From info at arin.net Mon May 3 08:48:24 2021 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Mon, 03 May 2021 08:48:24 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] =?utf-8?q?REMINDER_=E2=80=93_Consultation_on_ARIN?= =?utf-8?q?_Fees_will_close_10_May?= Message-ID: <1687A354-F524-4C6D-98E1-37AA085359DB@arin.net> We are still seeking input from the community on the proposed 2022 Fee Schedule. 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 This consultation will remain open through 5:00 PM ET on Monday, 10 May. We recently updated the ARIN Fee Calculator, available through ARIN Online, to display both the current estimated fees and estimated fees under the proposed 2022 fee schedule. Customers are encouraged use this tool to determine the impact of the fee schedule harmonization on their organizations. __ 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 jeff.tchang at gmail.com Mon May 3 10:25:49 2021 From: jeff.tchang at gmail.com (Jeff Tchang) Date: Mon, 3 May 2021 07:25:49 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > I'm a 3x-Small organization (literally "the smallest end users" to > borrow Owen DeLong's terminology) chiming in. > I am also one of the smallest end users. I obtained resources in 2016 and am a bit surprised how quickly the fees are increasing (especially percentage wise). As more people adopt IPv6 fees should decrease due to scale but that doesn't seem to be happening like with other services. The proposal to increase fees on the smallest users results in a 150% increase which is drastic in my opinion over such a short period of time. -Jeff -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From don at bloono.com Mon May 3 11:12:43 2021 From: don at bloono.com (Don Spaulding) Date: Mon, 3 May 2021 10:12:43 -0500 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I echo Jeff's sentiments here. Similar to Jeff, I'm one of the "smallest" ISPs, not an End User. When I was obtaining my v6 resources, I was guided into selecting a V6 /32, and I have a V4 /24. That makes me an X-Small organization. When acquiring these resources, it was a bit of a stretch for me, but I considered that I could handle the annual cost of registration services w/ARIN. I'm just on the edge of "big enough to need my own resources". I'm aware I'm new enough to have missed out on a lot of the history of ARIN, but I get the impression networks like mine are still a relevant part of the number registry landscape. As far as I can see, my costs won't actually be going up with this change (my Billing section seems to indicate I will be paying the same next year as this year), but I'm worried about the general upward direction of pricing indicated by this change. I'm wondering if I'll be able to keep up. On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 9:26 AM Jeff Tchang wrote: > I'm a 3x-Small organization (literally "the smallest end users" to >> borrow Owen DeLong's terminology) chiming in. >> > > I am also one of the smallest end users. I obtained resources in 2016 and > am a bit surprised how quickly the fees are increasing (especially > percentage wise). As more people adopt IPv6 fees should decrease due to > scale but that doesn't seem to be happening like with other services. The > proposal to increase fees on the smallest users results in a 150% increase > which is drastic in my opinion over such a short period of time. > > -Jeff > > _______________________________________________ > 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 jcurran at arin.net Mon May 3 13:03:10 2021 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 3 May 2021 17:03:10 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 3 May 2021, at 10:25 AM, Jeff Tchang > wrote: I'm a 3x-Small organization (literally "the smallest end users" to borrow Owen DeLong's terminology) chiming in. I am also one of the smallest end users. I obtained resources in 2016 and am a bit surprised how quickly the fees are increasing (especially percentage wise). As more people adopt IPv6 fees should decrease due to scale but that doesn't seem to be happening like with other services. The proposal to increase fees on the smallest users results in a 150% increase which is drastic in my opinion over such a short period of time. Jeff - You raise an important issue as ARIN definitely wants to both keep fees low as possible and encourage deployment of IPv6. For an end-user organization that simply has an IPv4 address block and no ASN or IPv6 block, it is true that their fees will increase under the proposed change from $150 to $250 annually. However, it?s worth noting that many organizations with IPv4 also have IPv6 or an autonomous system number (ASN): organizations that have either of these in addition to their IPv4 block will see their annual registration services fee decrease from $300 to $250 annually ? this is the case for more than 2100 organizations under the proposed schedule. In addition, several hundred smaller organizations have all three (IPv4, IPv6, and an ASN) and wipe see their annual fee drop from $450 to $250. In your case, there will be an increase under the proposed schedule, but you will also be able to obtain an IPv6 block and/or an ASN as a result of annual fee for the 3X-small category. We hope this will actually help promote IPv6 deployment in smaller organizations going forward since there will be no fee impact when an organization seeks a correspondingly sized IPv6 block. 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 Tue May 4 06:45:40 2021 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 4 May 2021 03:45:40 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: <46101799-cdc3-1535-6567-8b5f6167e766@wiktel.com> 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> <46101799-cdc3-1535-6567-8b5f6167e766@wiktel.com> Message-ID: <173BDCAC-2890-4EC5-AD39-0C77201C2BF7@delong.com> > On Apr 26, 2021, at 12:02 , Richard Laager wrote: > > 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. > However, at that point, if they choose to do that, they are abandoning the fee protection that may well be one of the few things that incented them to sign ANY RSA. > 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. > Far more likely that it is option B, however, certain behaviors of ARIN have lead to significant buyers remorse on the LRSA TBH. Unfortunately, there?s no way back out once you step into that trap. >> 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. > That?s one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that those legacy holders who were community minded enough to be willing to pay some (at the time nominal) fees with a promise of protection against future increases and a belief (based on the fee structure at the time, which was pay-per-org and flat-rate for end-users, which meant that your IPv4 LRSA + IPv6 RSA were no additional cost vs. your IPv6 RSA alone have gotten a nasty unexpected surprise that has only gotten worse with each subsequent new fee structure. In the mean time, legacy holders smart enough to avoid the LRSA scam continue to pay nothing for their legacy resources. > >> 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? > Because that?s essentially the expectation they were given as an inducement to sign the LRSA prior to the bait and switch from fee-per-org to fee-per-resource. Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Tue May 4 07:26:48 2021 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 4 May 2021 11:26:48 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: <173BDCAC-2890-4EC5-AD39-0C77201C2BF7@delong.com> 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> <46101799-cdc3-1535-6567-8b5f6167e766@wiktel.com> <173BDCAC-2890-4EC5-AD39-0C77201C2BF7@delong.com> Message-ID: <87B9D148-1243-48F9-BC77-BC29B5EF12AD@arin.net> On 4 May 2021, at 6:45 AM, Owen DeLong > wrote: On Apr 26, 2021, at 12:02 , Richard Laager > wrote: 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. However, at that point, if they choose to do that, they are abandoning the fee protection that may well be one of the few things that incented them to sign ANY RSA. Owen - That is correct - they would be paying the same as all other registry customers of comparable size and subject to fee changes just as any other ARIN customer ? this would be after the organization in question had rreceived benefit from the legacy fee cap for more than 25 years. 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 Tue May 4 07:53:21 2021 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 4 May 2021 11:53:21 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: <87B9D148-1243-48F9-BC77-BC29B5EF12AD@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> <46101799-cdc3-1535-6567-8b5f6167e766@wiktel.com> <173BDCAC-2890-4EC5-AD39-0C77201C2BF7@delong.com> <87B9D148-1243-48F9-BC77-BC29B5EF12AD@arin.net> Message-ID: <6052CC7B-82A4-4CDF-B48B-B5E3F18F3B0E@arin.net> On 4 May 2021, at 7:26 AM, John Curran > wrote: On 4 May 2021, at 6:45 AM, Owen DeLong > wrote: On Apr 26, 2021, at 12:02 , Richard Laager > wrote: 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. However, at that point, if they choose to do that, they are abandoning the fee protection that may well be one of the few things that incented them to sign ANY RSA. Owen - That is correct - they would be paying the same as all other registry customers of comparable size and subject to fee changes just as any other ARIN customer ? this would be after the organization in question had rreceived benefit from the legacy fee cap for more than 25 years. Apologies, I copied the wrong number - they actually would have benefitted from the fee cap for over 160 years at that point, but as noted would lose further benefit if they then switched to a single RSA. 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 Mon May 10 05:47:46 2021 From: arin-consult at ve4.ca (Glen A. Pearce) Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 03:47:46 -0600 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2234cc09-e2ac-e153-6e1e-9e0b4bfb6e5e@ve4.ca> On 03/05/2021 11:03 a.m., John Curran wrote: > On 3 May 2021, at 10:25 AM, Jeff Tchang > wrote: >> >> I'm a 3x-Small organization (literally "the smallest end users" to >> borrow Owen DeLong's terminology) chiming in. >> >> >> I am also one of the smallest end users. I obtained resources in 2016 >> and am a bit surprised how quickly the fees are increasing >> (especially percentage wise). As more people adopt IPv6 fees should >> decrease due to scale but that doesn't seem to be happening like with >> other services. The proposal to increase fees on the smallest users >> results in a 150% increase which is drastic in my?opinion over such a >> short period of time. > > Jeff - > > You raise an important issue as ARIN definitely wants to both keep > fees low as possible and encourage deployment of IPv6. > > For an end-user organization that simply has an IPv4 address block and > no ASN or IPv6 block, it is true that their fees will increase under > the proposed change from $150 to $250 annually. > > However, it?s worth noting that many organizations with IPv4 also have > IPv6 or an autonomous system number (ASN): ?organizations that have > either of these in addition to their IPv4 block will see their annual > registration services fee decrease from $300 to $250 annually ? this > is the case for more than 2100 organizations under the proposed > schedule. ?In addition, several hundred smaller organizations have all > three (IPv4, IPv6, and an ASN) and wipe see their annual fee drop from > $450 to $250. > > In your case, there will be an increase under the proposed schedule, > but you will also be able to obtain an IPv6 block and/or an ASN as a > result of annual fee for the 3X-small category. ? We hope this will > actually help promote IPv6 deployment in smaller organizations going > forward since there will be no fee impact when an organization seeks a > correspondingly sized IPv6 block. I think my previous suggestion of 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 would be the best way to address organizations like Jeff's. There are probably a lot of very tiny organizations that need their own /24 of IPv4 so they can go to a different ISP in future without that ISP's availability of IPv4 space being an issue. This would not necessarily dissuade these very tiny organizations from implementing IPv6 as the lack of scarcity in IPv6 means they could get IPv6 space anytime they are ready without a problem but still not saddling them with higher fees in the meanwhile.? In fact it may not even be an obstacle to them implementing IPv6 now as they may be fine with using provider assigned space for IPv6 and renumbering the IPv6 side of their network in the event they change ISPs in the future.? (After all these are very small networks.) Just they have to have their own IPv4 space because that is something they may not be able to get from an ISP they move to in the future at all and as small organizations it's not like they have a lot of bargaining power when shopping for connectivity.? (If an ISP has enough space where they can only serve one of two prospective customers they are generally going to choose the one with the bigger monthly spend for bandwidth.) In my case I made the choice to convert to the Registration Services Plan and get my own IPv6 space now as it maximizes my flexibility as part of a longer term plan.? Some others may have different priorities and possibly tighter budgets where the extra $100 a year will make a difference to them so it would be important to not put the squeeze on them. Though the flip side I would like to point out to the other small organizations when I was first looking at things prior to free pool depletion the smallest Registration Services Plan was $1200 per year whether you had a /22 or a /23 or a /24 so the implementation of the 2X-Small and 3X-Small as well as the price reduction for the X-Small category was a vast improvement for organizations of our size.? (I somehow missed that there was the separate "end user" fee schedule back then...as I said having one fee schedule will be less confusing for new people.)