer services that ARIN does not provide except under RSA (e.g. RPKI) - They wish to support ARIN as an organization and feel paying ?their share? is reasonable and customary Recognize that these legacy resource holders entered into agreements with ARIN in good faith, particularly considering that ARIN was at the time providing the vast majority of services to them (ARIN Online, updates, Whois publication, reverse DNS) to them at no charge, and all of them have terms to the effect that their fees "will not exceed the fees charged to comparable non-legacy holders for registration services as set forth in ARIN?s Fee Schedule for comparable number resources.? Note also that more than 400 of them are very early LRSA signatories and thus their agreements provide that total fees cannot increase more than $25/year. I didn't see any answer to my question about whether categories 2 + 3 are material on fees. I want to be pragmatic here; if this is costing category 4 organizations $10/year more, it's probably not worth arguing about. But absent an answer, I guess I'll assume it is material? Legacy holders who moved from category 1 to 2 or 3 by signing an LRSA might consider that to have been a bad idea and that the results are unfair relative to their original state 1, now that they're being asked to pay more. While I understand their position, I have little sympathy for it, given that they are asking others to subsidize them indefinitely. I do have sympathy for them regarding a sudden large increase. A one year jump seems unreasonable. That's why I proposed a longer, but still reasonable timeframe of e.g. 10 years. Whatever happens, I also encourage ARIN to work with any that wish to voluntarily accelerate the transition, as David Farmer brought up. I, as someone who works at a company in category 4, consider the continued existence of the other categories inequitable. Legacy holders, in many cases, received large allocations (which, if not fully utilized, now have significant resale value). We can't change that, any more than the fact that some organizations previously received allocations from ARIN for free and now we have to pay on the transfer market. (My employer has both.) But that's different from an ongoing inequitable annual cost recovery, which can be addressed. These legacy customers currently pay $109,800 per year in total, and this goes up by $18,300 each year the Board raises the total fee cap by $25 (which it has done twice so far.) As a result of the fee consultation, this cap will increase every year on a consistent basis by $25, and over (a very long) time will result in similar fees to all other customers. Because of the relatively high number of LRSA customers with the $25 annual increase cap, it is unclear if there is a viable strategy for changing these fees any faster (and as you note, it will discourage other legacy resource holders from considering entering into the LRSA agreement with ARIN.) It?s worth noting that there are an increasing number of legacy resource holders now entering into an LRSA with ARIN ? this could out of the desire to transfer some of their resources, use some of our more advanced registry services, or both. You have been "handling it as if [the $25/year cap was] present for all LRSA agreements to maintain equitable fees for similar customers in comparable situations". I understand that you consider "legacy resource holder" to be "similar customer" here. From my perspective, we are all similar customers. (I realize that category 1 is a bit different, as they may not get full ARIN services.) Removing the $25/year cap from the agreements was not an accident. ARIN did this for a reason, AFAIK specifically to allow eventually harmonizing the fees. Now you are there, but you are proposing to not do so even in cases (category 3) where you could. I maintain my position that you should harmonize the fees faster, where contractually permitted. I appreciate (and share) the desire to harmonize fees across ARIN, and the proposed fee change is a step in that direction. While not part of this consultation, ARIN will shortly be reviewing the uncontracted services provided to legacy resource holders and considering questions such as whether if it is responsible for ARIN to continue to provide these services indefinitely without fee or contract. I would ask that we defer our discussion of cost recovery for legacy resource holders to that time, and note that the current proposed fee change is a step in the right direction by at least getting ARIN to a single fee schedule. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Mon Apr 12 17:54:04 2021 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 21:54:04 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: References: <7D33AAB4-5094-446B-8B0D-338F393824A5@arin.net> <75F8BA25-6CC8-4FD1-A199-ECA65B0275E9@arin.net> <5879FCB0-E219-462A-B917-F13D9F219C2B@delong.com> <011CBCE2-9F21-4E24-9AA9-74379A565E40@arin.net> <385DE9DB-F999-4F1F-A273-827A3C6517AE@delong.com> <1435FD4F-6E75-43F7-B88C-C3381B162273@arin.net> Message-ID: <3CFA53AD-A9F7-47E0-AB7D-FC6AF22D115A@arin.net> On 12 Apr 2021, at 4:09 PM, David Farmer > wrote: ... Thanks for this information, it is very helpful. Does this include Legacy Holders? I assume not. Would it be possible to get at least the distribution by Category for the Legacy Holders with LRSAs, the financials are going to be quite different, but the distribution for Legacy Holders would also be informative. David - We?ll work on getting that distribution together - I?ll note that the financials for LRSA customers I just sent and it is fairly modest amounts given the fee cap (at least for the next few years) I would like to suggest you consider a plan for notification, especially for end-users with the largest increases. Maybe something like the following; 1. A note with everyone's 2021 Invoice calling attention to how the 2022 fee scheduled changes will impact them. 2. A registered letter to any Organization with an increase above a certain threshold, maybe $2,000. 3. Further, direct staff contact with any Organization with an increase above an even larger threshold, maybe $10,000. We had planned several of these once the fee change is official, but that cannot occur until we are both post-consultation and Board consideration. I agree that appropriate notification is important, and have taken note of the suggestion for more notification, tiered, and as early as possible. I'm also concerned with the timing of the increases, especially for anyone who has already received their 2021 Invoice already, or that will receive their Invoice prior to finalizing the 2022 fee schedule. Most organizations budget for cost increases, but for many involved here this is a rather sizable increase, well beyond what most organizations would typically put in their budget. As a general rule, I would like to see anyone with a sizable increase receive at least 12 months notice, and 18 months would be even better. Excellent point - in the past we?ve had fee deferrals for some categories that experienced very large changes, and that might be appropriate for the handful of those finding themselves suddenly facing a very significant change. In other words, we would still change the fee schedule effective 2022, but provide a specific waiver from implementation for some tiers so that customers could plan accordingly - excellent suggestion. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Mon Apr 12 18:26:18 2021 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 22:26:18 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: <3CFA53AD-A9F7-47E0-AB7D-FC6AF22D115A@arin.net> References: <7D33AAB4-5094-446B-8B0D-338F393824A5@arin.net> <75F8BA25-6CC8-4FD1-A199-ECA65B0275E9@arin.net> <5879FCB0-E219-462A-B917-F13D9F219C2B@delong.com> <011CBCE2-9F21-4E24-9AA9-74379A565E40@arin.net> <385DE9DB-F999-4F1F-A273-827A3C6517AE@delong.com> <1435FD4F-6E75-43F7-B88C-C3381B162273@arin.net> <3CFA53AD-A9F7-47E0-AB7D-FC6AF22D115A@arin.net> Message-ID: On 12 Apr 2021, at 5:54 PM, John Curran > wrote: On 12 Apr 2021, at 4:09 PM, David Farmer > wrote: ... Thanks for this information, it is very helpful. Does this include Legacy Holders? I assume not. Would it be possible to get at least the distribution by Category for the Legacy Holders with LRSAs, the financials are going to be quite different, but the distribution for Legacy Holders would also be informative. David - We?ll work on getting that distribution together - I?ll note that the financials for LRSA customers I just sent and it is fairly modest amounts given the fee cap (at least for the next few years) David - As requested. I?ll note that there are a dozen or so LRSA customers not included (those likely to be merged with existing RSP plans for customer who already have such) /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers [cid:A77B499F-5BA9-446F-B2A9-2DA34E16363D] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Screen Shot 2021-04-12 at 6.21.21 PM.png Type: image/png Size: 304038 bytes Desc: Screen Shot 2021-04-12 at 6.21.21 PM.png URL: From owen at delong.com Mon Apr 12 22:29:34 2021 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 19:29:34 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: <3CFA53AD-A9F7-47E0-AB7D-FC6AF22D115A@arin.net> References: <7D33AAB4-5094-446B-8B0D-338F393824A5@arin.net> <75F8BA25-6CC8-4FD1-A199-ECA65B0275E9@arin.net> <5879FCB0-E219-462A-B917-F13D9F219C2B@delong.com> <011CBCE2-9F21-4E24-9AA9-74379A565E40@arin.net> <385DE9DB-F999-4F1F-A273-827A3C6517AE@delong.com> <1435FD4F-6E75-43F7-B88C-C3381B162273@arin.net> <3CFA53AD-A9F7-47E0-AB7D-FC6AF22D115A@arin.net> Message-ID: <062F76A6-4040-4575-A8FB-CAEFC3EC9BDB@delong.com> > On Apr 12, 2021, at 14:54 , John Curran wrote: > > On 12 Apr 2021, at 4:09 PM, David Farmer > wrote: >> ... >> Thanks for this information, it is very helpful. Does this include Legacy Holders? I assume not. Would it be possible to get at least the distribution by Category for the Legacy Holders with LRSAs, the financials are going to be quite different, but the distribution for Legacy Holders would also be informative. > > David - > > We?ll work on getting that distribution together - I?ll note that the financials for LRSA customers I just sent and it is fairly modest amounts given the fee cap (at least for the next few years) > >> I would like to suggest you consider a plan for notification, especially for end-users with the largest increases. Maybe something like the following; >> >> 1. A note with everyone's 2021 Invoice calling attention to how the 2022 fee scheduled changes will impact them. >> 2. A registered letter to any Organization with an increase above a certain threshold, maybe $2,000. >> 3. Further, direct staff contact with any Organization with an increase above an even larger threshold, maybe $10,000. > > We had planned several of these once the fee change is official, but that cannot occur until we are both post-consultation and Board consideration. I disagree? I think it is worth making sure they are aware in time to comment for the board?s consideration. Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Mon Apr 12 23:10:17 2021 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 03:10:17 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: <062F76A6-4040-4575-A8FB-CAEFC3EC9BDB@delong.com> References: <7D33AAB4-5094-446B-8B0D-338F393824A5@arin.net> <75F8BA25-6CC8-4FD1-A199-ECA65B0275E9@arin.net> <5879FCB0-E219-462A-B917-F13D9F219C2B@delong.com> <011CBCE2-9F21-4E24-9AA9-74379A565E40@arin.net> <385DE9DB-F999-4F1F-A273-827A3C6517AE@delong.com> <1435FD4F-6E75-43F7-B88C-C3381B162273@arin.net> <3CFA53AD-A9F7-47E0-AB7D-FC6AF22D115A@arin.net> <062F76A6-4040-4575-A8FB-CAEFC3EC9BDB@delong.com> Message-ID: <5E10C10F-3B78-4D98-ABA8-619445E4CF08@arin.net> On 12 Apr 2021, at 10:29 PM, Owen DeLong > wrote: On Apr 12, 2021, at 14:54 , John Curran > wrote: On 12 Apr 2021, at 4:09 PM, David Farmer > wrote: ... I would like to suggest you consider a plan for notification, especially for end-users with the largest increases. Maybe something like the following; 1. A note with everyone's 2021 Invoice calling attention to how the 2022 fee scheduled changes will impact them. 2. A registered letter to any Organization with an increase above a certain threshold, maybe $2,000. 3. Further, direct staff contact with any Organization with an increase above an even larger threshold, maybe $10,000. We had planned several of these once the fee change is official, but that cannot occur until we are both post-consultation and Board consideration. I disagree? I think it is worth making sure they are aware in time to comment for the board?s consideration. Owen - ARIN frequently engages in community consultation before making significant changes to fees or services ? such consultations are announced on the arin-announce mailing list and conducted on this list (arin-consult). These consultations are open to anyone in the community that wish to participate, but it does require organizations that wish to be part make a modicum of effort to read the ARIN announcements of consultations and participate in those consultations that are of interest to them. Best wishes, /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Wed Apr 14 07:37:45 2021 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 11:37:45 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Policies restricting usage of Internet number resource blocks Message-ID: <286D7D2B-4706-4609-8B82-83C2767D65C4@arin.net> ARIN AC Members - A topic arose yesterday in open mic regarding policy restrictions on services offered to certain types of blocks in the Internet number registry system, and I wanted to take a moment to be clear about my remarks. In particularly, it occurred to me that my repeating the same phrases several times didn?t prove particularly conducive to effective communications (and I usually know better), so instead I?m going to try to clarify my remarks below - It is worth noting that the vast majority of registry services for IP blocks are either hierarchical in nature (reverse DNS, RDAP, RPKI, etc.) or allow for inclusion of third-party contact data (Whois, IRR) into their systems. As a result, there is actually very little from a technical perspective that prevents any given Internet number resource holder from operating their own subdelegation infrastructure or delegating number resource blocks on a temporary/permanent basis to any other party. This makes it particularly important to be very clear about any restrictions on subdelegation for any particular type of IP number resource blocks, and make these restrictions on resource holder (if indeed restrictions are desired.) ARIN will of course align our services provided for such resources to be compliant with registry policy, but such policy should be defined as limitations on usage by the resource holders of those blocks and be established by the community after full discussion of the associated benefits/risks. This also has the benefit of freeing the ARIN policy discussion from concerns regarding services and fees ? ARIN will respect any policies that restrict resource holders from subdelegation of specific blocks but no discussion of services or fees is required so long as the policy discussion is clear about what constraints the resource holders face for specific types of Internet number resource blocks. I hope this helps clarify my otherwise incoherent ramblings yesterday - please don?t hesitate to ask if there are any questions whatsoever? Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Wed Apr 14 07:43:20 2021 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 11:43:20 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Policies restricting usage of Internet number resource blocks In-Reply-To: <286D7D2B-4706-4609-8B82-83C2767D65C4@arin.net> References: <286D7D2B-4706-4609-8B82-83C2767D65C4@arin.net> Message-ID: <1C90540C-6A84-4F18-A942-5E6AAAED3C44@arin.net> Folks - I started writing this initially for the ARIN Advisory Council but realized that it was germane to the current Fee Consultation discussion ? i.e. some have asked whether the proposed fee change means the elimination of ?assignment? versus ?allocation? IP block types, and the answer is No, not necessarily ? it is entirely up to the community whether such distinction continues from a policy perspective (and ARIN services will naturally align with policy, as usual.) FYI, /John On 14 Apr 2021, at 7:37 AM, John Curran > wrote: ARIN AC Members - A topic arose yesterday in open mic regarding policy restrictions on services offered to certain types of blocks in the Internet number registry system, and I wanted to take a moment to be clear about my remarks. In particularly, it occurred to me that my repeating the same phrases several times didn?t prove particularly conducive to effective communications (and I usually know better), so instead I?m going to try to clarify my remarks below - It is worth noting that the vast majority of registry services for IP blocks are either hierarchical in nature (reverse DNS, RDAP, RPKI, etc.) or allow for inclusion of third-party contact data (Whois, IRR) into their systems. As a result, there is actually very little from a technical perspective that prevents any given Internet number resource holder from operating their own subdelegation infrastructure or delegating number resource blocks on a temporary/permanent basis to any other party. This makes it particularly important to be very clear about any restrictions on subdelegation for any particular type of IP number resource blocks, and make these restrictions on resource holder (if indeed restrictions are desired.) ARIN will of course align our services provided for such resources to be compliant with registry policy, but such policy should be defined as limitations on usage by the resource holders of those blocks and be established by the community after full discussion of the associated benefits/risks. This also has the benefit of freeing the ARIN policy discussion from concerns regarding services and fees ? ARIN will respect any policies that restrict resource holders from subdelegation of specific blocks but no discussion of services or fees is required so long as the policy discussion is clear about what constraints the resource holders face for specific types of Internet number resource blocks. I hope this helps clarify my otherwise incoherent ramblings yesterday - please don?t hesitate to ask if there are any questions whatsoever? Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers _______________________________________________ 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 owen at delong.com Wed Apr 14 13:01:06 2021 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 10:01:06 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: <5E10C10F-3B78-4D98-ABA8-619445E4CF08@arin.net> References: <7D33AAB4-5094-446B-8B0D-338F393824A5@arin.net> <75F8BA25-6CC8-4FD1-A199-ECA65B0275E9@arin.net> <5879FCB0-E219-462A-B917-F13D9F219C2B@delong.com> <011CBCE2-9F21-4E24-9AA9-74379A565E40@arin.net> <385DE9DB-F999-4F1F-A273-827A3C6517AE@delong.com> <1435FD4F-6E75-43F7-B88C-C3381B162273@arin.net> <3CFA53AD-A9F7-47E0-AB7D-FC6AF22D115A@arin.net> <062F76A6-4040-4575-A8FB-CAEFC3EC9BDB@delong.com> <5E10C10F-3B78-4D98-ABA8-619445E4CF08@arin.net> Message-ID: > On Apr 12, 2021, at 20:10 , John Curran wrote: > > On 12 Apr 2021, at 10:29 PM, Owen DeLong > wrote: >>> On Apr 12, 2021, at 14:54 , John Curran > wrote: >>> On 12 Apr 2021, at 4:09 PM, David Farmer > wrote: >>>> ... >>>> I would like to suggest you consider a plan for notification, especially for end-users with the largest increases. Maybe something like the following; >>>> >>>> 1. A note with everyone's 2021 Invoice calling attention to how the 2022 fee scheduled changes will impact them. >>>> 2. A registered letter to any Organization with an increase above a certain threshold, maybe $2,000. >>>> 3. Further, direct staff contact with any Organization with an increase above an even larger threshold, maybe $10,000. >>> >>> We had planned several of these once the fee change is official, but that cannot occur until we are both post-consultation and Board consideration. >> >> I disagree? I think it is worth making sure they are aware in time to comment for the board?s consideration. > > Owen - > > ARIN frequently engages in community consultation before making significant changes to fees or services ? such consultations are announced on the arin-announce mailing list and conducted on this list (arin-consult). These consultations are open to anyone in the community that wish to participate, but it does require organizations that wish to be part make a modicum of effort to read the ARIN announcements of consultations and participate in those consultations that are of interest to them. > > Best wishes, > /John I think the likely radical impact of this particular attack^wchange on particular organizations is worthy of a special level of notice to those organizations likely to be most impacted. Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Wed Apr 14 16:06:03 2021 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 20:06:03 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: References: <7D33AAB4-5094-446B-8B0D-338F393824A5@arin.net> <75F8BA25-6CC8-4FD1-A199-ECA65B0275E9@arin.net> <5879FCB0-E219-462A-B917-F13D9F219C2B@delong.com> <011CBCE2-9F21-4E24-9AA9-74379A565E40@arin.net> <385DE9DB-F999-4F1F-A273-827A3C6517AE@delong.com> <1435FD4F-6E75-43F7-B88C-C3381B162273@arin.net> <3CFA53AD-A9F7-47E0-AB7D-FC6AF22D115A@arin.net> <062F76A6-4040-4575-A8FB-CAEFC3EC9BDB@delong.com> <5E10C10F-3B78-4D98-ABA8-619445E4CF08@arin.net> Message-ID: <0F75AF22-4DEB-47A9-8A34-A38E273C52D2@arin.net> On 14 Apr 2021, at 1:01 PM, Owen DeLong > wrote: On Apr 12, 2021, at 20:10 , John Curran > wrote: On 12 Apr 2021, at 10:29 PM, Owen DeLong > wrote: On Apr 12, 2021, at 14:54 , John Curran > wrote: On 12 Apr 2021, at 4:09 PM, David Farmer > wrote: ... I would like to suggest you consider a plan for notification, especially for end-users with the largest increases. Maybe something like the following; 1. A note with everyone's 2021 Invoice calling attention to how the 2022 fee scheduled changes will impact them. 2. A registered letter to any Organization with an increase above a certain threshold, maybe $2,000. 3. Further, direct staff contact with any Organization with an increase above an even larger threshold, maybe $10,000. We had planned several of these once the fee change is official, but that cannot occur until we are both post-consultation and Board consideration. I disagree? I think it is worth making sure they are aware in time to comment for the board?s consideration. Owen - ARIN frequently engages in community consultation before making significant changes to fees or services ? such consultations are announced on the arin-announce mailing list and conducted on this list (arin-consult). These consultations are open to anyone in the community that wish to participate, but it does require organizations that wish to be part make a modicum of effort to read the ARIN announcements of consultations and participate in those consultations that are of interest to them. Best wishes, /John I think the likely radical impact of this particular attack^wchange on particular organizations is worthy of a special level of notice to those organizations likely to be most impacted. Indeed - as noted earlier, a special level of notice is warranted and we will be doing specific outreach to organizations that are significantly impacted ? but this cannot be done speculatively and will occur once the fee schedule has been determined. Organizations that wish to have an impact on ARIN?s services and fees bear the onus of reading the announcements that we already send and getting involved to the extent desired. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Thu Apr 15 04:40:31 2021 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 01:40:31 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: <0F75AF22-4DEB-47A9-8A34-A38E273C52D2@arin.net> References: <7D33AAB4-5094-446B-8B0D-338F393824A5@arin.net> <75F8BA25-6CC8-4FD1-A199-ECA65B0275E9@arin.net> <5879FCB0-E219-462A-B917-F13D9F219C2B@delong.com> <011CBCE2-9F21-4E24-9AA9-74379A565E40@arin.net> <385DE9DB-F999-4F1F-A273-827A3C6517AE@delong.com> <1435FD4F-6E75-43F7-B88C-C3381B162273@arin.net> <3CFA53AD-A9F7-47E0-AB7D-FC6AF22D115A@arin.net> <062F76A6-4040-4575-A8FB-CAEFC3EC9BDB@delong.com> <5E10C10F-3B78-4D98-ABA8-619445E4CF08@arin.net> <0F75AF22-4DEB-47A9-8A34-A38E273C52D2@arin.net> Message-ID: <7C13BD8D-D8B1-40B2-8C5C-178DCC54CA22@delong.com> > On Apr 14, 2021, at 13:06 , John Curran wrote: > > On 14 Apr 2021, at 1:01 PM, Owen DeLong > wrote: >> >>> On Apr 12, 2021, at 20:10 , John Curran > wrote: >>> >>> On 12 Apr 2021, at 10:29 PM, Owen DeLong > wrote: >>>>> On Apr 12, 2021, at 14:54 , John Curran > wrote: >>>>> On 12 Apr 2021, at 4:09 PM, David Farmer > wrote: >>>>>> ... >>>>>> I would like to suggest you consider a plan for notification, especially for end-users with the largest increases. Maybe something like the following; >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. A note with everyone's 2021 Invoice calling attention to how the 2022 fee scheduled changes will impact them. >>>>>> 2. A registered letter to any Organization with an increase above a certain threshold, maybe $2,000. >>>>>> 3. Further, direct staff contact with any Organization with an increase above an even larger threshold, maybe $10,000. >>>>> >>>>> We had planned several of these once the fee change is official, but that cannot occur until we are both post-consultation and Board consideration. >>>> >>>> I disagree? I think it is worth making sure they are aware in time to comment for the board?s consideration. >>> >>> Owen - >>> >>> ARIN frequently engages in community consultation before making significant changes to fees or services ? such consultations are announced on the arin-announce mailing list and conducted on this list (arin-consult). These consultations are open to anyone in the community that wish to participate, but it does require organizations that wish to be part make a modicum of effort to read the ARIN announcements of consultations and participate in those consultations that are of interest to them. >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> /John >> >> I think the likely radical impact of this particular attack^wchange on particular organizations is worthy of a special level of notice to those organizations likely to be most impacted. > > Indeed - as noted earlier, a special level of notice is warranted and we will be doing specific outreach to organizations that are significantly impacted ? but this cannot be done speculatively and will occur once the fee schedule has been determined. Organizations that wish to have an impact on ARIN?s services and fees bear the onus of reading the announcements that we already send and getting involved to the extent desired. We can agree to disagree? I don?t see why it is impossible to send organizations that are facing an increase of more than $10,000 if the current plan is adopted a notice that says ?We are considering doing this to you? If you wish to discuss the matter before it is fait accompli, here is how you can participate in the discussion.? I admit that it is tantamount to soliciting dissent, but if I were such an organization, and I got notified after it was fait accompli, I might very well involve a different form of solicitor in the process. Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Thu Apr 15 07:04:33 2021 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 11:04:33 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: <7C13BD8D-D8B1-40B2-8C5C-178DCC54CA22@delong.com> References: <7D33AAB4-5094-446B-8B0D-338F393824A5@arin.net> <75F8BA25-6CC8-4FD1-A199-ECA65B0275E9@arin.net> <5879FCB0-E219-462A-B917-F13D9F219C2B@delong.com> <011CBCE2-9F21-4E24-9AA9-74379A565E40@arin.net> <385DE9DB-F999-4F1F-A273-827A3C6517AE@delong.com> <1435FD4F-6E75-43F7-B88C-C3381B162273@arin.net> <3CFA53AD-A9F7-47E0-AB7D-FC6AF22D115A@arin.net> <062F76A6-4040-4575-A8FB-CAEFC3EC9BDB@delong.com> <5E10C10F-3B78-4D98-ABA8-619445E4CF08@arin.net> <0F75AF22-4DEB-47A9-8A34-A38E273C52D2@arin.net> <7C13BD8D-D8B1-40B2-8C5C-178DCC54CA22@delong.com> Message-ID: <84A4C829-FBE3-40C6-BD5D-0CB141450A44@arin.net> On 15 Apr 2021, at 4:40 AM, Owen DeLong > wrote: We can agree to disagree? Indeed - I suspect that will be the case in this circumstance. I don?t see why it is impossible to send organizations that are facing an increase of more than $10,000 if the current plan is adopted a notice that says ?We are considering doing this to you? If you wish to discuss the matter before it is fait accompli, here is how you can participate in the discussion.? It is not impossible ? clearly since we already sent these organizations (and many others) a notice which says "We are consulting with the community regarding changes to the ARIN Fee Schedule that are intended for implementation in January of 2022 ? Please view the proposed 2022 Fee Schedule at: https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/2022_fee_schedule/" We could send these organizations a more specific notification calling for them to get involved ? or equally we could send just the 3200 organizations whose fees will be going down a notice that "now is the time for them to get involved!"... Alas, neither is appropriate behavior if we?re to have an open and transparent community consultation about the fee change. The ability of the Internet community to govern its own registry organization (via a member-elected board and open community consultations) is a huge benefit over many other potential structures, but it comes with a cost ? the portion of the community that makes the effort to read the notices and get involved do have an outsized role in shaping ARIN?s future compared to those who choose otherwise. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arin-consult at ve4.ca Thu Apr 15 09:30:35 2021 From: arin-consult at ve4.ca (Glen A. Pearce) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 07:30:35 -0600 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Policies restricting usage of Internet number resource blocks Message-ID: <0784ead9-d3d4-5e1e-d607-ec09b177314a@ve4.ca> I'm a 3x-Small organization (literally "the smallest end users" to borrow Owen DeLong's terminology) chiming in. After a few years of reading NANOG I came to the conclusion that the IPv4 to IPv6 transition was going to be long, slow and potentially ugly.? So this is why I chose to get my own resources directly from ARIN to cover both bases. -My own IPv4 space so I can go to any ISP that can provision ?connectivity to my location whether they have IP space of their ?own available or not.? If one or both of the big guys in my ?market ends up doing carrier grade NAT badly (especially by ?surprise) or just starts price gouging for IP addresses the ?independents will probably have a hard time getting enough ?IPv4 space to take the exodus of customers at that point. ?(It's even possible the transfer market could at some point ?lock up with no blocks offered for stretches of time.)