? When it was $1200 a year for the smallest category I wouldn't have been able to afford it so as long as the categories down to 3X-Small are maintained things are at least manageable.? But I would still be in favor of the "single resource only" category at the $150/year level being made a thing so organizations like Jeff's don't get hit so hard before they are ready to move up.? Really the important part of this move to consolidate everyone onto one fee schedule is about some very large "end users" having arbitrarily different fees from each other just because they are on different fee schedules. -- 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 Mon May 10 07:11:32 2021 From: arin-consult at ve4.ca (Glen A. Pearce) Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 05:11:32 -0600 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: <440b1171-608e-f8cf-e07c-8dd2fc2db86d@ve4.ca> On 26/04/2021 12:21 p.m., Owen DeLong via ARIN-consult wrote: > 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 I'd have to say that I agree with Owen here that organizations with an RSA and a LRSA should only have to pay the higher of the two fees for their LRSA IPv4 resource (price cap included) or their RSA IPv6 resources rather than both added together even if they are under 2 separate contracts.?? So in Owen's case this would mean paying $250/year (based on his /48 of IPv6) until the capped fee on his legacy IPv4 creeps over that. Either that or do what RIPE does (correct me if I'm wrong on how they handle it) and keep legacy resources legacy where they stay with the original holder who took out membership even if they let their membership lapse, this way the LRSA isn't a "trap".? This second idea would probably also go a long way towards relieving the fears of legacy holders who wouldn't mind chipping in but are reluctant to sign for fear of loosing their IP space through an administrative error forgetting to renew or simply having a bad cash flow year. I think this is a reasonable accommodation for people that didn't actually have to pay anything but stepped forward to pay what at the time they thought was a reasonable amount towards keeping the registry running. I tend to think of legacy registrations as the "native land" of the internet, at least that's the analogy I use when explaining it to someone. Ultimately in the far future when IPv6 is dominant and IPv4 is only used for the niche of "retro-computing" and it's users have to tunnel IPv4 over IPv6 to use it none of this will really matter as everyone will either have to pay for their IPv6 space or make do with space assigned by their ISP and any IPv4 space, legacy or otherwise, won't have much use outside that small niche. Once you know the full history it does look like a bait and switch getting legacy holders to sign under what looked like a reasonable fee schedule then shifting the fee schedule significantly afterwards. -- 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 jcurran at arin.net Mon May 10 07:37:01 2021 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 11:37:01 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: <2234cc09-e2ac-e153-6e1e-9e0b4bfb6e5e@ve4.ca> References: <2234cc09-e2ac-e153-6e1e-9e0b4bfb6e5e@ve4.ca> Message-ID: On 10 May 2021, at 5:47 AM, Glen A. Pearce wrote: > > I think my previous suggestion of 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 would be the best way to address organizations like Jeff's. > > There are probably a lot of very tiny organizations that need their own /24 of IPv4 so they can go to a different ISP in future without that ISP's availability of IPv4 space being an issue. > > This would not necessarily dissuade these very tiny organizations from implementing IPv6 as the lack of scarcity in IPv6 means they could get IPv6 space anytime they are ready without a problem but still not saddling them with higher fees in the meanwhile. In fact it may not even be an obstacle to them implementing IPv6 now as they may be fine with using provider assigned space for IPv6 and renumbering the IPv6 side of their network in the event they change ISPs in the future. Glen - Interesting perspective? It?s clear that IPv6 has much better availability due to its vast address space, but I?m not certain that reinstating a fee schedule that would result in an increase in costs for receiving an ARIN-issued IPv6 block is going to help with IPv6 deployment. We presently have a fee structure that allows any organization to obtain their own IPv6 block and not have to worry about renumbering out of provider-supplied space in the future. This was a fairly strong mandate from the community to help encourage IPv6 deployment, and the fee schedule change would bring that same benefit to all ARIN registration services customers. > (After all these are very small networks.) Just they have to have their own IPv4 space because that is something they may not be able to get from an ISP they move to in the future at all and as small organizations it's not like they have a lot of bargaining power when shopping for connectivity. (If an ISP has enough space where they can only serve one of two prospective customers they are generally going to choose the one with the bigger monthly spend for bandwidth.) > > In my case I made the choice to convert to the Registration Services Plan and get my own IPv6 space now as it maximizes my flexibility as part of a longer term plan. Some others may have different priorities and possibly tighter budgets where the extra $100 a year will make a difference to them so it would be important to not put the squeeze on them. While there is a noticeable increase going from $150 to $250 per year when adding an IPv4 or IPv6 block to an ASN, the ability to add both for that single increase in cost allows organizations who have IPv4 to gain IPv6 experience internally (lab and/or test settings) without incurring additional fees specific to IPv6 deployment. > Though the flip side I would like to point out to the other small organizations when I was first looking at things prior to free pool depletion the smallest Registration Services Plan was $1200 per year whether you had a /22 or a /23 or a /24 so the implementation of the 2X-Small and 3X-Small as well as the price reduction for the X-Small category was a vast improvement for organizations of our size. Thanks... we?ve been moving aggressively to getting better alignment and in particular lowering costs for the smaller organizations. > (I somehow missed that there was the separate "end user" fee schedule back then...as I said having one fee schedule will be less confusing for new people.) When it was $1200 a year for the smallest category I wouldn't have been able to afford it so as long as the categories down to 3X-Small are maintained things are at least manageable. But I would still be in favor of the "single resource only" category at the $150/year level being made a thing so organizations like Jeff's don't get hit so hard before they are ready to move up. Acknowledged. $250 per year isn?t $150, and your single-resource category would lower the annual costs for specific case of an IPv4 resource holder without ASN ? but create a direct impediment of the same amount for such organizations exploring IPv6. Given the rather limited scope (i.e. organizations with IPv4 and no ASN at all) and resulting IPv6 downside, the overall upside seems rather elusive to me, but then again, this is a community consultation so it would be best for others to weigh in with their views on that potential change. > Really the important part of this move to consolidate everyone onto one fee schedule is about some very large "end users" having arbitrarily different fees from each other just because they are on different fee schedules. Agreed (and thanks for taking the time to comment!) /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers From jcurran at arin.net Mon May 10 08:00:26 2021 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 12:00:26 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: <440b1171-608e-f8cf-e07c-8dd2fc2db86d@ve4.ca> 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> <440b1171-608e-f8cf-e07c-8dd2fc2db86d@ve4.ca> Message-ID: On 10 May 2021, at 7:11 AM, Glen A. Pearce > wrote: I'd have to say that I agree with Owen here that organizations with an RSA and a LRSA should only have to pay the higher of the two fees for their LRSA IPv4 resource (price cap included) or their RSA IPv6 resources rather than both added together even if they are under 2 separate contracts. So in Owen's case this would mean paying $250/year (based on his /48 of IPv6) until the capped fee on his legacy IPv4 creeps over that. ... I think this is a reasonable accommodation for people that didn't actually have to pay anything but stepped forward to pay what at the time they thought was a reasonable amount towards keeping the registry running. Glen - Those who stepped forward received the numerous benefits including clear rights via contract and access to enhanced services developed by investment from this community. The also received a significant cap on their fees compared to all other registry customers, and have been benefiting from that for more than a decade. I tend to think of legacy registrations as the "native land" of the internet, at least that's the analogy I use when explaining it to someone. Alas, legacy resource assignments were more akin to placement on government-controlled reservations absent any actual legal rights and/or mechanism for self-rule? the formation of ARIN was specifically so that Internet community could engage in self-determination over their IP number resources; "Creation of ARIN will give the users of IP numbers (mostly Internet service providers, corporations and other large institutions) a voice in the policies by which they are managed and allocated within the North American region? [1] Ultimately in the far future when IPv6 is dominant and IPv4 is only used for the niche of "retro-computing" and it's users have to tunnel IPv4 over IPv6 to use it none of this will really matter as everyone will either have to pay for their IPv6 space or make do with space assigned by their ISP and any IPv4 space, legacy or otherwise, won't have much use outside that small niche. ARIN's present provisioning of basic registration services without contract or fee for IPv4 legacy resource holders is not assured into ?the far future? and (as has been raised during this consultation) is probably worth revisiting once we?ve achieved consistent fee schedule for all customers. It would not surprise me to ultimately find out that those legacy resource holders who stepped forward and entered into the LRSA (including its significant cap of total annual fees) may actually prove to be far more shrewd in the end than you imagine. Thanks for the feedback! /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers [1] https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=102819 - "Internet Moves Toward Privatization / IP numbers handled by non-profit? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From risner at lokkak.com Mon May 10 10:14:09 2021 From: risner at lokkak.com (Lokkak) Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 10:14:09 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees on January of 2022 Message-ID: This is coming from a perspective of a legacy holder, with an ASN, but no IPv6 address and entirely no desire to obtain IPv6 addresses. I have /22 of legacy address space, and I plan to maintain them until such time as they are no longer routable or simply niche of "retro-computing? routing. I?ll examine the changes one by one, starting with the transition: **Transitioning End Users from annual per-resource maintenance fees to the RSP (Registration Services Plan) Fee Schedule** I?d rather not have to migrate the the normal agreement. The included IPv6 Block Size has zero value to me. In 2017, my blocks were held with my ISP. I had to sign the LRSA 4.0 to move them into my control when that ISP closed. I don?t anticipate needing any changes or insuring any additional resources of ARIN. So the yearly fee of $125 should handle the limited labor cost my registration has for ARIN. **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)** For me, the yearly increase in maintenance doesn?t offer me more value nor help reduce ARIN?s costs. The costs for provide my support is minimal. It seems to be assuming everyone is taking advantage of IPv6 resources and generating additional ARIN support requirements. **Providing a temporary IPv6 fee waiver for organizations in the 3X-Small category that desire a larger address block** I?d rather see this feature removed and replaced with transitioning legacy resource holders to the RSP Fee Schedule with the annual cap of total maintenance fees increasing $25 per year. A pure legacy holder shouldn?t need to see fees increased, if they are not using IPv6 addresses. **Implementing a $100 fee for OrgCreate and OrgRecovery transactions** I believe this is an excellent way to recover costs of ARIN services for legacy holders. **Increasing the transfer processing fee to $500** This is also an excellent way to recover costs. I seem to remember in 2017, there was a great deal of effort on my part to effect the transfer. The $500 seems a good initial cost, but if that fee doesn?t cover the entire costs incurred by ARIN the fee should be sufficient to cover the costs of the work. ???????????? In short, from a perspective of a legacy holder wishing to keep my addresses and not look to the future, this agreement serves me poorly. I beg you to tailor this agreement to the two audiences. One like me and another for those wishing to embrace IPv6 and other services ARIN provide in a more ? la carte way. James Risner Org Hanfle: LL-561-Z -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From snoble at sonn.com Mon May 10 11:18:43 2021 From: snoble at sonn.com (Steve Noble) Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 08:18:43 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] What do the ASN fees go to? Message-ID: Hi John, As someone who has diligently paid the excessively increasing fees for a single ASN, while for many years being refused services from ARIN, I am interested in understanding what my $150 goes to and how you justify such a high fee for a single item. So far the only thing I see is an entry in a database, which for many years was incorrect due to your refusal to update my physical address. The data was last updated 9 years ago. BTW you have still not refunded the fees for the years that you required me to pay but refused to provide me services. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Mon May 10 12:31:20 2021 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 16:31:20 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees on January of 2022 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1E437AC1-3D6C-47F6-B67D-93C10CAE5E2D@arin.net> On 10 May 2021, at 10:14 AM, Lokkak > wrote: This is coming from a perspective of a legacy holder, with an ASN, but no IPv6 address and entirely no desire to obtain IPv6 addresses. James - Thanks for the taking the time to respond to the consultation - your perspective is quite helpful. I have /22 of legacy address space, and I plan to maintain them until such time as they are no longer routable or simply niche of "retro-computing? routing. I?ll examine the changes one by one, starting with the transition: Transitioning End Users from annual per-resource maintenance fees to the RSP (Registration Services Plan) Fee Schedule I?d rather not have to migrate the the normal agreement. The included IPv6 Block Size has zero value to me. In 2017, my blocks were held with my ISP. I had to sign the LRSA 4.0 to move them into my control when that ISP closed. I don?t anticipate needing any changes or insuring any additional resources of ARIN. So the yearly fee of $125 should handle the limited labor cost my registration has for ARIN. To be clear, ARIN operates quite a few services (including publication of the registry via Whois and RADP, reverse DNS services, IRR and RPKI services) which benefits all customers even when customers are not making requests for changes or additional resources. After the extensive fee consultation that was held in 2014 and 2015, the decision was made to recover these costs in some proportion to the number resources held, as the benefit derived by those in the community is proportional to their resources held. We could lower base fees and charge separately for services that are optional but reflect best practices (e.g. this includes not only IPv6, but IRR and RPKI) but that doesn?t comport with our mission to support and advance the operation of the Internet - we?d effectively be creating a disincentive for network operator deployment of practices that many others simply consider good manners (e.g. MANRS - https://www.manrs.org/isps/) 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) For me, the yearly increase in maintenance doesn?t offer me more value nor help reduce ARIN?s costs. The costs for provide my support is minimal. It seems to be assuming everyone is taking advantage of IPv6 resources and generating additional ARIN support requirements. Providing a temporary IPv6 fee waiver for organizations in the 3X-Small category that desire a larger address block I?d rather see this feature removed and replaced with transitioning legacy resource holders to the RSP Fee Schedule with the annual cap of total maintenance fees increasing $25 per year. A pure legacy holder shouldn?t need to see fees increased, if they are not using IPv6 addresses. There may be some confusion here, since the proposed fee change does exactly what you ask above - it moves ?legacy resource holders to the RSP Fee Schedule with the annual cap of total maintenance fees increasing $25 per year? Note that this fee consultation results in no change for you, as you have /22 worth of direct allocations and an ASN, and would be invoiced today as an 2X-Small (at $500/year) if it were not for the legacy maintenance fee cap. Because of the cap you are invoiced $125 per year, and in 2022, you will pay $150 (again with the cap increasing $25 per year until you are eventually paying the same as all other 2X-Small ARIN customers. Implementing a $100 fee for OrgCreate and OrgRecovery transactions I believe this is an excellent way to recover costs of ARIN services for legacy holders. Increasing the transfer processing fee to $500 This is also an excellent way to recover costs. I seem to remember in 2017, there was a great deal of effort on my part to effect the transfer. The $500 seems a good initial cost, but if that fee doesn?t cover the entire costs incurred by ARIN the fee should be sufficient to cover the costs of the work. Acknowledged, and very helpful to hear. Thanks again! /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 May 10 12:47:00 2021 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 16:47:00 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] What do the ASN fees go to? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 10 May 2021, at 11:18 AM, Steve Noble > wrote: Hi John, As someone who has diligently paid the excessively increasing fees for a single ASN, while for many years being refused services from ARIN, I am interested in understanding what my $150 goes to and how you justify such a high fee for a single item. So far the only thing I see is an entry in a database, which for many years was incorrect due to your refusal to update my physical address. The data was last updated 9 years ago. Steve - As noted earlier, ARIN provides many operational services for all of the resources in the registry ? and these services are provided even for number resources that have no requests pending or when there are requests pending to change information but that lack proper documentation. The consultation that is now underway is with regard to a fee change proposal that does not change the maintenance fees for ASN?s (although it will make them go away for many end-user customers with IPv4 or IPv6 holdings due to their migration to the Registration Services Plan with ASN registry services already included :-) Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matt at netfire.net Mon May 10 13:08:47 2021 From: matt at netfire.net (Matt Harris) Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 12:08:47 -0500 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees on January of 2022 In-Reply-To: <1E437AC1-3D6C-47F6-B67D-93C10CAE5E2D@arin.net> References: <1E437AC1-3D6C-47F6-B67D-93C10CAE5E2D@arin.net> Message-ID: Matt Harris|Infrastructure Lead 816-256-5446|Direct Looking for something? Helpdesk Portal|Email Support|Billing Portal We build and deliver end-to-end IT solutions. On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 11:31 AM John Curran wrote: > We could lower base fees and charge separately for services that are > optional but reflect best practices (e.g. this includes not only IPv6, but > IRR and RPKI) but that doesn?t comport with our mission to support and > advance the operation of the Internet - we?d effectively be creating a > disincentive for network operator deployment of practices that many others > simply consider good manners (e.g. MANRS - https://www.manrs.org/isps/) > I strongly agree with John here, and with the sentiment overall: one of the best roles an RIR can play in the grander scheme of things is to enable and never to disincentivize moving forward towards emerging community-accepted standards and technologies such as embracing IPv6 to deal with IPv4 suffocation, enhancing security by promoting and enabling RPKI deployment, etc. Let's all work together to make the internet a better place for everyone. - Matt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From snoble at sonn.com Mon May 10 13:43:05 2021 From: snoble at sonn.com (Steve Noble) Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 10:43:05 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] What do the ASN fees go to? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: John Curran wrote on 5/10/21 9:47 AM: > > Steve - > > As noted earlier, ARIN provides many operational services for all > of the resources in the registry ? and these services are provided > even for number resources that have no requests pending or when > there are requests pending to change information but that lack > proper documentation. > > The consultation that is now underway is with regard to a fee > change proposal that does not change the maintenance fees for > ASN?s (although it will make them go away for many end-user > customers with IPv4 or IPv6 holdings due to their migration to the > Registration Services Plan with ASN registry services already > included :-) > Hi John, Since paying the fees does not guarantee that you will receive service, it seems clear that the fees should be based on usage, not on resources.? If ARIN does not provide the services, then the fee should be reduced or removed. -- Thank you, Steven -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From athompso at athompso.net Mon May 10 14:01:56 2021 From: athompso at athompso.net (Adam Thompson) Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 13:01:56 -0500 Subject: [ARIN-consult] What do the ASN fees go to? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Steven, that feels like a deliberate mis-characterization to me. You're right, you are not guaranteed to receive service, in much the same way you are not guaranteed to receive a payout from your car insurance if you don't have an accident. Or that you aren't guaranteed to watch CBS content even though it's included in your cable bundle: you're paying for (among other things) the right to access it on demand. As far as I know, however, paying your fee _does_ guarantee that ARIN services will be available to you if and/or when you need or want it. We pay for many, many things where we do not always take full advantage of the service we're paying for, because the provider has fixed costs regardless. Your local cableco charges a fixed amount for packages, regardless of which channels in that package you watch. When you stay in a hotel, you pay the same fee regardless of whether you spend 10 minutes in the room, or 16 hours. Both examples, like ARIN, are where there are fixed costs to providing you *any service at all*, so the consumer is expected to defray those. (Insurance isn't so much a fixed-cost example, rather it's a "mutual" or "pool", but it works out much the same in the end.) I don't see how this is substantially different from any other provider with fixed costs - we shoulder their entire cost, we don't get to pick and choose. Where we do get to, the overhead is then baked into each and every price, and each and every one of us gets a raw deal. I shudder to think what per-second hotel billing would look like. -Adam Thompson athompso at athompso.net On 2021-05-10 12:43, Steve Noble wrote: > John Curran wrote on 5/10/21 9:47 AM: > > Steve - > > As noted earlier, ARIN provides many operational services for all of the resources in the registry - and these services are provided even for number resources that have no requests pending or when there are requests pending to change information but that lack proper documentation. > > The consultation that is now underway is with regard to a fee change proposal that does not change the maintenance fees for ASN's (although it will make them go away for many end-user customers with IPv4 or IPv6 holdings due to their migration to the Registration Services Plan with ASN registry services already included :-) Hi John, Since paying the fees does not guarantee that you will receive service, it seems clear that the fees should be based on usage, not on resources. If ARIN does not provide the services, then the fee should be reduced or removed. -- Thank you, Steven _______________________________________________ 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 snoble at sonn.com Mon May 10 14:38:46 2021 From: snoble at sonn.com (Steve Noble) Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 11:38:46 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] What do the ASN fees go to? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Adam, You make my point exactly, I will follow up in-line. Adam Thompson wrote on 5/10/21 11:01 AM: > > Steven, that feels like a deliberate mis-characterization to me. > It is not, but you may not have history about how I was refused service by ARIN for multiple years. > > You're right, you are not guaranteed to receive service, in much the > same way you are not guaranteed to receive a payout from your car > insurance if you don't have an accident.? Or that you aren't > guaranteed to watch CBS content even though it's included in your > cable bundle: you're paying for (among other things) the right to > access it on demand. > > As far as I know, however, paying your fee /does/?guarantee?that ARIN > services will be available to you if and/or when you need or want it. > That is incorrect, John can confirm that I was not allowed to use any services from ARIN for my ASN for a few years due to an issue with their database.? I was still required to pay the fee but I was not given access to the services i.e. I couldn't even update the mailing address, which I believe you are required to keep updated. > > We pay for many, many things where we do not always take full > advantage of the service we're paying for, because the provider has > fixed costs regardless.? Your local cableco charges a fixed amount for > packages, regardless of which channels in that package you watch.? > When you stay in a hotel, you pay the same fee regardless of whether > you spend 10 minutes in the room, or 16?hours.? Both examples, like > ARIN, are where there are fixed costs to providing you *any service at > all*, so the consumer is expected to defray those.? (Insurance isn't > so much a fixed-cost example, rather it's a "mutual" or "pool", but it > works out much the same in the end.) > If my cable company did not provide service to me for a year, I would expect that I would get that money back, so to your point, I should expect ARIN to pay me back for the time that they refused to provide services?? Since ARIN does not guarantee that the objects are usable, we are not paying for that, we are paying for services. > > I don't see how this is substantially different from any other > provider with fixed costs - we shoulder their entire cost, we don't > get to pick and choose.? Where we do get to, the overhead is then > baked into each and every price, and each and every one of us gets a > raw deal.? I shudder to think what per-second hotel billing would look > like. > It isn't and hence ARIN like all of the above named entities would be required to compensate any individual/organization that was denied service. > > -Adam Thompson > ?athompso at athompso.net > > > On 2021-05-10 12:43, Steve Noble wrote: > >> >> >> John Curran wrote on 5/10/21 9:47 AM: >> >> Steve - >> >> As noted earlier, ARIN provides many operational services for >> all of the resources in the registry ? and these services are >> provided even for number resources that have no requests >> pending or when there are requests pending to change >> information but that lack proper documentation. >> The consultation that is now underway is with regard to a fee >> change proposal that does not change the maintenance fees for >> ASN's (although it will make them go away for many end-user >> customers with IPv4 or IPv6 holdings due to their migration >> to the Registration Services Plan with ASN registry services >> already included :-) >> >> >> Hi John, >> >> Since paying the fees does not guarantee that you will receive >> service, it seems clear that the fees should be based on usage, not >> on resources.? If ARIN does not provide the services, then the fee >> should be reduced or removed. >> >> -- >> Thank you, >> Steven >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. > > -- Thank you, Steven -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bill at herrin.us Mon May 10 14:39:06 2021 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 11:39:06 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] What do the ASN fees go to? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 9:47 AM John Curran wrote: > As noted earlier, ARIN provides many operational services for all of the resources in the registry ? and these services are provided even for number resources that have no requests pending or when there are requests pending to change information but that lack proper documentation. Hi John, Even if you include the policy process with the list and meetings (in addition to the registry itself) in the "services" provided to an AS number registrant, it seems to me that less than 10% of the end-user AS number fees are spent on services with the rest spent on ARIN overhead. If you disagree, I'd love to see a breakout of the accounting as you figure it. Perhaps there should be a cap on the portion of any fee which can be applied to ARIN overhead costs? At the least, that might encourage ARIN to keep overhead costs from rising out of proportion with the direct services to individual registrants. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill at herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/ From athompso at athompso.net Mon May 10 15:00:54 2021 From: athompso at athompso.net (Adam Thompson) Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 14:00:54 -0500 Subject: [ARIN-consult] What do the ASN fees go to? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51f668d96daa7821ba88ac2fa35e7ea2@athompso.net> Without knowing the history, yes, in principle, I would agree with you. Paying a fee and then being denied service is... not appropriate, at least not normally. Also not legal in many places, not sure what would apply here (and none of my business). -Adam On 2021-05-10 13:38, Steve Noble wrote: > Hi Adam, > > You make my point exactly, I will follow up in-line. > > Adam Thompson wrote on 5/10/21 11:01 AM: > >> Steven, that feels like a deliberate mis-characterization to me. > It is not, but you may not have history about how I was refused service by ARIN for multiple years. > >> You're right, you are not guaranteed to receive service, in much the same way you are not guaranteed to receive a payout from your car insurance if you don't have an accident. Or that you aren't guaranteed to watch CBS content even though it's included in your cable bundle: you're paying for (among other things) the right to access it on demand. >> >> As far as I know, however, paying your fee _does_ guarantee that ARIN services will be available to you if and/or when you need or want it. > That is incorrect, John can confirm that I was not allowed to use any services from ARIN for my ASN for a few years due to an issue with their database. I was still required to pay the fee but I was not given access to the services i.e. I couldn't even update the mailing address, which I believe you are required to keep updated. > >> We pay for many, many things where we do not always take full advantage of the service we're paying for, because the provider has fixed costs regardless. Your local cableco charges a fixed amount for packages, regardless of which channels in that package you watch. When you stay in a hotel, you pay the same fee regardless of whether you spend 10 minutes in the room, or 16 hours. Both examples, like ARIN, are where there are fixed costs to providing you *any service at all*, so the consumer is expected to defray those. (Insurance isn't so much a fixed-cost example, rather it's a "mutual" or "pool", but it works out much the same in the end.) > If my cable company did not provide service to me for a year, I would expect that I would get that money back, so to your point, I should expect ARIN to pay me back for the time that they refused to provide services? Since ARIN does not guarantee that the objects are usable, we are not paying for that, we are paying for services. > >> I don't see how this is substantially different from any other provider with fixed costs - we shoulder their entire cost, we don't get to pick and choose. Where we do get to, the overhead is then baked into each and every price, and each and every one of us gets a raw deal. I shudder to think what per-second hotel billing would look like. > It isn't and hence ARIN like all of the above named entities would be required to compensate any individual/organization that was denied service. > > -Adam Thompson > athompso at athompso.net > > On 2021-05-10 12:43, Steve Noble wrote: > > John Curran wrote on 5/10/21 9:47 AM: > > Steve - > > As noted earlier, ARIN provides many operational services for all of the resources in the registry - and these services are provided even for number resources that have no requests pending or when there are requests pending to change information but that lack proper documentation. > > The consultation that is now underway is with regard to a fee change proposal that does not change the maintenance fees for ASN's (although it will make them go away for many end-user customers with IPv4 or IPv6 holdings due to their migration to the Registration Services Plan with ASN registry services already included :-) Hi John, Since paying the fees does not guarantee that you will receive service, it seems clear that the fees should be based on usage, not on resources. If ARIN does not provide the services, then the fee should be reduced or removed. -- Thank you, Steven _______________________________________________ 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. -- Thank you, Steven -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From snoble at sonn.com Mon May 10 15:11:07 2021 From: snoble at sonn.com (Steve Noble) Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 12:11:07 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] What do the ASN fees go to? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Per the latest 990N available (2018) 18% (4MM) of the money went to executives.? ARIN is a non-profit.? John's compensation is the highest (obviously). Notable expenses Percent of total expenses Executive compensation $3,979,666 18.1% William Herrin wrote on 5/10/21 11:39 AM: > On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 9:47 AM John Curran wrote: >> As noted earlier, ARIN provides many operational services for all of the resources in the registry ? and these services are provided even for number resources that have no requests pending or when there are requests pending to change information but that lack proper documentation. > Hi John, > > Even if you include the policy process with the list and meetings (in > addition to the registry itself) in the "services" provided to an AS > number registrant, it seems to me that less than 10% of the end-user > AS number fees are spent on services with the rest spent on ARIN > overhead. If you disagree, I'd love to see a breakout of the > accounting as you figure it. > > Perhaps there should be a cap on the portion of any fee which can be > applied to ARIN overhead costs? At the least, that might encourage > ARIN to keep overhead costs from rising out of proportion with the > direct services to individual registrants. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > -- Thank you, Steven -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ARIN at citizen.bz Mon May 10 15:17:24 2021 From: ARIN at citizen.bz (Citizen Support ARIN Support) Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 15:17:24 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] What do the ASN fees go to? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ARIN is a registrar that handles ASN and IP addresses. If ARIN issued you one of these or both of these things they did give service. Change of contact info while required and should be up to date is not a denial of service to you. This looks like a person who has become disgruntled and trying to take this topic off topic from the task at hand. This thread is to talk about the possible future changes to fees which in general lower smaller users fee structure. Yes there is a few caveats on this but it has nothing to do with the current question of how fees are handled. This is an example that I have made for this example based on the fees of AS Number only. 150/yr 1u Server hosting in data centers with 1 internet connection using Centos 7 and ARINs BGP settings 200/month for a 100/mb circuit and 1 U 50-200/hr Labor (Can be anything from them helping you to a restart of the server due to iLO failure) now they have to have this in a High Availability Setup in 2+ data centers and you are complaining for a $12.50 a month fee? If you have a problem with your account or your contact info contact ARIN in their support paths please do not troll here. Use of this database, support, and anything else ARIN offers or not does not mean you do or do not have to pay them the ASN and IP blocks are Leased to you can you lease these forever yes but they are lessed not owned. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Date: Mon, May 10, 2021 at 2:38 PM Subject: ARIN-consult Digest, Vol 81, Issue 6 To: 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: What do the ASN fees go to? (Steve Noble) 2. Re: What do the ASN fees go to? (Adam Thompson) 3. Re: What do the ASN fees go to? (Steve Noble) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 10:43:05 -0700 From: Steve Noble To: John Curran Cc: "" Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] What do the ASN fees go to? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" John Curran wrote on 5/10/21 9:47 AM: > > Steve - > > As noted earlier, ARIN provides many operational services for all > of the resources in the registry ? and these services are provided > even for number resources that have no requests pending or when > there are requests pending to change information but that lack > proper documentation. > > The consultation that is now underway is with regard to a fee > change proposal that does not change the maintenance fees for > ASN?s (although it will make them go away for many end-user > customers with IPv4 or IPv6 holdings due to their migration to the > Registration Services Plan with ASN registry services already > included :-) > Hi John, Since paying the fees does not guarantee that you will receive service, it seems clear that the fees should be based on usage, not on resources.? If ARIN does not provide the services, then the fee should be reduced or removed. -- Thank you, Steven -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 13:01:56 -0500 From: Adam Thompson To: Steve Noble Cc: John Curran , Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] What do the ASN fees go to? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Steven, that feels like a deliberate mis-characterization to me. You're right, you are not guaranteed to receive service, in much the same way you are not guaranteed to receive a payout from your car insurance if you don't have an accident. Or that you aren't guaranteed to watch CBS content even though it's included in your cable bundle: you're paying for (among other things) the right to access it on demand. As far as I know, however, paying your fee _does_ guarantee that ARIN services will be available to you if and/or when you need or want it. We pay for many, many things where we do not always take full advantage of the service we're paying for, because the provider has fixed costs regardless. Your local cableco charges a fixed amount for packages, regardless of which channels in that package you watch. When you stay in a hotel, you pay the same fee regardless of whether you spend 10 minutes in the room, or 16 hours. Both examples, like ARIN, are where there are fixed costs to providing you *any service at all*, so the consumer is expected to defray those. (Insurance isn't so much a fixed-cost example, rather it's a "mutual" or "pool", but it works out much the same in the end.) I don't see how this is substantially different from any other provider with fixed costs - we shoulder their entire cost, we don't get to pick and choose. Where we do get to, the overhead is then baked into each and every price, and each and every one of us gets a raw deal. I shudder to think what per-second hotel billing would look like. -Adam Thompson athompso at athompso.net On 2021-05-10 12:43, Steve Noble wrote: > John Curran wrote on 5/10/21 9:47 AM: > > Steve - > > As noted earlier, ARIN provides many operational services for all of the resources in the registry - and these services are provided even for number resources that have no requests pending or when there are requests pending to change information but that lack proper documentation. > > The consultation that is now underway is with regard to a fee change proposal that does not change the maintenance fees for ASN's (although it will make them go away for many end-user customers with IPv4 or IPv6 holdings due to their migration to the Registration Services Plan with ASN registry services already included :-) Hi John, Since paying the fees does not guarantee that you will receive service, it seems clear that the fees should be based on usage, not on resources. If ARIN does not provide the services, then the fee should be reduced or removed. -- Thank you, Steven _______________________________________________ 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: ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 11:38:46 -0700 From: Steve Noble To: Adam Thompson Cc: John Curran , arin-consult at arin.net Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] What do the ASN fees go to? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" Hi Adam, You make my point exactly, I will follow up in-line. Adam Thompson wrote on 5/10/21 11:01 AM: > > Steven, that feels like a deliberate mis-characterization to me. > It is not, but you may not have history about how I was refused service by ARIN for multiple years. > > You're right, you are not guaranteed to receive service, in much the > same way you are not guaranteed to receive a payout from your car > insurance if you don't have an accident.? Or that you aren't > guaranteed to watch CBS content even though it's included in your > cable bundle: you're paying for (among other things) the right to > access it on demand. > > As far as I know, however, paying your fee /does/?guarantee?that ARIN > services will be available to you if and/or when you need or want it. > That is incorrect, John can confirm that I was not allowed to use any services from ARIN for my ASN for a few years due to an issue with their database.? I was still required to pay the fee but I was not given access to the services i.e. I couldn't even update the mailing address, which I believe you are required to keep updated. > > We pay for many, many things where we do not always take full > advantage of the service we're paying for, because the provider has > fixed costs regardless.? Your local cableco charges a fixed amount for > packages, regardless of which channels in that package you watch.? > When you stay in a hotel, you pay the same fee regardless of whether > you spend 10 minutes in the room, or 16?hours.? Both examples, like > ARIN, are where there are fixed costs to providing you *any service at > all*, so the consumer is expected to defray those.? (Insurance isn't > so much a fixed-cost example, rather it's a "mutual" or "pool", but it > works out much the same in the end.) > If my cable company did not provide service to me for a year, I would expect that I would get that money back, so to your point, I should expect ARIN to pay me back for the time that they refused to provide services?? Since ARIN does not guarantee that the objects are usable, we are not paying for that, we are paying for services. > > I don't see how this is substantially different from any other > provider with fixed costs - we shoulder their entire cost, we don't > get to pick and choose.? Where we do get to, the overhead is then > baked into each and every price, and each and every one of us gets a > raw deal.? I shudder to think what per-second hotel billing would look > like. > It isn't and hence ARIN like all of the above named entities would be required to compensate any individual/organization that was denied service. > > -Adam Thompson > ?athompso at athompso.net > > > On 2021-05-10 12:43, Steve Noble wrote: > >> >> >> John Curran wrote on 5/10/21 9:47 AM: >> >> Steve - >> >> As noted earlier, ARIN provides many operational services for >> all of the resources in the registry ? and these services are >> provided even for number resources that have no requests >> pending or when there are requests pending to change >> information but that lack proper documentation. >> The consultation that is now underway is with regard to a fee >> change proposal that does not change the maintenance fees for >> ASN's (although it will make them go away for many end-user >> customers with IPv4 or IPv6 holdings due to their migration >> to the Registration Services Plan with ASN registry services >> already included :-) >> >> >> Hi John, >> >> Since paying the fees does not guarantee that you will receive >> service, it seems clear that the fees should be based on usage, not >> on resources.? If ARIN does not provide the services, then the fee >> should be reduced or removed. >> >> -- >> Thank you, >> Steven >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. > > -- Thank you, Steven -------------- 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 81, Issue 6 ******************************************* From jcurran at arin.net Mon May 10 15:22:00 2021 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 19:22:00 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] What do the ASN fees go to? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55EC5C64-A6C8-4873-A754-291A2AFA650B@arin.net> Steve - As I responded to you on this same assertion on this same list in April 2018 - "Steve - As discussed perviously on several ARIN mailing lists with you, ARIN does prevent parties with no clear association with a resource from making changes. I believe that the specific issue has been cleared up in your case, but recognize that ARIN is also subject to parties attempting to hijack resources and thus is somewhat pedantic in this regard. " There?s quite a bit to contest in your assertions, but suffice to say that ARIN provided services throughout the time and complied with policies as set by this community ? if you believe that you were not provided everything entitled, the agreement contains provisions for handling disputes as necessary. Best wishes, /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers On 10 May 2021, at 2:38 PM, Steve Noble > wrote: Hi Adam, You make my point exactly, I will follow up in-line. Adam Thompson wrote on 5/10/21 11:01 AM: Steven, that feels like a deliberate mis-characterization to me. It is not, but you may not have history about how I was refused service by ARIN for multiple years. You're right, you are not guaranteed to receive service, in much the same way you are not guaranteed to receive a payout from your car insurance if you don't have an accident. Or that you aren't guaranteed to watch CBS content even though it's included in your cable bundle: you're paying for (among other things) the right to access it on demand. As far as I know, however, paying your fee does guarantee that ARIN services will be available to you if and/or when you need or want it. That is incorrect, John can confirm that I was not allowed to use any services from ARIN for my ASN for a few years due to an issue with their database. I was still required to pay the fee but I was not given access to the services i.e. I couldn't even update the mailing address, which I believe you are required to keep updated. We pay for many, many things where we do not always take full advantage of the service we're paying for, because the provider has fixed costs regardless. Your local cableco charges a fixed amount for packages, regardless of which channels in that package you watch. When you stay in a hotel, you pay the same fee regardless of whether you spend 10 minutes in the room, or 16 hours. Both examples, like ARIN, are where there are fixed costs to providing you *any service at all*, so the consumer is expected to defray those. (Insurance isn't so much a fixed-cost example, rather it's a "mutual" or "pool", but it works out much the same in the end.) If my cable company did not provide service to me for a year, I would expect that I would get that money back, so to your point, I should expect ARIN to pay me back for the time that they refused to provide services? Since ARIN does not guarantee that the objects are usable, we are not paying for that, we are paying for services. I don't see how this is substantially different from any other provider with fixed costs - we shoulder their entire cost, we don't get to pick and choose. Where we do get to, the overhead is then baked into each and every price, and each and every one of us gets a raw deal. I shudder to think what per-second hotel billing would look like. It isn't and hence ARIN like all of the above named entities would be required to compensate any individual/organization that was denied service. -Adam Thompson athompso at athompso.net On 2021-05-10 12:43, Steve Noble wrote: John Curran wrote on 5/10/21 9:47 AM: Steve - As noted earlier, ARIN provides many operational services for all of the resources in the registry ? and these services are provided even for number resources that have no requests pending or when there are requests pending to change information but that lack proper documentation. The consultation that is now underway is with regard to a fee change proposal that does not change the maintenance fees for ASN's (although it will make them go away for many end-user customers with IPv4 or IPv6 holdings due to their migration to the Registration Services Plan with ASN registry services already included :-) Hi John, Since paying the fees does not guarantee that you will receive service, it seems clear that the fees should be based on usage, not on resources. If ARIN does not provide the services, then the fee should be reduced or removed. -- Thank you, Steven _______________________________________________ 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. -- Thank you, Steven -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bill at herrin.us Mon May 10 15:31:58 2021 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 12:31:58 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] What do the ASN fees go to? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 12:11 PM Steve Noble wrote: > Per the latest 990N available (2018) 18% (4MM) of the money went to > executives. ARIN is a non-profit. John's compensation is the highest > (obviously). > Hi Steve, I have no philosophical problem with paying ARIN's executive team bucketloads of money. If they do a good job on the tasks we've set them, they're worth it. However, executive compensation is an overhead cost and I do have a problem when non-profit executives fail to keep their organizations' overhead costs (as a percentage of mission services) under good control. I think you made a fair point about the cost of services related to an AS number registration versus the fee charged and I'd like to see it addressed. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill at herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Mon May 10 15:36:59 2021 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 19:36:59 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] What do the ASN fees go to? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <06DA300B-041D-4388-AFFA-858FEFE827D7@arin.net> Correct - ASN maintenance fees are not affected by the proposed fee change and not the subject of this consultation. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers > On 10 May 2021, at 3:17 PM, Citizen Support ARIN Support wrote: > > ARIN is a registrar that handles ASN and IP addresses. If ARIN > issued you one of these or both of these things they did give service. > Change of contact info while required and should be up to date is > not a denial of service to you. This looks like a person who has > become disgruntled and trying to take this topic off topic from the > task at hand. > > This thread is to talk about the possible future changes to fees which > in general lower smaller users fee structure. Yes there is a few > caveats on this but it has nothing to do with the current question of > how fees are handled. > > > This is an example that I have made for this example based on the fees > of AS Number only. > 150/yr > > 1u Server hosting in data centers with 1 internet connection using > Centos 7 and ARINs BGP settings > 200/month for a 100/mb circuit and 1 U > 50-200/hr Labor (Can be anything from them helping you to a restart of > the server due to iLO failure) > > now they have to have this in a High Availability Setup in 2+ data centers > > and you are complaining for a $12.50 a month fee? If you have a > problem with your account or your contact info contact ARIN in their > support paths please do not troll here. > > Use of this database, support, and anything else ARIN offers or not > does not mean you do or do not have to pay them the ASN and IP blocks > are Leased to you can you lease these forever yes but they are lessed > not owned. > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: > Date: Mon, May 10, 2021 at 2:38 PM > Subject: ARIN-consult Digest, Vol 81, Issue 6 > To: > > > 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: What do the ASN fees go to? (Steve Noble) > 2. Re: What do the ASN fees go to? (Adam Thompson) > 3. Re: What do the ASN fees go to? (Steve Noble) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 10:43:05 -0700 > From: Steve Noble > To: John Curran > Cc: "" > Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] What do the ASN fees go to? > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" > > > > John Curran wrote on 5/10/21 9:47 AM: >> >> Steve - >> >> As noted earlier, ARIN provides many operational services for all >> of the resources in the registry ? and these services are provided >> even for number resources that have no requests pending or when >> there are requests pending to change information but that lack >> proper documentation. >> >> The consultation that is now underway is with regard to a fee >> change proposal that does not change the maintenance fees for >> ASN?s (although it will make them go away for many end-user >> customers with IPv4 or IPv6 holdings due to their migration to the >> Registration Services Plan with ASN registry services already >> included :-) >> > > Hi John, > > Since paying the fees does not guarantee that you will receive service, > it seems clear that the fees should be based on usage, not on > resources.? If ARIN does not provide the services, then the fee should > be reduced or removed. > > -- > Thank you, > Steven > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 13:01:56 -0500 > From: Adam Thompson > To: Steve Noble > Cc: John Curran , > Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] What do the ASN fees go to? > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Steven, that feels like a deliberate mis-characterization to me. > > You're right, you are not guaranteed to receive service, in much the > same way you are not guaranteed to receive a payout from your car > insurance if you don't have an accident. Or that you aren't guaranteed > to watch CBS content even though it's included in your cable bundle: > you're paying for (among other things) the right to access it on demand. > > > As far as I know, however, paying your fee _does_ guarantee that ARIN > services will be available to you if and/or when you need or want it. > > We pay for many, many things where we do not always take full advantage > of the service we're paying for, because the provider has fixed costs > regardless. Your local cableco charges a fixed amount for packages, > regardless of which channels in that package you watch. When you stay > in a hotel, you pay the same fee regardless of whether you spend 10 > minutes in the room, or 16 hours. Both examples, like ARIN, are where > there are fixed costs to providing you *any service at all*, so the > consumer is expected to defray those. (Insurance isn't so much a > fixed-cost example, rather it's a "mutual" or "pool", but it works out > much the same in the end.) > > I don't see how this is substantially different from any other provider > with fixed costs - we shoulder their entire cost, we don't get to pick > and choose. Where we do get to, the overhead is then baked into each > and every price, and each and every one of us gets a raw deal. I > shudder to think what per-second hotel billing would look like. > > -Adam Thompson > athompso at athompso.net > > On 2021-05-10 12:43, Steve Noble wrote: > >> John Curran wrote on 5/10/21 9:47 AM: >> >> Steve - >> >> As noted earlier, ARIN provides many operational services for all of the resources in the registry - and these services are provided even for number resources that have no requests pending or when there are requests pending to change information but that lack proper documentation. >> >> The consultation that is now underway is with regard to a fee change proposal that does not change the maintenance fees for ASN's (although it will make them go away for many end-user customers with IPv4 or IPv6 holdings due to their migration to the Registration Services Plan with ASN registry services already included :-) > > Hi John, > > Since paying the fees does not guarantee that you will receive service, > it seems clear that the fees should be based on usage, not on resources. > If ARIN does not provide the services, then the fee should be reduced > or removed. > > -- > Thank you, > Steven > _______________________________________________ > 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: > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 11:38:46 -0700 > From: Steve Noble > To: Adam Thompson > Cc: John Curran , arin-consult at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] What do the ASN fees go to? > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" > > Hi Adam, > > You make my point exactly, I will follow up in-line. > > Adam Thompson wrote on 5/10/21 11:01 AM: >> >> Steven, that feels like a deliberate mis-characterization