? A guy ?that's bringing his own space and just needs bandwidth will ?be a lot easier to take on. -Getting IPv6 before my local cable company gets around to ?implementing it.? Much easier to get dual stacked and slowly ?transitioning stuff on my network and have time to get used ?to everything than having to scramble to do it all at once ?when/if things finally tip from glacial movement to rapid change. On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 3:38 PM ARIN wrote: >We are consulting with the community regarding changes to the >ARIN Fee Schedule that are intended for implementation in January >of 2022. These changes are: > >??? * Transitioning End Users from annual per-resource maintenance >????? fees to the RSP (Registration Services Plan) Fee Schedule Largely I'm OK with this as I recently converted to a registration services plan myself as I was wanting to get IPv6 space as well so it made more sense to have both and full voting membership under a single $250 fee.? (I just submitted a ticket asking about getting a /40 yesterday morning,) As one of "the smallest end users" I don't need more than a /24 of IPv4 space and a /40 of IPv6 space.? If the nature of what I do changed enough that I needed more space than that I would probably by that point be a big enough organization that I could handle the higher fees for the larger chunks of IP space under the Registration services plan. Really this will only raise costs for end user organizations with very large singular chunks of space.? Generally an organization big enough to actually need even a /22 is big enough it can afford to pay the Registration Services Plan fees for it. It won't impact us "smallest end users" with the possible exception of holders of a single IP block.? This could maybe be addressed by making the "ASN-only" category in the proposed new fee structure a "single resource only" category which would apply whether that single resource was an AS, a /24 of IPv4 or a /40 or smaller of IPv6. The IPv4 only holders will eventually realize one day that they need IPv6 as well to be visible to the whole internet and they will upgrade then at their own pace.? I'm pretty sure that anyone that at this point has their own IPv6 space and no IPv4 space is either running a hobby/experimental network or is thinking very very long term about larger plans and is thinking it's easier to get their resources now than down the road, either way they probably aren't generating revenue with that IPv6 block right now so for them every penny counts. Finally having everyone under the registration services plan will be simpler for new sign ups than having 2 different fee schedules. >??? * Transitioning Legacy resource holders from annual per-resource >????? maintenance fees to the RSP Fee Schedule while maintaining the >????? annual cap of total maintenance fees (which will increase $25 >????? per year) As long as the fee cap on LRSA holders remains (which I agree it should for all of them and not just the early signers) that would override the difference between the 2 current fee schedules anyways which makes this change immaterial to them. Legacy holders (including those that never signed an LRSA) will all at some point need IPv6, so either they'll have to get it through their ISPs or they'll have to pay RIR fees on those when the point comes that they decide they need it. >??? * Providing a temporary IPv6 fee waiver for organizations in >????? the 3X-Small category that desire a larger address block Generally I think this is a gimmick, it expires at the end of 2026. Really if I needed more than a /40 of IPv6 space between now and the end of 2026 I'd probably also need more IPv4 space and have to move up size categories anyways.? It almost looks like a trap as anyone who takes the bigger space now but doesn't really need it is baking in a doubling of fees when they renew in 2027 but if their organization is still a very small one that doubling of fees could be a strain on them.? I myself did hold out for the 2020-3 to be implemented before requesting IPv6 space as $250/year I can handle but $500 per year would be a strain. >??? * Implementing a $100 fee for OrgCreate and OrgRecovery >????? transactions Although I see this maybe being a thing for OrgRecovery as I imagine most of these are for Orgs with legacy resources where there is a strong incentive for someone to try hijacking the Org so an extra level of scrutiny is probably needed.... However I'm thinking for OrgCreate for an entirely new Org if it's taking $100 of labor to do this something is wrong with the process and it needs to be streamlined somehow. I mean for my .ca names I have to be Canadian to hold them but if people had to start paying CIRA $100 to verify their Canadianness before they could get a .ca name that wouldn't go over well. ^_- So I would tend to oppose this fee at least fora? brand new OrgCeate. >??? * Increasing the transfer processing fee to $500 This seems reasonable. -- Glen A. Pearce gap at ve4.ca Network Manager, Webmaster, Bookkeeper, Fashion Model and Shipping Clerk. Very Eager 4 Tees http://www.ve4.ca ARIN Handle VET-17 From arin-consult at ve4.ca Thu Apr 15 09:40:15 2021 From: arin-consult at ve4.ca (Glen A. Pearce) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 07:40:15 -0600 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees Message-ID: I'm a 3x-Small organization (literally "the smallest end users" to borrow Owen DeLong's terminology) chiming in. After a few years of reading NANOG I came to the conclusion that the IPv4 to IPv6 transition was going to be long, slow and potentially ugly.? So this is why I chose to get my own resources directly from ARIN to cover both bases. -My own IPv4 space so I can go to any ISP that can provision ?connectivity to my location whether they have IP space of their ?own available or not.? If one or both of the big guys in my ?market ends up doing carrier grade NAT badly (especially by ?surprise) or just starts price gouging for IP addresses the ?independents will probably have a hard time getting enough ?IPv4 space to take the exodus of customers at that point. ?(It's even possible the transfer market could at some point ?lock up with no blocks offered for stretches of time.)? A guy ?that's bringing his own space and just needs bandwidth will ?be a lot easier to take on. -Getting IPv6 before my local cable company gets around to ?implementing it.? Much easier to get dual stacked and slowly ?transitioning stuff on my network and have time to get used ?to everything than having to scramble to do it all at once ?when/if things finally tip from glacial movement to rapid change. On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 3:38 PM ARIN wrote: > We are consulting with the community regarding changes to the > ARIN Fee Schedule that are intended for implementation in January > of 2022. These changes are: > > ??? * Transitioning End Users from annual per-resource maintenance > ????? fees to the RSP (Registration Services Plan) Fee Schedule Largely I'm OK with this as I recently converted to a registration services plan myself as I was wanting to get IPv6 space as well so it made more sense to have both and full voting membership under a single $250 fee.? (I just submitted a ticket asking about getting a /40 yesterday morning,) As one of "the smallest end users" I don't need more than a /24 of IPv4 space and a /40 of IPv6 space.? If the nature of what I do changed enough that I needed more space than that I would probably by that point be a big enough organization that I could handle the higher fees for the larger chunks of IP space under the Registration services plan. Really this will only raise costs for end user organizations with very large singular chunks of space.? Generally an organization big enough to actually need even a /22 is big enough it can afford to pay the Registration Services Plan fees for it. It won't impact us "smallest end users" with the possible exception of holders of a single IP block.? This could maybe be addressed by making the "ASN-only" category in the proposed new fee structure a "single resource only" category which would apply whether that single resource was an AS, a /24 of IPv4 or a /40 or smaller of IPv6. The IPv4 only holders will eventually realize one day that they need IPv6 as well to be visible to the whole internet and they will upgrade then at their own pace.? I'm pretty sure that anyone that at this point has their own IPv6 space and no IPv4 space is either running a hobby/experimental network or is thinking very very long term about larger plans and is thinking it's easier to get their resources now than down the road, either way they probably aren't generating revenue with that IPv6 block right now so for them every penny counts. Finally having everyone under the registration services plan will be simpler for new sign ups than having 2 different fee schedules. > ??? * Transitioning Legacy resource holders from annual per-resource > ????? maintenance fees to the RSP Fee Schedule while maintaining the > ????? annual cap of total maintenance fees (which will increase $25 > ????? per year) As long as the fee cap on LRSA holders remains (which I agree it should for all of them and not just the early signers) that would override the difference between the 2 current fee schedules anyways which makes this change immaterial to them. Legacy holders (including those that never signed an LRSA) will all at some point need IPv6, so either they'll have to get it through their ISPs or they'll have to pay RIR fees on those when the point comes that they decide they need it. > ??? * Providing a temporary IPv6 fee waiver for organizations in > ????? the 3X-Small category that desire a larger address block Generally I think this is a gimmick, it expires at the end of 2026. Really if I needed more than a /40 of IPv6 space between now and the end of 2026 I'd probably also need more IPv4 space and have to move up size categories anyways.? It almost looks like a trap as anyone who takes the bigger space now but doesn't really need it is baking in a doubling of fees when they renew in 2027 but if their organization is still a very small one that doubling of fees could be a strain on them.? I myself did hold out for the 2020-3 to be implemented before requesting IPv6 space as $250/year I can handle but $500 per year would be a strain. > ??? * Implementing a $100 fee for OrgCreate and OrgRecovery > ????? transactions Although I see this maybe being a thing for OrgRecovery as I imagine most of these are for Orgs with legacy resources where there is a strong incentive for someone to try hijacking the Org so an extra level of scrutiny is probably needed.... However I'm thinking for OrgCreate for an entirely new Org if it's taking $100 of labor to do this something is wrong with the process and it needs to be streamlined somehow. I mean for my .ca names I have to be Canadian to hold them but if people had to start paying CIRA $100 to verify their Canadianness before they could get a .ca name that wouldn't go over well. ^_- So I would tend to oppose this fee at least fora? brand new OrgCeate. > ??? * Increasing the transfer processing fee to $500 This seems reasonable. -- Glen A. Pearce gap at ve4.ca Network Manager, Webmaster, Bookkeeper, Fashion Model and Shipping Clerk. Very Eager 4 Tees http://www.ve4.ca ARIN Handle VET-17 -- Glen A. Pearce gap at ve4.ca Network Manager, Webmaster, Bookkeeper, Fashion Model and Shipping Clerk. Very Eager 4 Tees http://www.ve4.ca ARIN Handle VET-17 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arin-consult at ve4.ca Thu Apr 15 09:41:40 2021 From: arin-consult at ve4.ca (Glen A. Pearce) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 07:41:40 -0600 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Policies restricting usage of Internet number resource blocks In-Reply-To: <0784ead9-d3d4-5e1e-d607-ec09b177314a@ve4.ca> References: <0784ead9-d3d4-5e1e-d607-ec09b177314a@ve4.ca> Message-ID: Sorry, accidentally pasted in the wrong thread name. -_- From jcurran at arin.net Thu Apr 15 12:09:30 2021 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 16:09:30 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Glen - Great feedback - thanks for taking the time to write this up! /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers On 15 Apr 2021, at 9:40 AM, Glen A. Pearce > wrote: I'm a 3x-Small organization (literally "the smallest end users" to borrow Owen DeLong's terminology) chiming in. After a few years of reading NANOG I came to the conclusion that the IPv4 to IPv6 transition was going to be long, slow and potentially ugly. So this is why I chose to get my own resources directly from ARIN to cover both bases. -My own IPv4 space so I can go to any ISP that can provision connectivity to my location whether they have IP space of their own available or not. If one or both of the big guys in my market ends up doing carrier grade NAT badly (especially by surprise) or just starts price gouging for IP addresses the independents will probably have a hard time getting enough IPv4 space to take the exodus of customers at that point. (It's even possible the transfer market could at some point lock up with no blocks offered for stretches of time.) A guy that's bringing his own space and just needs bandwidth will be a lot easier to take on. -Getting IPv6 before my local cable company gets around to implementing it. Much easier to get dual stacked and slowly transitioning stuff on my network and have time to get used to everything than having to scramble to do it all at once when/if things finally tip from glacial movement to rapid change. On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 3:38 PM ARIN > wrote: We are consulting with the community regarding changes to the ARIN Fee Schedule that are intended for implementation in January of 2022. These changes are: * Transitioning End Users from annual per-resource maintenance fees to the RSP (Registration Services Plan) Fee Schedule Largely I'm OK with this as I recently converted to a registration services plan myself as I was wanting to get IPv6 space as well so it made more sense to have both and full voting membership under a single $250 fee. (I just submitted a ticket asking about getting a /40 yesterday morning,) As one of "the smallest end users" I don't need more than a /24 of IPv4 space and a /40 of IPv6 space. If the nature of what I do changed enough that I needed more space than that I would probably by that point be a big enough organization that I could handle the higher fees for the larger chunks of IP space under the Registration services plan. Really this will only raise costs for end user organizations with very large singular chunks of space. Generally an organization big enough to actually need even a /22 is big enough it can afford to pay the Registration Services Plan fees for it. It won't impact us "smallest end users" with the possible exception of holders of a single IP block. This could maybe be addressed by making the "ASN-only" category in the proposed new fee structure a "single resource only" category which would apply whether that single resource was an AS, a /24 of IPv4 or a /40 or smaller of IPv6. The IPv4 only holders will eventually realize one day that they need IPv6 as well to be visible to the whole internet and they will upgrade then at their own pace. I'm pretty sure that anyone that at this point has their own IPv6 space and no IPv4 space is either running a hobby/experimental network or is thinking very very long term about larger plans and is thinking it's easier to get their resources now than down the road, either way they probably aren't generating revenue with that IPv6 block right now so for them every penny counts. Finally having everyone under the registration services plan will be simpler for new sign ups than having 2 different fee schedules. * Transitioning Legacy resource holders from annual per-resource maintenance fees to the RSP Fee Schedule while maintaining the annual cap of total maintenance fees (which will increase $25 per year) As long as the fee cap on LRSA holders remains (which I agree it should for all of them and not just the early signers) that would override the difference between the 2 current fee schedules anyways which makes this change immaterial to them. Legacy holders (including those that never signed an LRSA) will all at some point need IPv6, so either they'll have to get it through their ISPs or they'll have to pay RIR fees on those when the point comes that they decide they need it. * Providing a temporary IPv6 fee waiver for organizations in the 3X-Small category that desire a larger address block Generally I think this is a gimmick, it expires at the end of 2026. Really if I needed more than a /40 of IPv6 space between now and the end of 2026 I'd probably also need more IPv4 space and have to move up size categories anyways. It almost looks like a trap as anyone who takes the bigger space now but doesn't really need it is baking in a doubling of fees when they renew in 2027 but if their organization is still a very small one that doubling of fees could be a strain on them. I myself did hold out for the 2020-3 to be implemented before requesting IPv6 space as $250/year I can handle but $500 per year would be a strain. * Implementing a $100 fee for OrgCreate and OrgRecovery transactions Although I see this maybe being a thing for OrgRecovery as I imagine most of these are for Orgs with legacy resources where there is a strong incentive for someone to try hijacking the Org so an extra level of scrutiny is probably needed.... However I'm thinking for OrgCreate for an entirely new Org if it's taking $100 of labor to do this something is wrong with the process and it needs to be streamlined somehow. I mean for my .ca names I have to be Canadian to hold them but if people had to start paying CIRA $100 to verify their Canadianness before they could get a .ca name that wouldn't go over well. ^_- So I would tend to oppose this fee at least fora brand new OrgCeate. * Increasing the transfer processing fee to $500 This seems reasonable. -- Glen A. Pearce gap at ve4.ca Network Manager, Webmaster, Bookkeeper, Fashion Model and Shipping Clerk. Very Eager 4 Tees http://www.ve4.ca ARIN Handle VET-17 -- Glen A. Pearce gap at ve4.ca Network Manager, Webmaster, Bookkeeper, Fashion Model and Shipping Clerk. Very Eager 4 Tees http://www.ve4.ca ARIN Handle VET-17 _______________________________________________ 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 owen at delong.com Tue Apr 20 02:43:07 2021 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 23:43:07 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: <84A4C829-FBE3-40C6-BD5D-0CB141450A44@arin.net> References: <7D33AAB4-5094-446B-8B0D-338F393824A5@arin.net> <75F8BA25-6CC8-4FD1-A199-ECA65B0275E9@arin.net> <5879FCB0-E219-462A-B917-F13D9F219C2B@delong.com> <011CBCE2-9F21-4E24-9AA9-74379A565E40@arin.net> <385DE9DB-F999-4F1F-A273-827A3C6517AE@delong.com> <1435FD4F-6E75-43F7-B88C-C3381B162273@arin.net> <3CFA53AD-A9F7-47E0-AB7D-FC6AF22D115A@arin.net> <062F76A6-4040-4575-A8FB-CAEFC3EC9BDB@delong.com> <5E10C10F-3B78-4D98-ABA8-619445E4CF08@arin.net> <0F75AF22-4DEB-47A9-8A34-A38E273C52D2@arin.net> <7C13BD8D-D8B1-40B2-8C5C-178DCC54CA22@delong.com> <84A4C829-FBE3-40C6-BD5D-0CB141450A44@arin.net> Message-ID: <6F41121C-887E-4E94-9817-99F7E1AA4801@delong.com> > On Apr 15, 2021, at 04:04 , John Curran wrote: > > On 15 Apr 2021, at 4:40 AM, Owen DeLong > wrote: >> We can agree to disagree? > > Indeed - I suspect that will be the case in this circumstance. > >> I don?t see why it is impossible to send organizations that are facing an increase of more than $10,000 if the current plan is adopted a notice that says ?We are considering doing this to you? If you wish to discuss the matter before it is fait accompli, here is how you can participate in the discussion.? > > It is not impossible ? clearly since we already sent these organizations (and many others) a notice which says "We are consulting with the community regarding changes to the ARIN Fee Schedule that are intended for implementation in January of 2022 ? Please view the proposed 2022 Fee Schedule at: https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/2022_fee_schedule/ " > > We could send these organizations a more specific notification calling for them to get involved ? or equally we could send just the 3200 organizations whose fees will be going down a notice that "now is the time for them to get involved!"... Alas, neither is appropriate behavior if we?re to have an open and transparent community consultation about the fee change. I think that the 3200 organizations whose fees will decrease are unlikely to have a ?sticker shock? reaction if this is implemented without their noticing. OTOH, the organizations who face fee increases of more than $10,000 per year are a different class of likely reaction if this comes as a surprise because they ignored a relatively mundane ?we?re thinking about changing fees? notice. Most notices that start off with that are assumed to be somewhere in the range of cost-of-living adjustment (e.g. ~3-5% per year), not a major restructuring of fees in the direction of such a major annual change. If you feel that for the sake of fairness, it?s necessary to send a more alert-worthy notification to every organization saying ?Under the current proposal, your annual fees will change by $?X? (e.g. +$5,000 or -$320), then by all means, send such a notice to each and every member of the community. I?m not opposed to telling everyone what the impact of the change will be, but I am opposed to making such a radical change without at least being very blatant about the impact to the organizations that are hardest hit in the process. > The ability of the Internet community to govern its own registry organization (via a member-elected board and open community consultations) is a huge benefit over many other potential structures, but it comes with a cost ? the portion of the community that makes the effort to read the notices and get involved do have an outsized role in shaping ARIN?s future compared to those who choose otherwise. The notice as it was worded does not convey ?Your fees may go up $10,000 per year or more.?. This is what I am objecting to. Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Tue Apr 20 02:54:09 2021 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 23:54:09 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >> >> On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 3:38 PM ARIN > wrote: >> >>> We are consulting with the community regarding changes to the >>> ARIN Fee Schedule that are intended for implementation in January >>> of 2022. These changes are: >>> >>> * Transitioning End Users from annual per-resource maintenance >>> fees to the RSP (Registration Services Plan) Fee Schedule >> >> Largely I'm OK with this as I recently converted to a registration >> services plan myself as I was wanting to get IPv6 space as well so >> it made more sense to have both and full voting membership under a >> single $250 fee. (I just submitted a ticket asking about getting >> a /40 yesterday morning,) >> >> As one of "the smallest end users" I don't need more than a /24 of IPv4 >> space and a /40 of IPv6 space. If the nature of what I do changed >> enough that I needed more space than that I would probably by that >> point be a big enough organization that I could handle the higher >> fees for the larger chunks of IP space under the Registration >> services plan. >> >> Really this will only raise costs for end user organizations with >> very large singular chunks of space. Generally an organization big >> enough to actually need even a /22 is big enough it can afford to >> pay the Registration Services Plan fees for it. Yes, but the reality is that as soon as you have a /23 + 1 address (e.g. a /23 + a /24), you get jacked. To make matters worse, if you have LRSA and RSA resources, you get double-jacked because ARIN can?t figure out how to bill you for the MAX you owe under either of the two contracts, so they bill you for both. You can consolidate under an RSA, but then your LRSA resources no longer have the protection of the $25/year cap on increases. As a result, you get converted not to a single RSP, but to two RSPs. >> It won't impact us "smallest end users" with the possible exception >> of holders of a single IP block. This could maybe be addressed by >> making the "ASN-only" category in the proposed new fee structure a >> "single resource only" category which would apply whether that single >> resource was an AS, a /24 of IPv4 or a /40 or smaller of IPv6. >> >> The IPv4 only holders will eventually realize one day that they >> need IPv6 as well to be visible to the whole internet and they >> will upgrade then at their own pace. I'm pretty sure that anyone >> that at this point has their own IPv6 space and no IPv4 space is >> either running a hobby/experimental network or is thinking very >> very long term about larger plans and is thinking it's easier to >> get their resources now than down the road, either way they >> probably aren't generating revenue with that IPv6 block right >> now so for them every penny counts. In reality (and this might be worth considering), the current fee structure plan creates an economic incentive for LRSA holders to abandon any IPv6 resources they have in favor of preserving their LRSA fee increase protection. Do we really want to create an even bigger economic incentive to not only avoid implementing IPv6, but to reverse some of the deployments that have already been made? >> Finally having everyone under the registration services plan will >> be simpler for new sign ups than having 2 different fee schedules. >> >>> * Transitioning Legacy resource holders from annual per-resource >>> maintenance fees to the RSP Fee Schedule while maintaining the >>> annual cap of total maintenance fees (which will increase $25 >>> per year) >> >> As long as the fee cap on LRSA holders remains (which I agree it >> should for all of them and not just the early signers) that would >> override the difference between the 2 current fee schedules anyways >> which makes this change immaterial to them. Until those LRSA holders need IPv6. >> Legacy holders (including those that never signed an LRSA) will all >> at some point need IPv6, so either they'll have to get it through >> their ISPs or they'll have to pay RIR fees on those when the point >> comes that they decide they need it. And here?s where the real rub comes in? If you want to keep your LRSA fee protection on your LRSA holdings, you get double-billed. >>> * Providing a temporary IPv6 fee waiver for organizations in >>> the 3X-Small category that desire a larger address block >> >> Generally I think this is a gimmick, it expires at the end of 2026. >> Really if I needed more than a /40 of IPv6 space between now and >> the end of 2026 I'd probably also need more IPv4 space and have >> to move up size categories anyways. It almost looks like a trap >> as anyone who takes the bigger space now but doesn't really need >> it is baking in a doubling of fees when they renew in 2027 but if >> their organization is still a very small one that doubling of fees >> could be a strain on them. I myself did hold out for the 2020-3 >> to be implemented before requesting IPv6 space as $250/year I can >> handle but $500 per year would be a strain. So consider that same strain absolutely applies to every LRSA holder that also holds RSA resources due to the double-billing issue described above. Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Tue Apr 20 11:02:53 2021 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 15:02:53 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9B77CACC-1E7F-4885-9182-4A14AD6F4FCE@arin.net> On 20 Apr 2021, at 2:54 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > ... > So consider that same strain absolutely applies to every LRSA holder > that also holds RSA resources due to the double-billing issue described > above. Owen - ARIN doesn?t ?double bill? for registration services ? organizations have a choice of consolidating their resources under single RSA or not doing so. The annual fee for an organization is set by the total resources under agreement. Each number resource block is under a single RSA and thus are billed _once_ for its associated registration services. For RSA plans that consist entirely of legacy number resources (i.e. blocks issued by ARIN?s predecessor registry entities and now held by the original registrant or their legal successor), then there is a cap on the total annual maintenance fees. There is a benefit to consolidation, but indeed the legacy registration fee cap is not applicable to registration service plans include non-legacy resources. The choice to consolidate under a single RSA or not remains with the customer, and may not be optimum in all cases. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers From dwcarder at es.net Tue Apr 20 11:07:56 2021 From: dwcarder at es.net (Dale W. Carder) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 10:07:56 -0500 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thus spake ARIN (info at arin.net) on Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 04:38:21PM -0400: > ARIN?s Fee Schedule has always been based on the principle of equitable cost recovery across our community through a stable and consistent fee schedule. In general, this means that ARIN has avoided making routine changes to the Fee Schedule (for example, making annual readjustments for changing costs) and instead has only made changes when deemed necessary. I'd challenge the board to consider how the fee schedule could be made sustainable year over year. Certainly with other non-profits I've worked with, a set of published fixed rates doesn't reflect the costs of staff & benefits that increase yearly. Maybe we can get to the point where there are not stair steps but a socially expected 'n'% increase yearly. > We are consulting with the community regarding changes to the ARIN Fee Schedule that are intended for implementation in January of 2022. These changes are: > > * Transitioning End Users from annual per-resource maintenance fees to the RSP (Registration Services Plan) Fee Schedule I have always found the end-user vs lir distinction confusing, but I get why it exists. Are there also policy changes happening (or have happened) in the NPRM that coincide with the change here to treat them the same with respect to services used? It would appear that this could result in a sizable bill increase for orgs used to paying per-resource? Or in practice, does it come out to a wash in which case the simplification is worth it? > * Transitioning Legacy resource holders from annual per-resource maintenance fees to the RSP Fee Schedule while maintaining the annual cap of total maintenance fees (which will increase $25 per year) This seems totally reasonable. > * Providing a temporary IPv6 fee waiver for organizations in the 3X-Small category that desire a larger address block This seems like a gimmick of penetration pricing and a bit disingenuous in the spirit of a membership organization. > * Implementing a $100 fee for OrgCreate and OrgRecovery transactions I guess I'd be slightly careful here that we don't unnecessarily create disincentives for correct registrations due to there being a fee for this. I would have thought this processing fee to be adequately covered in the service category fee (bigger categories probably do more of them, smaller ones less) or bundled into the transfer processing fee (below) > * Increasing the transfer processing fee to $500 I would think that the fee here should be the full cost recovery to process the transaction. Is that the case here? Dale From jcurran at arin.net Tue Apr 20 11:54:22 2021 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 15:54:22 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 20 Apr 2021, at 11:07 AM, Dale W. Carder > wrote: Thus spake ARIN (info at arin.net) on Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 04:38:21PM -0400: ARIN?s Fee Schedule has always been based on the principle of equitable cost recovery across our community through a stable and consistent fee schedule. In general, this means that ARIN has avoided making routine changes to the Fee Schedule (for example, making annual readjustments for changing costs) and instead has only made changes when deemed necessary. I'd challenge the board to consider how the fee schedule could be made sustainable year over year. Certainly with other non-profits I've worked with, a set of published fixed rates doesn't reflect the costs of staff & benefits that increase yearly. Maybe we can get to the point where there are not stair steps but a socially expected 'n'% increase yearly. Dale - It is certainly possible for ARIN to take that approach, but we?ve previously heard input that says ?Keep my fees the same each year so that I don?t need to get approval to renew any higher number?? We?d need to have quite a bit of community feedback before going to any annually adjusting model compared to our present ?review every four or five years? approach. We are consulting with the community regarding changes to the ARIN Fee Schedule that are intended for implementation in January of 2022. These changes are: * Transitioning End Users from annual per-resource maintenance fees to the RSP (Registration Services Plan) Fee Schedule I have always found the end-user vs lir distinction confusing, but I get why it exists. Indeed - it is a frequently cited concern. Are there also policy changes happening (or have happened) in the NPRM that coincide with the change here to treat them the same with respect to services used? It would appear that this could result in a sizable bill increase for orgs used to paying per-resource? Or in practice, does it come out to a wash in which case the simplification is worth it? The number resource policy manual is fairly agnostic on fees and services, and our traditional approach to issuance has end-user organizations receiving significantly smaller blocks than service providers; as such, it doesn?t appear that any policy changes are necessitating by the fee change. (As I noted in a message to arin-consult on 14 April 2021, the community may explore potential policies that restrict subassignment of address blocks of ?end-users?, but that?s entirely up to the community as to the merit/issues in doing so...) * Transitioning Legacy resource holders from annual per-resource maintenance fees to the RSP Fee Schedule while maintaining the annual cap of total maintenance fees (which will increase $25 per year) This seems totally reasonable. * Providing a temporary IPv6 fee waiver for organizations in the 3X-Small category that desire a larger address block This seems like a gimmick