to me. >> > It is not, but you may not have history about how I was refused service > by ARIN for multiple years. >> >> You're right, you are not guaranteed to receive service, in much the >> same way you are not guaranteed to receive a payout from your car >> insurance if you don't have an accident.? Or that you aren't >> guaranteed to watch CBS content even though it's included in your >> cable bundle: you're paying for (among other things) the right to >> access it on demand. >> >> As far as I know, however, paying your fee /does/?guarantee?that ARIN >> services will be available to you if and/or when you need or want it. >> > That is incorrect, John can confirm that I was not allowed to use any > services from ARIN for my ASN for a few years due to an issue with their > database.? I was still required to pay the fee but I was not given > access to the services i.e. I couldn't even update the mailing address, > which I believe you are required to keep updated. >> >> We pay for many, many things where we do not always take full >> advantage of the service we're paying for, because the provider has >> fixed costs regardless.? Your local cableco charges a fixed amount for >> packages, regardless of which channels in that package you watch.? >> When you stay in a hotel, you pay the same fee regardless of whether >> you spend 10 minutes in the room, or 16?hours.? Both examples, like >> ARIN, are where there are fixed costs to providing you *any service at >> all*, so the consumer is expected to defray those.? (Insurance isn't >> so much a fixed-cost example, rather it's a "mutual" or "pool", but it >> works out much the same in the end.) >> > If my cable company did not provide service to me for a year, I would > expect that I would get that money back, so to your point, I should > expect ARIN to pay me back for the time that they refused to provide > services?? Since ARIN does not guarantee that the objects are usable, we > are not paying for that, we are paying for services. >> >> I don't see how this is substantially different from any other >> provider with fixed costs - we shoulder their entire cost, we don't >> get to pick and choose.? Where we do get to, the overhead is then >> baked into each and every price, and each and every one of us gets a >> raw deal.? I shudder to think what per-second hotel billing would look >> like. >> > It isn't and hence ARIN like all of the above named entities would be > required to compensate any individual/organization that was denied service. >> >> -Adam Thompson >> ?athompso at athompso.net >> >> >> On 2021-05-10 12:43, Steve Noble wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> John Curran wrote on 5/10/21 9:47 AM: >>> >>> Steve - >>> >>> As noted earlier, ARIN provides many operational services for >>> all of the resources in the registry ? and these services are >>> provided even for number resources that have no requests >>> pending or when there are requests pending to change >>> information but that lack proper documentation. >>> The consultation that is now underway is with regard to a fee >>> change proposal that does not change the maintenance fees for >>> ASN's (although it will make them go away for many end-user >>> customers with IPv4 or IPv6 holdings due to their migration >>> to the Registration Services Plan with ASN registry services >>> already included :-) >>> >>> >>> Hi John, >>> >>> Since paying the fees does not guarantee that you will receive >>> service, it seems clear that the fees should be based on usage, not >>> on resources.? If ARIN does not provide the services, then the fee >>> should be reduced or removed. >>> >>> -- >>> Thank you, >>> Steven >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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. >> >> > > -- > Thank you, > Steven > -------------- 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 81, Issue 6 > ******************************************* > _______________________________________________ > 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 athompso at athompso.net Mon May 10 15:39:46 2021 From: athompso at athompso.net (Adam Thompson) Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 14:39:46 -0500 Subject: [ARIN-consult] What do the ASN fees go to? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7a4b2ace02ac1583e30f2bd41d3c2be9@athompso.net> Going off-topic slightly... There is a trend worldwide for NGOs, Charities, and other non-profits to steadily increase overhead (notably including executive compensation) to unsustainable levels. In this industry in particular we have the unfortunate example of Nominet. I certainly don't expect John to disclose his entire compensation package, particularly on a public mailing list, and I am *NOT* saying this applies to ARIN - I have no idea if it does or not, and making such an accusation would require a ton more research and concrete evidence, none of which I care enough to do at the moment. (I'm pretty sure John doesn't take home the entire $4M line item!) HOWEVER, if there's a way to proactively prevent ARIN from spiraling out of control (? la Nominet), that's an interesting idea. I don't think it needs to be addressed during the current consultation over fees. I don't have the impression that most stakeholders would support such a large change in scope at this late point in the consultation. Especially since I don't know of any canned examples, best practices, etc. in this area that could be readily applied, I am not prepared to start discussing details on that the day this consultation closes! I wouldn't mind seeing thoughts on this the _next_ time ARIN fees change. For the record, while I'm not exactly happy about the new fees, I think the change is... reasonable. I can't think of any other set of changes that both meets ARIN's operational needs AND would be better accepted by the community than this set. -Adam On 2021-05-10 14:11, Steve Noble wrote: > Per the latest 990N available (2018) 18% (4MM) of the money went to executives. ARIN is a non-profit. John's compensation is the highest (obviously). > > Notable expenses > Percent of total expenses > > Executive compensation > $3,979,666 > 18.1% > > William Herrin wrote on 5/10/21 11:39 AM: > > On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 9:47 AM John Curran wrote: > > As noted earlier, ARIN provides many operational services for all of the resources in the registry - and these services are provided even for number resources that have no requests pending or when there are requests pending to change information but that lack proper documentation. > > Hi John, > > Even if you include the policy process with the list and meetings (in > addition to the registry itself) in the "services" provided to an AS > number registrant, it seems to me that less than 10% of the end-user > AS number fees are spent on services with the rest spent on ARIN > overhead. If you disagree, I'd love to see a breakout of the > accounting as you figure it. > > Perhaps there should be a cap on the portion of any fee which can be > applied to ARIN overhead costs? At the least, that might encourage > ARIN to keep overhead costs from rising out of proportion with the > direct services to individual registrants. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin -- Thank you, Steven _______________________________________________ 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 jcurran at arin.net Mon May 10 16:15:46 2021 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 20:15:46 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] What do the ASN fees go to? In-Reply-To: <7a4b2ace02ac1583e30f2bd41d3c2be9@athompso.net> References: <7a4b2ace02ac1583e30f2bd41d3c2be9@athompso.net> Message-ID: <1FFB70AF-1323-42D8-96D1-314F00AECDE7@arin.net> Adam - Indeed, slightly off topic (but quite understandable given a discussion of fee changes that raises overall organizational revenue? :-) ARIN constantly needs to balance investment in organization (i.e. the staff and capital necessary to maintain and develop new services) against the need to contain costs and minimize fees. ARIN does not automatically adjust fees annually (as some other organizations do) and rather periodically seeks to adjust fees as necessary to cover its expenses. Having noted that, there?s definitely quite a bit of judgement involved in achieving the right balance for the organization. To that end, may I suggest a couple of things that might help in this regard? 1) Run for the ARIN Board. First and foremost, it is the ARIN?s Board that review each year's activity plan and budget in order to set the priorities. There have been years that we?ve cut back programs and trimmed staff as a result, and there?s years that we?ve surged in order to meet emerging community demands. Ultimately, it comes down to the Board to determine the best balance. 2) If one doesn?t have time to run for the Board, you can help inform the consideration of the candidates through the ARIN Board Nominee Questionnaire, which I note the NomCom is presently seeking additional questions for possible inclusion - https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-announce/2021-May/002535.html 3) Finally, stay informed and get your organization to vote in the annual election for candidates whose views match your own - https://www.arin.net/participate/oversight/elections/ One of the things that is quite exciting about the proposed fee change is the potential for having even more (and predominantly smaller) organizations now helping shape ARIN going forward, as the movement to a single fee schedule will open up ARIN Membership and our elections to those organizations that want to be more involved in ARIN governance. Also, I will note that the ARIN Board is already quite interested in best practices for ARIN's governance, and has convened a special ARIN Board Governance Working Group (GWG) to consider governance best practices and their application to the organization - https://www.arin.net/about/welcome/board/committees/charters/#charter-for-the-arin-board-governance-working-group Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers On 10 May 2021, at 3:39 PM, Adam Thompson > wrote: Going off-topic slightly... There is a trend worldwide for NGOs, Charities, and other non-profits to steadily increase overhead (notably including executive compensation) to unsustainable levels. In this industry in particular we have the unfortunate example of Nominet. I certainly don't expect John to disclose his entire compensation package, particularly on a public mailing list, and I am *NOT* saying this applies to ARIN - I have no idea if it does or not, and making such an accusation would require a ton more research and concrete evidence, none of which I care enough to do at the moment. (I'm pretty sure John doesn't take home the entire $4M line item!) HOWEVER, if there's a way to proactively prevent ARIN from spiraling out of control (? la Nominet), that's an interesting idea. I don't think it needs to be addressed during the current consultation over fees. I don't have the impression that most stakeholders would support such a large change in scope at this late point in the consultation. Especially since I don't know of any canned examples, best practices, etc. in this area that could be readily applied, I am not prepared to start discussing details on that the day this consultation closes! I wouldn't mind seeing thoughts on this the _next_ time ARIN fees change. For the record, while I'm not exactly happy about the new fees, I think the change is... reasonable. I can't think of any other set of changes that both meets ARIN's operational needs AND would be better accepted by the community than this set. -Adam On 2021-05-10 14:11, Steve Noble wrote: Per the latest 990N available (2018) 18% (4MM) of the money went to executives. ARIN is a non-profit. John's compensation is the highest (obviously). Notable expenses Percent of total expenses Executive compensation $3,979,666 18.1% William Herrin wrote on 5/10/21 11:39 AM: On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 9:47 AM John Curran wrote: As noted earlier, ARIN provides many operational services for all of the resources in the registry ? and these services are provided even for number resources that have no requests pending or when there are requests pending to change information but that lack proper documentation. Hi John, Even if you include the policy process with the list and meetings (in addition to the registry itself) in the "services" provided to an AS number registrant, it seems to me that less than 10% of the end-user AS number fees are spent on services with the rest spent on ARIN overhead. If you disagree, I'd love to see a breakout of the accounting as you figure it. Perhaps there should be a cap on the portion of any fee which can be applied to ARIN overhead costs? At the least, that might encourage ARIN to keep overhead costs from rising out of proportion with the direct services to individual registrants. Regards, Bill Herrin -- Thank you, Steven _______________________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From risner at lokkak.com Tue May 11 14:34:54 2021 From: risner at lokkak.com (Lokkak) Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 14:34:54 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees on January of 2022 In-Reply-To: <1E437AC1-3D6C-47F6-B67D-93C10CAE5E2D@arin.net> References: <1E437AC1-3D6C-47F6-B67D-93C10CAE5E2D@arin.net> Message-ID: <88B97DFC-4D09-45A0-B903-E6206630344A@lokkak.com> Thank you for your reply. > To be clear, ARIN operates quite a few services (including publication > of the registry via Whois and RADP, reverse DNS services, IRR and RPKI > services) which benefits all customers even when customers are not > making requests for changes or additional resource I entirely agree, there are a number of services. Most of those are directly related to the total number of IP addresses held. My thinking is to not pick and choose, but there seems to be a disproportionatly higher portion of the costs placed on the smaller entities. As a thought experiment, I pulled a full BGP feed today, did some calculations to find the total number of routed IP addresses. If we use a theretical group of 200 entities classified as 3X-Small, they pay 167 times as much as the cost of the budget divided by the total routed space. See the photo for more detail and I?ll happily share the excel sheet if you wish to check my math. > There may be some confusion here, since the proposed fee change does > exactly what you ask above - it moves ?legacy resource holders to > the RSP Fee Schedule with the annual cap of total maintenance fees > increasing $25 per year? Apologies, I did a poor job with that message. I simply copied the proposed changes and put my thoughts below. Put differently, the smaller you are the more your fees contribute to ARIN?s operating budget. It would be better if there was a flat fee (say $125) to be a member, and the remaining amount is based on your share of the adress space you have in the system. For me with as a 2X-Small, in my suggestion, I?d pay $125 + 1,024 / 4,007,931,638 (routed blocks) * $23,507,000 (budget) = $6.00 or $131. I have my own reverse DNS (in-addr.arpa. points to my DNS), I?ve only made a couple requests in 4 years, and I?m not inclined to make material changes for the next 10 years. However, I?ll see my costs rise 300% in that decade on a resource that will decrease in value (becoming more ?retro computing?) at the same time. This line of thinking is why I feel increasing the per change type fees (such as OrgCreate, OrgRecovery, and Transfer) is an excellent way of covering operating costs while minimizing costs for small entities with few IPs and rare support cases. Risner ![](cid:286703DA-E60E-4418-AFCF-29C9E306D5D6 at lokkak.com "PastedImage.png") On 10 May 2021, at 12:31, John Curran wrote: > On 10 May 2021, at 10:14 AM, Lokkak > > wrote: > > This is coming from a perspective of a legacy holder, with an ASN, but > no IPv6 address and entirely no desire to obtain IPv6 addresses. > > James - > > Thanks for the taking the time to respond to the consultation - your > perspective is quite helpful. > > I have /22 of legacy address space, and I plan to maintain them until > such time as they are no longer routable or simply niche of > "retro-computing? routing. > > I?ll examine the changes one by one, starting with the transition: > Transitioning End Users from annual per-resource maintenance fees to > the RSP (Registration Services Plan) Fee Schedule > I?d rather not have to migrate the the normal agreement. The > included IPv6 Block Size has zero value to me. In 2017, my blocks were > held with my ISP. I had to sign the LRSA 4.0 to move them into my > control when that ISP closed. I don?t anticipate needing any changes > or insuring any additional resources of ARIN. So the yearly fee of > $125 should handle the limited labor cost my registration has for > ARIN. > > To be clear, ARIN operates quite a few services (including publication > of the registry via Whois and RADP, reverse DNS services, IRR and RPKI > services) which benefits all customers even when customers are not > making requests for changes or additional resources. After the > extensive fee consultation that was held in 2014 and 2015, the > decision was made to recover these costs in some proportion to the > number resources held, as the benefit derived by those in the > community is proportional to their resources held. > > We could lower base fees and charge separately for services that are > optional but reflect best practices (e.g. this includes not only IPv6, > but IRR and RPKI) but that doesn?t comport with our mission to > support and advance the operation of the Internet - we?d effectively > be creating a disincentive for network operator deployment of > practices that many others simply consider good manners (e.g. MANRS - > https://www.manrs.org/isps/) > > 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) > For me, the yearly increase in maintenance doesn?t offer me more > value nor help reduce ARIN?s costs. The costs for provide my support > is minimal. It seems to be assuming everyone is taking advantage of > IPv6 resources and generating additional ARIN support requirements. > > Providing a temporary IPv6 fee waiver for organizations in the > 3X-Small category that desire a larger address block > I?d rather see this feature removed and replaced with transitioning > legacy resource holders to the RSP Fee Schedule with the annual cap of > total maintenance fees increasing $25 per year. A pure legacy holder > shouldn?t need to see fees increased, if they are not using IPv6 > addresses. > > There may be some confusion here, since the proposed fee change does > exactly what you ask above - it moves ?legacy resource holders to > the RSP Fee Schedule with the annual cap of total maintenance fees > increasing $25 per year? > > Note that this fee consultation results in no change for you, as you > have /22 worth of direct allocations and an ASN, and would be invoiced > today as an 2X-Small (at $500/year) if it were not for the legacy > maintenance fee cap. Because of the cap you are invoiced $125 per > year, and in 2022, you will pay $150 (again with the cap increasing > $25 per year until you are eventually paying the same as all other > 2X-Small ARIN customers. > > Implementing a $100 fee for OrgCreate and OrgRecovery transactions > I believe this is an excellent way to recover costs of ARIN services > for legacy holders. > > Increasing the transfer processing fee to $500 > This is also an excellent way to recover costs. I seem to remember in > 2017, there was a great deal of effort on my part to effect the > transfer. The $500 seems a good initial cost, but if that fee > doesn?t cover the entire costs incurred by ARIN the fee should be > sufficient to cover the costs of the work. > > Acknowledged, and very helpful to hear. > > 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: PastedImage.png Type: image/png Size: 503929 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jcurran at arin.net Tue May 11 18:22:42 2021 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 22:22:42 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees on January of 2022 In-Reply-To: <88B97DFC-4D09-45A0-B903-E6206630344A@lokkak.com> References: <1E437AC1-3D6C-47F6-B67D-93C10CAE5E2D@arin.net> <88B97DFC-4D09-45A0-B903-E6206630344A@lokkak.com> Message-ID: Risner - You correct that ARIN?s fee schedule is not directly proportional, but rather geometrically? i.e. for everyone fourfold increase in IPv4 address space held, ARIN?s fees double. Note that this still provides for a relatively modest starting point of $250/year [for a /24 IPv4, /40 (or /36 soon) of IPv6 space, and ASNs] and yet goes up over one hundred thousand dollars annually for organizations with the largest address holdings. (For the arguments in favor or opposed to straight linear fees [and a few other approaches that we set aside], one can review the original Fee Structure Review Panel Final Report here - https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2014-September/029075.html) Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers On 11 May 2021, at 2:34 PM, Lokkak > wrote: Thank you for your reply. To be clear, ARIN operates quite a few services (including publication of the registry via Whois and RADP, reverse DNS services, IRR and RPKI services) which benefits all customers even when customers are not making requests for changes or additional resource I entirely agree, there are a number of services. Most of those are directly related to the total number of IP addresses held. My thinking is to not pick and choose, but there seems to be a disproportionatly higher portion of the costs placed on the smaller entities. As a thought experiment, I pulled a full BGP feed today, did some calculations to find the total number of routed IP addresses. If we use a theretical group of 200 entities classified as 3X-Small, they pay 167 times as much as the cost of the budget divided by the total routed space. See the photo for more detail and I?ll happily share the excel sheet if you wish to check my math. There may be some confusion here, since the proposed fee change does exactly what you ask above - it moves ?legacy resource holders to the RSP Fee Schedule with the annual cap of total maintenance fees increasing $25 per year? Apologies, I did a poor job with that message. I simply copied the proposed changes and put my thoughts below. Put differently, the smaller you are the more your fees contribute to ARIN?s operating budget. It would be better if there was a flat fee (say $125) to be a member, and the remaining amount is based on your share of the adress space you have in the system. For me with as a 2X-Small, in my suggestion, I?d pay $125 + 1,024 / 4,007,931,638 (routed blocks) * $23,507,000 (budget) = $6.00 or $131. I have my own reverse DNS (in-addr.arpa. points to my DNS), I?ve only made a couple requests in 4 years, and I?m not inclined to make material changes for the next 10 years. However, I?ll see my costs rise 300% in that decade on a resource that will decrease in value (becoming more ?retro computing?) at the same time. This line of thinking is why I feel increasing the per change type fees (such as OrgCreate, OrgRecovery, and Transfer) is an excellent way of covering operating costs while minimizing costs for small entities with few IPs and rare support cases. Risner On 10 May 2021, at 12:31, John Curran wrote: On 10 May 2021, at 10:14 AM, Lokkak > wrote: This is coming from a perspective of a legacy holder, with an ASN, but no IPv6 address and entirely no desire to obtain IPv6 addresses. James - Thanks for the taking the time to respond to the consultation - your perspective is quite helpful. I have /22 of legacy address space, and I plan to maintain them until such time as they are no longer routable or simply niche of "retro-computing? routing. I?ll examine the changes one by one, starting with the transition: Transitioning End Users from annual per-resource maintenance fees to the RSP (Registration Services Plan) Fee Schedule I?d rather not have to migrate the the normal agreement. The included IPv6 Block Size has zero value to me. In 2017, my blocks were held with my ISP. I had to sign the LRSA 4.0 to move them into my control when that ISP closed. I don?t anticipate needing any changes or insuring any additional resources of ARIN. So the yearly fee of $125 should handle the limited labor cost my registration has for ARIN. To be clear, ARIN operates quite a few services (including publication of the registry via Whois and RADP, reverse DNS services, IRR and RPKI services) which benefits all customers even when customers are not making requests for changes or additional resources. After the extensive fee consultation that was held in 2014 and 2015, the decision was