of penetration pricing and a bit disingenuous in the spirit of a membership organization. Alas, it is not clear that a permanent fee change is viable over the long-term for the organization, and yet there was support in providing some option for very small organizations to obtain larger IPv6 blocks - that left us with the waiver as the best approach for the time being. * Implementing a $100 fee for OrgCreate and OrgRecovery transactions I guess I'd be slightly careful here that we don't unnecessarily create disincentives for correct registrations due to there being a fee for this. I would have thought this processing fee to be adequately covered in the service category fee (bigger categories probably do more of them, smaller ones less) or bundled into the transfer processing fee (below) It?s important to encourage accurate recordkeeping and that would suggest that no fee is preferred, but we also should have some consideration for vetting services conducted and the contract being entered. It was felt that $100 struck a reasonable balance between these two goals. * Increasing the transfer processing fee to $500 I would think that the fee here should be the full cost recovery to process the transaction. Is that the case here? We?ve got some real challenges with equitable fees for transfers? It?s important to encourage accurate recordkeeping, and that means that a fixed fee is preferred despite the highly variable costs. In addition, there are many teams involved, including registration, finance, and legal. We realize that transfers were having a substantial toll on the organization, so we did a review of the full set of 2019 transfers and the costs incurred (see below) which resulted in a clear understanding that the present $300 fee was insufficient ? [cid:00258BCF-626D-4F6E-BC4C-BC3D6585E66E] Great feedback, and I hope the above information is helpful in understanding some of the factors that led to the proposed change. Thanks again! /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Screen Shot 2021-04-20 at 11.46.51 AM.png Type: image/png Size: 14494 bytes Desc: Screen Shot 2021-04-20 at 11.46.51 AM.png URL: From mike at iptrading.com Tue Apr 20 12:24:53 2021 From: mike at iptrading.com (Mike Burns) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 12:24:53 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <028501d73601$b22586f0$167094d0$@iptrading.com> Hi John, Side topic. How can the cost of 8.2 transfers be so low compared to 8.3 and 8.4 transfers? This makes no sense to me as 8.2 transfers take longer and seem to involve a lot more work. Regards, Mike From: ARIN-consult On Behalf Of John Curran Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 11:54 AM To: Dale W. Carder Cc: Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees On 20 Apr 2021, at 11:07 AM, Dale W. Carder > wrote: Thus spake ARIN (info at arin.net ) on Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 04:38:21PM -0400: ARIN?s Fee Schedule has always been based on the principle of equitable cost recovery across our community through a stable and consistent fee schedule. In general, this means that ARIN has avoided making routine changes to the Fee Schedule (for example, making annual readjustments for changing costs) and instead has only made changes when deemed necessary. I'd challenge the board to consider how the fee schedule could be made sustainable year over year. Certainly with other non-profits I've worked with, a set of published fixed rates doesn't reflect the costs of staff & benefits that increase yearly. Maybe we can get to the point where there are not stair steps but a socially expected 'n'% increase yearly. Dale - It is certainly possible for ARIN to take that approach, but we?ve previously heard input that says ?Keep my fees the same each year so that I don?t need to get approval to renew any higher number?? We?d need to have quite a bit of community feedback before going to any annually adjusting model compared to our present ?review every four or five years? approach. We are consulting with the community regarding changes to the ARIN Fee Schedule that are intended for implementation in January of 2022. These changes are: * Transitioning End Users from annual per-resource maintenance fees to the RSP (Registration Services Plan) Fee Schedule I have always found the end-user vs lir distinction confusing, but I get why it exists. Indeed - it is a frequently cited concern. Are there also policy changes happening (or have happened) in the NPRM that coincide with the change here to treat them the same with respect to services used? It would appear that this could result in a sizable bill increase for orgs used to paying per-resource? Or in practice, does it come out to a wash in which case the simplification is worth it? The number resource policy manual is fairly agnostic on fees and services, and our traditional approach to issuance has end-user organizations receiving significantly smaller blocks than service providers; as such, it doesn?t appear that any policy changes are necessitating by the fee change. (As I noted in a message to arin-consult on 14 April 2021, the community may explore potential policies that restrict subassignment of address blocks of ?end-users?, but that?s entirely up to the community as to the merit/issues in doing so...) * Transitioning Legacy resource holders from annual per-resource maintenance fees to the RSP Fee Schedule while maintaining the annual cap of total maintenance fees (which will increase $25 per year) This seems totally reasonable. * Providing a temporary IPv6 fee waiver for organizations in the 3X-Small category that desire a larger address block This seems like a gimmick of penetration pricing and a bit disingenuous in the spirit of a membership organization. Alas, it is not clear that a permanent fee change is viable over the long-term for the organization, and yet there was support in providing some option for very small organizations to obtain larger IPv6 blocks - that left us with the waiver as the best approach for the time being. * Implementing a $100 fee for OrgCreate and OrgRecovery transactions I guess I'd be slightly careful here that we don't unnecessarily create disincentives for correct registrations due to there being a fee for this. I would have thought this processing fee to be adequately covered in the service category fee (bigger categories probably do more of them, smaller ones less) or bundled into the transfer processing fee (below) It?s important to encourage accurate recordkeeping and that would suggest that no fee is preferred, but we also should have some consideration for vetting services conducted and the contract being entered. It was felt that $100 struck a reasonable balance between these two goals. * Increasing the transfer processing fee to $500 I would think that the fee here should be the full cost recovery to process the transaction. Is that the case here? We?ve got some real challenges with equitable fees for transfers? It?s important to encourage accurate recordkeeping, and that means that a fixed fee is preferred despite the highly variable costs. In addition, there are many teams involved, including registration, finance, and legal. We realize that transfers were having a substantial toll on the organization, so we did a review of the full set of 2019 transfers and the costs incurred (see below) which resulted in a clear understanding that the present $300 fee was insufficient ? Great feedback, and I hope the above information is helpful in understanding some of the factors that led to the proposed change. Thanks again! /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 14494 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com Tue Apr 20 12:26:14 2021 From: gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com (Gary Buhrmaster) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 16:26:14 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 3:08 PM Dale W. Carder wrote: > > * Increasing the transfer processing fee to $500 > > I would think that the fee here should be the full cost recovery to process the > transaction. Is that the case here? I cannot imagine that a fixed price is full cost recovery for all recoveries and transactions. Organizations which have a long history with ARIN under an RSA would presumably not take as much staff resources to vet as a case where one needs to establish the proper association of an org claiming to be the rightful successor for a legacy block which has not seen registry updates for decades (and may have changed business names, locations, phone numbers, and organizational members half a dozen times over that time period). I would certainly prefer to see there to be a minimum, and probably a maximum, but otherwise have a sliding scale that would more accurately reflect the staff resources needed to determine appropriate entries and charge those that require more work a higher fee. Perhaps a fee based on a few steps (trivial, simple, hard, really really really hard), but that only makes sense if the transfers that ARIN have made could be easily categorized into a small set of groups and there is a substantial distinction in the effort involved by staff for those groups. In any case, as long as $500 moves in the right direction of actual costs, it seems the correct (first?) step. From jcurran at arin.net Tue Apr 20 12:27:17 2021 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 16:27:17 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: <028501d73601$b22586f0$167094d0$@iptrading.com> References: <028501d73601$b22586f0$167094d0$@iptrading.com> Message-ID: <47E1116E-FB99-48FC-96D9-9DACAB817BE3@arin.net> Mike - There are very clean and routine everyday 8.2 transfers that occur? company renaming or complete acquisition where the supporting documentation is routine and current - definitely brings down the average quite a bit. /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers On 20 Apr 2021, at 12:24 PM, Mike Burns > wrote: Hi John, Side topic. How can the cost of 8.2 transfers be so low compared to 8.3 and 8.4 transfers? This makes no sense to me as 8.2 transfers take longer and seem to involve a lot more work. Regards, Mike From: ARIN-consult > On Behalf Of John Curran Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 11:54 AM To: Dale W. Carder > Cc: > > Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees On 20 Apr 2021, at 11:07 AM, Dale W. Carder > wrote: Thus spake ARIN (info at arin.net) on Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 04:38:21PM -0400: ARIN?s Fee Schedule has always been based on the principle of equitable cost recovery across our community through a stable and consistent fee schedule. In general, this means that ARIN has avoided making routine changes to the Fee Schedule (for example, making annual readjustments for changing costs) and instead has only made changes when deemed necessary. I'd challenge the board to consider how the fee schedule could be made sustainable year over year. Certainly with other non-profits I've worked with, a set of published fixed rates doesn't reflect the costs of staff & benefits that increase yearly. Maybe we can get to the point where there are not stair steps but a socially expected 'n'% increase yearly. Dale - It is certainly possible for ARIN to take that approach, but we?ve previously heard input that says ?Keep my fees the same each year so that I don?t need to get approval to renew any higher number?? We?d need to have quite a bit of community feedback before going to any annually adjusting model compared to our present ?review every four or five years? approach. We are consulting with the community regarding changes to the ARIN Fee Schedule that are intended for implementation in January of 2022. These changes are: * Transitioning End Users from annual per-resource maintenance fees to the RSP (Registration Services Plan) Fee Schedule I have always found the end-user vs lir distinction confusing, but I get why it exists. Indeed - it is a frequently cited concern. Are there also policy changes happening (or have happened) in the NPRM that coincide with the change here to treat them the same with respect to services used? It would appear that this could result in a sizable bill increase for orgs used to paying per-resource? Or in practice, does it come out to a wash in which case the simplification is worth it? The number resource policy manual is fairly agnostic on fees and services, and our traditional approach to issuance has end-user organizations receiving significantly smaller blocks than service providers; as such, it doesn?t appear that any policy changes are necessitating by the fee change. (As I noted in a message to arin-consult on 14 April 2021, the community may explore potential policies that restrict subassignment of address blocks of ?end-users?, but that?s entirely up to the community as to the merit/issues in doing so...) * Transitioning Legacy resource holders from annual per-resource maintenance fees to the RSP Fee Schedule while maintaining the annual cap of total maintenance fees (which will increase $25 per year) This seems totally reasonable. * Providing a temporary IPv6 fee waiver for organizations in the 3X-Small category that desire a larger address block This seems like a gimmick of penetration pricing and a bit disingenuous in the spirit of a membership organization. Alas, it is not clear that a permanent fee change is viable over the long-term for the organization, and yet there was support in providing some option for very small organizations to obtain larger IPv6 blocks - that left us with the waiver as the best approach for the time being. * Implementing a $100 fee for OrgCreate and OrgRecovery transactions I guess I'd be slightly careful here that we don't unnecessarily create disincentives for correct registrations due to there being a fee for this. I would have thought this processing fee to be adequately covered in the service category fee (bigger categories probably do more of them, smaller ones less) or bundled into the transfer processing fee (below) It?s important to encourage accurate recordkeeping and that would suggest that no fee is preferred, but we also should have some consideration for vetting services conducted and the contract being entered. It was felt that $100 struck a reasonable balance between these two goals. * Increasing the transfer processing fee to $500 I would think that the fee here should be the full cost recovery to process the transaction. Is that the case here? We?ve got some real challenges with equitable fees for transfers? It?s important to encourage accurate recordkeeping, and that means that a fixed fee is preferred despite the highly variable costs. In addition, there are many teams involved, including registration, finance, and legal. We realize that transfers were having a substantial toll on the organization, so we did a review of the full set of 2019 transfers and the costs incurred (see below) which resulted in a clear understanding that the present $300 fee was insufficient ? Great feedback, and I hope the above information is helpful in understanding some of the factors that led to the proposed change. Thanks again! /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Thu Apr 22 01:38:51 2021 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 22:38:51 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: <9B77CACC-1E7F-4885-9182-4A14AD6F4FCE@arin.net> References: <9B77CACC-1E7F-4885-9182-4A14AD6F4FCE@arin.net> Message-ID: <681403CC-7A1C-4C38-87C9-1167D0358624@delong.com> > On Apr 20, 2021, at 08:02 , John Curran wrote: > > On 20 Apr 2021, at 2:54 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> ... >> So consider that same strain absolutely applies to every LRSA holder >> that also holds RSA resources due to the double-billing issue described >> above. > > Owen - > > ARIN doesn?t ?double bill? for registration services ? organizations have a choice of consolidating their resources under single RSA or not doing so. The annual fee for an organization is set by the total resources under agreement. Each number resource block is under a single RSA and thus are billed _once_ for its associated registration services. When I signed the RSA and LRSA, I had one ORG called DELONG and one bill. When ARIN moved from end-user fee-per-org to end-user fee-per-resource entry billing, I was converted from one org to two orgs and suddenly started getting two bills. As far as I?m concerned, I have a single organization that has resources under two RSAs. ARIN changed that without my consent and without offering me any sort of opt-out of the adverse results of their changing the conditions under which I agreed to the LRSA. If I knew then what I know now, I would never have signed the LRSA. > For RSA plans that consist entirely of legacy number resources (i.e. blocks issued by ARIN?s predecessor registry entities and now held by the original registrant or their legal successor), then there is a cap on the total annual maintenance fees. There is a benefit to consolidation, but indeed the legacy registration fee cap is not applicable to registration service plans include non-legacy resources. The choice to consolidate under a single RSA or not remains with the customer, and may not be optimum in all cases. Right, so this is a fancy way of saying if you don?t want to consolidate, we?re going to bill you twice for what used to be billed as a single organization. Owen From jcurran at arin.net Thu Apr 22 05:30:25 2021 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 09:30:25 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: <681403CC-7A1C-4C38-87C9-1167D0358624@delong.com> References: <9B77CACC-1E7F-4885-9182-4A14AD6F4FCE@arin.net> <681403CC-7A1C-4C38-87C9-1167D0358624@delong.com> Message-ID: <24852622-9DB1-4F01-8A2E-79EC2F27A0E1@arin.net> On 22 Apr 2021, at 1:38 AM, Owen DeLong > wrote: For RSA plans that consist entirely of legacy number resources (i.e. blocks issued by ARIN?s predecessor registry entities and now held by the original registrant or their legal successor), then there is a cap on the total annual maintenance fees. There is a benefit to consolidation, but indeed the legacy registration fee cap is not applicable to registration service plans include non-legacy resources. The choice to consolidate under a single RSA or not remains with the customer, and may not be optimum in all cases. Right, so this is a fancy way of saying if you don?t want to consolidate, we?re going to bill you twice for what used to be billed as a single organization. Owen - It is not particularly fancy or complicated: it is simply confirming that the choice is yours ? you can consolidate under a single agreement, pay what everyone else is paying (and less than you are paying today), or can maintain separate agreements and pay more for the sake of maintaining the provision that caps fee changes for your legacy resource holdings. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Thu Apr 22 23:13:40 2021 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 20:13:40 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: <24852622-9DB1-4F01-8A2E-79EC2F27A0E1@arin.net> References: <9B77CACC-1E7F-4885-9182-4A14AD6F4FCE@arin.net> <681403CC-7A1C-4C38-87C9-1167D0358624@delong.com> <24852622-9DB1-4F01-8A2E-79EC2F27A0E1@arin.net> Message-ID: <8172ECA6-8ED7-4F77-AE5A-422A4FD21140@delong.com> > On Apr 22, 2021, at 02:30 , John Curran wrote: > > On 22 Apr 2021, at 1:38 AM, Owen DeLong > wrote: >> >>> For RSA plans that consist entirely of legacy number resources (i.e. blocks issued by ARIN?s predecessor registry entities and now held by the original registrant or their legal successor), then there is a cap on the total annual maintenance fees. There is a benefit to consolidation, but indeed the legacy registration fee cap is not applicable to registration service plans include non-legacy resources. The choice to consolidate under a single RSA or not remains with the customer, and may not be optimum in all cases. >> >> Right, so this is a fancy way of saying if you don?t want to consolidate, we?re going to bill you twice for what used to be billed as a single organization. > > Owen - > > It is not particularly fancy or complicated: it is simply confirming that the choice is yours ? you can consolidate under a single agreement, pay what everyone else is paying (and less than you are paying today), or can maintain separate agreements and pay more for the sake of maintaining the provision that caps fee changes for your legacy resource holdings. It wouldn?t actually be less than I am paying today. Today, it would be more because I?d lose the fee increase cap on two of my resources. (Though at the next billing cycle, I think that ends up being a wash if we keep the current billing system). It would be less than you?re probably about to start charging me under the proposed restructure where I?m forced into not one, but two RSPs if I?m not willing to either abandon my fee increase cap or abandon IPv6. Even if I went to a single RSP, unless I?m willing to abandon part or all of my IPv4 it would still be an increase vs. what I?m paying now, though not quite as steep of one as what is currently proposed. What I don?t understand is why ARIN can?t treat both classes of RSA under a single ORG and bill accordingly as MAX(fee_cap,std_rsa). Which would initially result in slightly higher fees than I currently pay and eventually (in about 2-3 years) result in my paying the same as I would pay if I consolidated RSAs and the board didn?t come up with a new creative way to restructure the fee plan to extract even more revenue while pretending it?s not a price-hike. Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Thu Apr 22 23:22:56 2021 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 20:22:56 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > On Apr 20, 2021, at 09:26 , Gary Buhrmaster wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 3:08 PM Dale W. Carder wrote: > > >>> * Increasing the transfer processing fee to $500 >> >> I would think that the fee here should be the full cost recovery to process the >> transaction. Is that the case here? > > I cannot imagine that a fixed price is full cost recovery > for all recoveries and transactions. > > Organizations which have a long history with ARIN > under an RSA would presumably not take as much > staff resources to vet as a case where one needs to > establish the proper association of an org claiming > to be the rightful successor for a legacy block which > has not seen registry updates for decades (and > may have changed business names, locations, phone > numbers, and organizational members half a dozen > times over that time period). > > I would certainly prefer to see there to be a > minimum, and probably a maximum, but otherwise > have a sliding scale that would more accurately > reflect the staff resources needed to determine > appropriate entries and charge those that > require more work a higher fee. Perhaps a > fee based on a few steps (trivial, simple, hard, really > really really hard), but that only makes sense if > the transfers that ARIN have made could be easily > categorized into a small set of groups and there > is a substantial distinction in the effort involved by > staff for those groups. Wouldn?t most of that fall under the ORG Create/Recovery process prior to the transfer? It does occur to me that rather than charging. $100 for every ORG Create/ORG Recovery, it might make more sense to charge a more nominal fee for simple ORG Creates and allow for two fees for transfers: e.g. $350 for transfers involving established ORGs with ?clean title? for lack of a better term and $600 for transfers requiring an ORG Recovery or other investigation of provenance. These numbers are just straw-man examples with no research. I?ll leave it to staff if they wish to consider the implications of this idea and approach. > In any case, as long as $500 moves in the > right direction of actual costs, it seems the > correct (first?) step. It certainly seems a viable first step and I?m not opposed to it, but I wonder if we can?t do better. Owen From ljb at merit.edu Fri Apr 23 01:42:16 2021 From: ljb at merit.edu (Larry Blunk) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 01:42:16 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: <24852622-9DB1-4F01-8A2E-79EC2F27A0E1@arin.net> References: <9B77CACC-1E7F-4885-9182-4A14AD6F4FCE@arin.net> <681403CC-7A1C-4C38-87C9-1167D0358624@delong.com> <24852622-9DB1-4F01-8A2E-79EC2F27A0E1@arin.net> Message-ID: It would be incredibly helpful if we had several example cases presented. We have a number of members with legacy /16 assignments. Some have signed LRSA agreements, but a number have not. There are some who also have RSA agreements for IPv6 space from ARIN, but have not yet signed LRSA agreements for their IPv4 space. There's some confusion about what fees they would pay under the different scenarios. On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 5:30 AM John Curran wrote: > > On 22 Apr 2021, at 1:38 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > > For RSA plans that consist entirely of legacy number resources (i.e. blocks issued by ARIN?s predecessor registry entities and now held by the original registrant or their legal successor), then there is a cap on the total annual maintenance fees. There is a benefit to consolidation, but indeed the legacy registration fee cap is not applicable to registration service plans include non-legacy resources. The choice to consolidate under a single RSA or not remains with the customer, and may not be optimum in all cases. > > > Right, so this is a fancy way of saying if you don?t want to consolidate, we?re going to bill you twice for what used to be billed as a single organization. > > > Owen - > > It is not particularly fancy or complicated: it is simply confirming that the choice is yours ? you can consolidate under a single agreement, pay what everyone else is paying (and less than you are paying today), or can maintain separate agreements and pay more for the sake of maintaining the provision that caps fee changes for your legacy resource holdings. > > Thanks, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > American Registry for Internet Numbers > > > _______________________________________________ > 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. From jcurran at arin.net Fri Apr 23 10:03:55 2021 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 14:03:55 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: References: <9B77CACC-1E7F-4885-9182-4A14AD6F4FCE@arin.net> <681403CC-7A1C-4C38-87C9-1167D0358624@delong.com> <24852622-9DB1-4F01-8A2E-79EC2F27A0E1@arin.net> Message-ID: On 23 Apr 2021, at 1:42 AM, Larry Blunk > wrote: It would be incredibly helpful if we had several example cases presented. We have a number of members with legacy /16 assignments. Some have signed LRSA agreements, but a number have not. There are some who also have RSA agreements for IPv6 space from ARIN, but have not yet signed LRSA agreements for their IPv4 space. There's some confusion about what fees they would pay under the different scenarios. Larry - I am quite happy to elaborate on some of situations that would be typical of your members. In general, those with legacy IPv4 assignments who have signed LRSA?s are presently paying ARIN?s typical end-user annual maintenance fees of $150 per IP address block per year, but have the with the benefit of a total cap on legacy resource maintenance fees of $150 per organization per year (a cap which may increase up to $25 each year, and will go up to $175 in 2021) Those who have entered into an LRSA receive all of ARIN?s registration services ? including those that have been funded by the community since ARIN?s formation such as our RPKI and authenticated IRR services (Those who have not entered into an LRSA with ARIN have been receiving basic registration services for free since ARIN?s formation.) We are transitioning to a single fee schedule for all customers, and this means that all customers will pay the same fees per ARIN?s Registration Services Plan (RSP) schedule; note that under the RSP schedule the fee category is proportional to the size their total IPv4 address holdings. (For organizations with both IPv4 and IPv6 resources, a single fee category is utilized based on the larger of the two resource holdings - thus allowing all organizations to add proportionate amounts of IPv6 without incurring any additional costs.) ARIN?s current Registration Services Fee schedule is here - https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/, and you will note that it is very similar to the one in the consultation; i.e. we?re not changing the RSP fee schedule but simply making it equally applicable to all customers. Organizations that have a /16 of IPv4 number resources are considered Medium size category, and pay a $4000 annual registration services fee. This replaces the $150 per object ?end-user? fee schedule that many of your members with legacy resources pay today. However, the total cap of legacy resource maintenance fees remains unchanged, so these organizations would pay $4000, but it is still capped and invoiced at $175 for 2021, $200 in 2022, etc.) For organizations that have obtained IPv6 resources from ARIN under a separate RSA, the two most common size allocations are /32 (generally issued to ISPs) and /28 (generally issued to organizations for their own use). ARIN?s RSP fee schedule considers organizations with /40 or smaller of IPv6 to be 3X-small (with a fee of $250 per year), and those who have /32 to be X-small (with a fee of $1,000 per year.) For any of your members that have relatively small IPv4 resource holdings (i.e. between /20 and /24) and have IPv6 space from ARIN, it indeed might make sense to consolidate to a single RSA depending of the exact amount of IPv4 and IPv6 resources held - ARIN?s Registration Services Department will be able to review options with any of your members who are interested (+1.703.227.0660) For those legacy resources holders with /16 blocks, I suspect that maintaining the separate LRSA with ARIN for legacy resource services and the applicable legacy fee cap will make the most sense (at least for the foreseeable future.) I?ve quickly outlined the three most common cases below for your legacy IPv6 resource holders and believe them to be correct (although it has not been proofed by second set of eyes). I?ll note that all presume that that the organizations would not consolidate to a single agreement with ARIN for reason noted above. Please don?t hesitate to let me know if you have any further questions on any of this and best wishes! /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers === ARIN registration fees for legacy /16 resource holders under LRSA today and in 2021 Organization #1 with legacy /16 IPv4 under LRSA and no IPv6 resources TODAY - LRSA Legacy /16 IPv4 $150 per object Legacy Fee Cap $150 = $ 150 - - - - = - $ 150 total Organization #1 with legacy /16 IPv4 under LRSA and no IPv6 resources in 2021 - LRSA Legacy /16 IPv4 $4000 (Medium RSP) Legacy Fee Cap $175 = $ 175 - - - - = - $ 175 total Organization #2 with legacy /16 IPv4 under LRSA and /48 IPv6 resources TODAY - LRSA Legacy /16 IPv4 $150 per object Legacy Fee Cap $150 = $ 150 RSA IPv6 /48 $250 (3X small RSP) = $ 250 $ 400 total Organization #2 with legacy /16 IPv4 under LRSA and /48 IPv6 resources in 2021 - LRSA Legacy /16 IPv4 $4000 (Medium RSP) Legacy Fee Cap $175 = $ 175 RSA IPv6 /48 $250 (3X small RSP) = $ 250 $ 425 total Organization #3 with legacy /16 IPv4 under LRSA and /32 IPv6 resources TODAY - LRSA Legacy /16 IPv4 $150 per object Legacy Fee Cap $150 = $ 150 RSA IPv6 /32 $1000 (X-small RSP) = $1000 $1150 total Organization #3 with legacy /16 IPv4 under LRSA and /32 IPv6 resources in 2021 - LRSA Legacy /16 IPv4 $4000 (Medium RSP) Legacy Fee Cap $175 = $ 175 RSA IPv6 /32 $1000 (X-small RSP) = $1000 $1175 total === -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Fri Apr 23 10:33:45 2021 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 14:33:45 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: References: <9B77CACC-1E7F-4885-9182-4A14AD6F4FCE@arin.net> <681403CC-7A1C-4C38-87C9-1167D0358624@delong.com> <24852622-9DB1-4F01-8A2E-79EC2F27A0E1@arin.net> Message-ID: <22664F85-170D-4F72-9CD1-649ECE27D402@arin.net> On 23 Apr 2021, at 10:03 AM, John Curran > wrote: ... For organizations that have obtained IPv6 resources from ARIN under a separate RSA, the two most common size allocations are /32 (generally issued to ISPs) and /28 (generally issued to organizations for their own use). The above sentence should read "For organizations that have obtained IPv6 resources from ARIN under a separate RSA, the two most common size allocations are /32 (generally issued to ISPs) and /48 (generally issued to organizations for their own use)." (i.e. /48 not /28) For those legacy resources holders with /16 blocks, I suspect that maintaining the separate LRSA with ARIN for legacy resource services and the applicable legacy fee cap will make the most sense (at least for the foreseeable future.) I?ve quickly outlined the three most common cases below for your legacy IPv6 resource holders and believe them to be correct (although it has not been proofed by second set of eyes). I?ll note that all presume that that the organizations would not consolidate to a single agreement with ARIN for reason noted above. As the table may not have been readable for some depending on their mail agent, I?ve quickly reformatted and attached as pdf. Best wishes, /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: merit.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 34644 bytes Desc: merit.pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farmer at umn.edu Fri Apr 23 10:39:51 2021 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 09:39:51 -0500 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: References: <9B77CACC-1E7F-4885-9182-4A14AD6F4FCE@arin.net> <681403CC-7A1C-4C38-87C9-1167D0358624@delong.com> <24852622-9DB1-4F01-8A2E-79EC2F27A0E1@arin.net> Message-ID: Comments inline. On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 9:04 AM John Curran wrote: > On 23 Apr 2021, at 1:42 AM, Larry Blunk wrote: > > > It would be incredibly helpful if we had several example cases > presented. We have a number of members with legacy /16 assignments. > Some have signed LRSA agreements, but a number have not. There are > some who also have RSA agreements for IPv6 space from ARIN, but have > not yet signed LRSA agreements for their IPv4 space. There's some > confusion about what fees they would pay under the different > scenarios. > > > Larry - > > I am quite happy to elaborate on some of situations that would be typical > of your members. In general, those with legacy IPv4 assignments who have > signed LRSA?s are presently paying ARIN?s typical end-user annual > maintenance fees of $150 per IP address block per year, but have the with > the benefit of a total cap on legacy resource maintenance fees of $150 per > organization per year (a cap which may increase up to $25 each year, and > will go up to $175 in 2021) > > Those who have entered into an LRSA receive all of ARIN?s registration > services ? including those that have been funded by the community since > ARIN?s formation such as our RPKI and authenticated IRR services (Those who > have not entered into an LRSA with ARIN have been receiving basic > registration services for free since ARIN?s formation.) > > We are transitioning to a single fee schedule for all customers, and this > means that all customers will pay the same fees per ARIN?s Registration > Services Plan (RSP) schedule; note that under the RSP schedule the fee > category is proportional to the size their total IPv4 address holdings. > (For organizations with both IPv4 and IPv6 resources, a single fee category > is utilized based on the larger of the two resource holdings - thus > allowing all organizations to add proportionate amounts of IPv6 without > incurring any additional costs.) ARIN?s current Registration Services Fee > schedule is here - https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/, and > you will note that it is very similar to the one in the consultation; i.e. > we?re not changing the RSP fee schedule but simply making it equally > applicable to all customers. > > Organizations that have a /16 of IPv4 number resources are considered > Medium size category, and pay a $4000 annual registration services fee. > This replaces the $150 per object ?end-user? fee schedule that many of your > members with legacy resources pay today. However, the total cap of legacy > resource maintenance fees remains unchanged, so these organizations would > pay $4000, but it is still capped and invoiced at $175 for 2021, $200 in > 2022, etc.) > I just looked at the invoices for our Legacy Org ID and for 2021, 2020, and 2019 we were invoiced $125. In 2018, 2017, and 2015 we were invoiced $150, and $175 in 2016. I point this out because it doesn't quite match what you have been saying, especially for 2020 and 2021 prior to this change being implemented. > For organizations that have obtained IPv6 resources from ARIN under a > separate RSA, the two most common size allocations are /32 (generally > issued to ISPs) and /28 (generally issued to organizations for their own > use). ARIN?s RSP fee schedule considers organizations > I think you meant /48 not /28 in the above. with /40 or smaller of IPv6 to be 3X-small (with a fee of $250 per year), > and those who have /32 to be X-small (with a fee of $1,000 per year.) > > For any of your members that have relatively small IPv4 resource holdings > (i.e. between /20 and /24) and have IPv6 space from ARIN, it indeed might > make sense to consolidate to a single RSA depending of the exact amount of > IPv4 and IPv6 resources held - ARIN?s Registration Services Department will > be able to review options with any of your members who are interested > (+1.703.227.0660) > > For those legacy resources holders with /16 blocks, I suspect that > maintaining the separate LRSA with ARIN for legacy resource services and > the applicable legacy fee cap will make the most sense (at least for the > foreseeable future.) I?ve quickly outlined the three most common cases > below for your legacy IPv6 resource holders and believe them to be correct > (although it has not been proofed by second set of eyes). I?ll note that > all presume that that the organizations would not consolidate to a single > agreement with ARIN for reason noted above. > John, I understand the reasoning for the Legacy Org separation, however, explaining this to financial people and executives unfamiliar with ARIN and its history can be difficult sometimes. It would be really helpful if we could receive one unified invoice for the two related but separate Org identifiers, instead of two separate invoices at completely separate times of the year. Or, at least can we get both invoices at the same time, if they need to remain separate invoices. I invariably, get the question "didn't we pay this already this year" every time the invoice comes for the second of the two related but separate Org IDs. > Please don?t hesitate to let me know if you have any further questions on > any of this and best wishes! > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > American Registry for Internet Numbers > > > === ARIN registration fees for legacy /16 resource holders under LRSA > today and in 2021 > > Organization #1 with legacy /16 IPv4 under LRSA and no IPv6 resources > TODAY - > > LRSA Legacy /16 IPv4 $150 per object Legacy Fee Cap $150 = $ 150 > - - - - = - > $ 150 total > > Organization #1 with legacy /16 IPv4 under LRSA and no IPv6 resources in > 2021 - > > LRSA Legacy /16 IPv4 $4000 (Medium RSP) Legacy Fee Cap $175 = $ 175 > - - - - = - > $ 175 total > > Organization #2 with legacy /16 IPv4 under LRSA and /48 IPv6 resources > TODAY - > > LRSA Legacy /16 IPv4 $150 per object Legacy Fee Cap $150 = $ 150 > RSA IPv6 /48 $250 (3X small RSP) = $ 250 > $ 400 total > > Organization #2 with legacy /16 IPv4 under LRSA and /48 IPv6 resources in > 2021 - > > LRSA Legacy /16 IPv4 $4000 (Medium RSP) Legacy Fee Cap $175 = $ 175 > RSA IPv6 /48 $250 (3X small RSP) = $ 250 > $ 425 total > > Organization #3 with legacy /16 IPv4 under LRSA and /32 IPv6 resources > TODAY - > > LRSA Legacy /16 IPv4 $150 per object Legacy Fee Cap $150 = $ 150 > RSA IPv6 /32 $1000 (X-small RSP) = $1000 > $1150 total > > Organization #3 with legacy /16 IPv4 under LRSA and /32 IPv6 resources in > 2021 - > > LRSA Legacy /16 IPv4 $4000 (Medium RSP) Legacy Fee Cap $175 = $ 175 > RSA IPv6 /32 $1000 (X-small RSP) = $1000 > $1175 total > === > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu 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 =============================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Fri Apr 23 12:34:34 2021 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 16:34:34 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: References: <9B77CACC-1E7F-4885-9182-4A14AD6F4FCE@arin.net> <681403CC-7A1C-4C38-87C9-1167D0358624@delong.com> <24852622-9DB1-4F01-8A2E-79EC2F27A0E1@arin.net> Message-ID: On 23 Apr 2021, at 10:39 AM, David Farmer wrote: > > Comments inline. > > I just looked at the invoices for our Legacy Org ID and for 2021, 2020, and 2019 we were invoiced $125. In 2018, 2017, and 2015 we were invoiced $150, and $175 in 2016. I point this out because it doesn't quite match what you have been saying, especially for 2020 and 2021 prior to this change being implemented. Yes, I?m apparently out of sync? As it turns out, the 2018 fee consultation had some ambiguity as to whether this limit was being raised in 2019 to $150, and so we did not change it at that time. I routinely think back to what was planned rather than implemented, and indeed I stand corrected - our legacy fee cap is presently $125 per year, going to $150 for 2022, and increasing $25 per year each succeeding year. Thanks for catching that! > John, I understand the reasoning for the Legacy Org separation, however, explaining this to financial people and executives unfamiliar with ARIN and its history can be difficult sometimes. It would be really helpful if we could receive one unified invoice for the two related but separate Org identifiers, instead of two separate invoices at completely separate times of the year. Or, at least can we get both invoices at the same time, if they need to remain separate invoices. I invariably, get the question "didn't we pay this already this year" every time the invoice comes for the second of the two related but separate Org IDs. Acknowledged - we?ll look into options for better presentation. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers From owen at delong.com Mon Apr 26 14:21:45 2021 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 11:21:45 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: <22664F85-170D-4F72-9CD1-649ECE27D402@arin.net> References: <9B77CACC-1E7F-4885-9182-4A14AD6F4FCE@arin.net> <681403CC-7A1C-4C38-87C9-1167D0358624@delong.com> <24852622-9DB1-4F01-8A2E-79EC2F27A0E1@arin.net> <22664F85-170D-4F72-9CD1-649ECE27D402@arin.net> Message-ID: The gotcha that is left out of this (seemingly) attractive table is: Organization #2 with legacy /16 IPv4 under LRSA and /48 IPv6 resources in 2030 LRSA Legacy /16 IPv4 $4000 (Medium RSP) Legacy Fee Cap $375 $375 RSA IPv6 /48 $250 (3X Small RSP) $250 $625 Total And it continues to go up until eventually reaching a total of $4,250 vs. a single RSA total of MAX(IPv6,IPv4) of $4,000. Or in the case of a smaller organization: LRSA Legacy /22 $150->$500 ($150/object->$500 2X Small RSP) $150 -> $500 by 2034 RSA IPv6 /48 $150->$250 ($150/object -> $250 3X Small RSP) $150. -> $250 immediately Total change in billing: 2022: $300 -> $425 2034: $300 -> $750 Without LRSA: 2034: $300 -> $500 So ARIN is inflicting a financial penalty on the RSA side against those holding on to their LRSA fee protections. This should stop. An organization should not be required to pay more than MAX(LRSA,RSA) any more than an organization with only RSA resources is required to pay MAX(IPv4, IPv6). Owen > On Apr 23, 2021, at 07:33 , John Curran wrote: > > On 23 Apr 2021, at 10:03 AM, John Curran > wrote: >> ... >> For organizations that have obtained IPv6 resources from ARIN under a separate RSA, the two most common size allocations are /32 (generally issued to ISPs) and /28 (generally issued to organizations for their own use). > > The above sentence should read "For organizations that have obtained IPv6 resources from ARIN under a separate RSA, the two most common size allocations are /32 (generally issued to ISPs) and /48 (generally issued to organizations for their own use)." > > (i.e. /48 not /28) > >> For those legacy resources holders with /16 blocks, I suspect that maintaining the separate LRSA with ARIN for legacy resource services and the applicable legacy fee cap will make the most sense (at least for the foreseeable future.) I?ve quickly outlined the three most common cases below for your legacy IPv6 resource holders and believe them to be correct (although it has not been proofed by second set of eyes). I?ll note that all presume that that the organizations would not consolidate to a single agreement with ARIN for reason noted above. > > As the table may not have been readable for some depending on their mail agent, I?ve quickly reformatted and attached as pdf. > > Best wishes, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > American Registry for Internet Numbers > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: merit.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 34644 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlaager at wiktel.com Mon Apr 26 15:02:20 2021 From: rlaager at wiktel.com (Richard Laager) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 14:02:20 -0500 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: References: <9B77CACC-1E7F-4885-9182-4A14AD6F4FCE@arin.net> <681403CC-7A1C-4C38-87C9-1167D0358624@delong.com> <24852622-9DB1-4F01-8A2E-79EC2F27A0E1@arin.net> <22664F85-170D-4F72-9CD1-649ECE27D402@arin.net> Message-ID: <46101799-cdc3-1535-6567-8b5f6167e766@wiktel.com> On 4/26/21 1:21 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > And it continues to go up until eventually reaching a total of $4,250 > vs. a single RSA total of MAX(IPv6,IPv4) of $4,000. At the breakeven point, the organization could combine under a single RSA to avoid paying more. If they do not, then that's either because: A) they are not aware they can, or B) they are making a rational choice, e.g. that LRSA fee protections against potential future increases have some current value that, in their view, exceeds the cost delta. If scenario A is a concern, then I support ARIN notifying organizations in that situation. > So ARIN is inflicting a financial penalty on the RSA side against > those holding on to their LRSA fee protections. Alternatively: ARIN is honoring the different contractual terms. Sometimes (right now) that is a benefit and sometimes (later) that is a cost. Anyone unhappy with that difference is still permitted to move to the RSA scenario (albeit irreversibly) so they have the option of keeping all the benefits now then moving to a single RSA to avoid the costs later. That's a great deal! From the perspective of someone without an LRSA, this is already inequitable. Two resource holders with e.g. a v4 /22 and a v6 /48 should be treated the same, not differently based on what year that /22 was issued. > This should stop. Why should LRSA holders receive an additional benefit (fee increase protections) over RSA holders not just now, but even after price harmonization occurs for them, at no cost? -- Richard -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ARIN at citizen.bz Wed Apr 28 23:04:05 2021 From: ARIN at citizen.bz (Citizen Support ARIN Support) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 23:04:05 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee question on proposed change. Message-ID: On the fee page I have found this quote. "*Note: There is a temporary IPv6 fee waiver for organizations in the 3X-Small services category. A 3X-Small organization may receive up to a /36 and remain in the 3X-Small fee category. This waiver will expire 31 December 2026" An ip6 /36 is 2x-small does this mean that if this passes 2x small ip6 users only pay 3x small price as long as there ip4 block is still inside 3x ip4 size until end of 2026? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jsweeting at arin.net Thu Apr 29 11:13:49 2021 From: jsweeting at arin.net (John Sweeting) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 15:13:49 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee question on proposed change. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes, this waiver will apply to all customers in the 2X Small fee category with a /24 of IPv4 address space and and a /36 of IPv6 address space. It will also apply to a 3X Small with a /24 of IPv4 that requests a/36 of IPv6. The result will be that all customers that hold only a /24 of IPv4 can also hold up to a /36 of IPv6 and remain in the 3X Small Fee Category. John Sweeting ARIN CCO Sent from my iPhone On Apr 28, 2021, at 10:04 PM, Citizen Support ARIN Support wrote: ? On the fee page I have found this quote. "*Note: There is a temporary IPv6 fee waiver for organizations in the 3X-Small services category. A 3X-Small organization may receive up to a /36 and remain in the 3X-Small fee category. This waiver will expire 31 December 2026" An ip6 /36 is 2x-small does this mean that if this passes 2x small ip6 users only pay 3x small price as long as there ip4 block is still inside 3x ip4 size until end of 2026? _______________________________________________ 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 farmer at umn.edu Thu Apr 29 11:41:34 2021 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 10:41:34 -0500 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee question on proposed change. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I presume this fee waiver is not permeant. Therefore, how long is this fee waiver intended to persist? Is there a minimum commitment for the fee waiver that could be used for planning purposes by those eligible? Especially for new IPv6 allocations to decide between receiving a /40 and a /36 per NRPM section 6.5.2.1.b. Thanks. On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 10:13 AM John Sweeting wrote: > Yes, this waiver will apply to all customers in the 2X Small fee category > with a /24 of IPv4 address space and and a /36 of IPv6 address space. It > will also apply to a 3X Small with a /24 of IPv4 that requests a/36 of > IPv6. The result will be that all customers that hold only a /24 of IPv4 > can also hold up to a /36 of IPv6 and remain in the 3X Small Fee Category. > > John Sweeting > ARIN CCO > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Apr 28, 2021, at 10:04 PM, Citizen Support ARIN Support < > ARIN at citizen.bz> wrote: > > ? > On the fee page I have found this quote. > > "*Note: There is a temporary IPv6 fee waiver for organizations in the > 3X-Small services category. A 3X-Small organization may receive up to a /36 > and remain in the 3X-Small fee category. This waiver will expire 31 > December 2026" > > An ip6 /36 is 2x-small does this mean that if this passes 2x small ip6 > users only pay 3x small price as long as there ip4 block is still inside 3x > ip4 size until end of 2026? > _______________________________________________ > 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. > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu 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 =============================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jsweeting at arin.net Thu Apr 29 12:20:28 2021 From: jsweeting at arin.net (John Sweeting) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 16:20:28 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fee question on proposed change. In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: David As indicated in the question the waiver expires 31 Dec 2026. Sent from my iPhone On Apr 29, 2021, at 10:41 AM, David Farmer wrote: ? I presume this fee waiver is not permeant. Therefore, how long is this fee waiver intended to persist? Is there a minimum commitment for the fee waiver that could be used for planning purposes by those eligible? Especially for new IPv6 allocations to decide between receiving a /40 and a /36 per NRPM section 6.5.2.1.b. Thanks. On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 10:13 AM John Sweeting > wrote: Yes, this waiver will apply to all customers in the 2X Small fee category with a /24 of IPv4 address space and and a /36 of IPv6 address space. It will also apply to a 3X Small with a /24 of IPv4 that requests a/36 of IPv6. The result will be that all customers that hold only a /24 of IPv4 can also hold up to a /36 of IPv6 and remain in the 3X Small Fee Category. John Sweeting ARIN CCO Sent from my iPhone On Apr 28, 2021, at 10:04 PM, Citizen Support ARIN Support > wrote: ? On the fee page I have found this quote. "*Note: There is a temporary IPv6 fee waiver for organizations in the 3X-Small services category. A 3X-Small organization may receive up to a /36 and remain in the 3X-Small fee category. This waiver will expire 31 December 2026" An ip6 /36 is 2x-small does this mean that if this passes 2x small ip6 users only pay 3x small price as long as there ip4 block is still inside 3x ip4 size until end of 2026? _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu 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 =============================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Marla.Azinger at FTR.com Thu Apr 29 17:33:30 2021 From: Marla.Azinger at FTR.com (Azinger, Marla) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 21:33:30 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] question on fee totals Message-ID: Hello Excuse me if this was answered already, but I don't see it on the website. Looking at the proposed fee and write up, it's not clear whether every ORG ID is paying both a fee for V4 and V6 or just the higher fee between the two resources on the chart. Example. If ORG ID: "Example" holds resource that fit into 2X-Large $32,000 for v4 and X-Small $1,000 for v6 Would ORG ID:" Example" have an annual bill of $32,000 or $33,000? Thank you Marla Azinger IP Management Frontier Communications ________________________________ This communication is confidential. Frontier only sends and receives email on the basis of the terms set out at http://www.frontier.com/email_disclaimer. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From richardj at arin.net Thu Apr 29 18:00:32 2021 From: richardj at arin.net (Richard Jimmerson) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 22:00:32 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] question on fee totals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Marla, Thank you for reaching out with this question. In the consultation for proposed 2022 fees, an organization that holds both IPv4 and IPv6 resources would only pay the higher of the two fees, but not both, as you have described. In your example, the annual fee for the organization would be $32,000. Thank you again. We will review the the documentation to ensure this is clear. Best regards, --- Richard Jimmerson Chief Operating Officer American Registry for Internet Numbers ------ Original Message ------ From: "Azinger, Marla" > To: "arin-consult at arin.net" > Sent: 4/29/2021 5:33:30 PM Subject: [ARIN-consult] question on fee totals Hello Excuse me if this was answered already, but I don?t see it on the website. Looking at the proposed fee and write up, it?s not clear whether every ORG ID is paying both a fee for V4 and V6 or just the higher fee between the two resources on the chart. Example. If ORG ID: ?Example? holds resource that fit into 2X-Large $32,000 for v4 and X-Small $1,000 for v6 Would ORG ID:? Example? have an annual bill of $32,000 or $33,000? Thank you Marla Azinger IP Management Frontier Communications ________________________________ This communication is confidential. Frontier only sends and receives email on the basis of the terms set out at http://www.frontier.com/email_disclaimer. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jsweeting at arin.net Thu Apr 29 18:01:18 2021 From: jsweeting at arin.net (John Sweeting) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 22:01:18 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] question on fee totals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Marla, that is not changing. It is the highest of either the IPv4 or IPv6. Sent from my iPhone On Apr 29, 2021, at 5:33 PM, Azinger, Marla wrote: ? Hello Excuse me if this was answered already, but I don't see it on the website. Looking at the proposed fee and write up, it's not clear whether every ORG ID is paying both a fee for V4 and V6 or just the higher fee between the two resources on the chart. Example. If ORG ID: "Example" holds resource that fit into 2X-Large $32,000 for v4 and X-Small $1,000 for v6 Would ORG ID:" Example" have an annual bill of $32,000 or $33,000? Thank you Marla Azinger IP Management Frontier Communications ________________________________ This communication is confidential. Frontier only sends and receives email on the basis of the terms set out at http://www.frontier.com/email_disclaimer. _______________________________________________ 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 ARIN at citizen.bz Thu Apr 29 18:19:22 2021 From: ARIN at citizen.bz (Citizen Support ARIN Support) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 18:19:22 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] ARIN-consult Digest, Vol 80, Issue 29 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: What Richard Jimmerson said is correct based on this model your company could upgrade from a ip6 /32 all the way up to a ip6 /16 and no annual increase above the $32,000 you currently pay. On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 6:00 PM wrote: > > Send ARIN-consult mailing list submissions to > arin-consult at arin.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > arin-consult-request at arin.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > arin-consult-owner at arin.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of ARIN-consult digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Fee question on proposed change. (John Sweeting) > 2. question on fee totals (Azinger, Marla) > 3. Re: question on fee totals (Richard Jimmerson) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 16:20:28 +0000 > From: John Sweeting > To: David Farmer > Cc: Citizen Support ARIN Support , > "arin-consult at arin.net" > Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Fee question on proposed change. > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > David > > As indicated in the question the waiver expires 31 Dec 2026. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Apr 29, 2021, at 10:41 AM, David Farmer wrote: > > ? > I presume this fee waiver is not permeant. Therefore, how long is this fee waiver intended to persist? Is there a minimum commitment for the fee waiver that could be used for planning purposes by those eligible? Especially for new IPv6 allocations to decide between receiving a /40 and a /36 per NRPM section 6.5.2.1.b. > > Thanks. > > On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 10:13 AM John Sweeting > wrote: > Yes, this waiver will apply to all customers in the 2X Small fee category with a /24 of IPv4 address space and and a /36 of IPv6 address space. It will also apply to a 3X Small with a /24 of IPv4 that requests a/36 of IPv6. The result will be that all customers that hold only a /24 of IPv4 can also hold up to a /36 of IPv6 and remain in the 3X Small Fee Category. > > John Sweeting > ARIN CCO > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Apr 28, 2021, at 10:04 PM, Citizen Support ARIN Support > wrote: > > ? > On the fee page I have found this quote. > > "*Note: There is a temporary IPv6 fee waiver for organizations in the 3X-Small services category. A 3X-Small organization may receive up to a /36 and remain in the 3X-Small fee category. This waiver will expire 31 December 2026" > > An ip6 /36 is 2x-small does this mean that if this passes 2x small ip6 users only pay 3x small price as long as there ip4 block is still inside 3x ip4 size until end of 2026? > _______________________________________________ > 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. > _______________________________________________ > 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. > > > -- > =============================================== > David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu > 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 > =============================================== > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 21:33:30 +0000 > From: "Azinger, Marla" > To: "arin-consult at arin.net" > Subject: [ARIN-consult] question on fee totals > Message-ID: > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Hello > > Excuse me if this was answered already, but I don't see it on the website. > > Looking at the proposed fee and write up, it's not clear whether every ORG ID is paying both a fee for V4 and V6 or just the higher fee between the two resources on the chart. > > Example. If ORG ID: "Example" holds resource that fit into 2X-Large $32,000 for v4 and X-Small $1,000 for v6 > > Would ORG ID:" Example" have an annual bill of $32,000 or $33,000? > > Thank you > Marla Azinger > IP Management > Frontier Communications > > > ________________________________ > > This communication is confidential. Frontier only sends and receives email on the basis of the terms set out at http://www.frontier.com/email_disclaimer. > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 22:00:32 +0000 > From: Richard Jimmerson > To: "Azinger, Marla" , "arin-consult at arin.net" > > Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] question on fee totals > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hello Marla, > > Thank you for reaching out with this question. > > In the consultation for proposed 2022 fees, an organization that holds both IPv4 and IPv6 resources would only pay the higher of the two fees, but not both, as you have described. In your example, the annual fee for the organization would be $32,000. > > Thank you again. We will review the the documentation to ensure this is clear. > > Best regards, > --- > Richard Jimmerson > Chief Operating Officer > American Registry for Internet Numbers > > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Azinger, Marla" > > To: "arin-consult at arin.net" > > Sent: 4/29/2021 5:33:30 PM > Subject: [ARIN-consult] question on fee totals > > Hello > > Excuse me if this was answered already, but I don?t see it on the website. > > Looking at the proposed fee and write up, it?s not clear whether every ORG ID is paying both a fee for V4 and V6 or just the higher fee between the two resources on the chart. > > Example. If ORG ID: ?Example? holds resource that fit into 2X-Large $32,000 for v4 and X-Small $1,000 for v6 > > Would ORG ID:? Example? have an annual bill of $32,000 or $33,000? > > Thank you > Marla Azinger > IP Management > Frontier Communications > > > ________________________________ > > This communication is confidential. Frontier only sends and receives email on the basis of the terms set out at http://www.frontier.com/email_disclaimer. > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-consult mailing list > ARIN-consult at arin.net > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult > > > ------------------------------ > > End of ARIN-consult Digest, Vol 80, Issue 29 > ******************************************** From Marla.Azinger at FTR.com Thu Apr 29 18:31:43 2021 From: Marla.Azinger at FTR.com (Azinger, Marla) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 22:31:43 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] question on fee totals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you for the quick response. From: Richard Jimmerson Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2021 3:01 PM To: Azinger, Marla ; arin-consult at arin.net Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] question on fee totals ________________________________ WARNING: External email. Please verify sender before opening attachments or clicking on links. ________________________________ Hello Marla, Thank you for reaching out with this question. In the consultation for proposed 2022 fees, an organization that holds both IPv4 and IPv6 resources would only pay the higher of the two fees, but not both, as you have described. In your example, the annual fee for the organization would be $32,000. Thank you again. We will review the the documentation to ensure this is clear. Best regards, --- Richard Jimmerson Chief Operating Officer American Registry for Internet Numbers ------ Original Message ------ From: "Azinger, Marla" > To: "arin-consult at arin.net" > Sent: 4/29/2021 5:33:30 PM Subject: [ARIN-consult] question on fee totals Hello Excuse me if this was answered already, but I don't see it on the website. Looking at the proposed fee and write up, it's not clear whether every ORG ID is paying both a fee for V4 and V6 or just the higher fee between the two resources on the chart. Example. If ORG ID: "Example" holds resource that fit into 2X-Large $32,000 for v4 and X-Small $1,000 for v6 Would ORG ID:" Example" have an annual bill of $32,000 or $33,000? Thank you Marla Azinger IP Management Frontier Communications ________________________________ This communication is confidential. Frontier only sends and receives email on the basis of the terms set out at http://www.frontier.com/email_disclaimer. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: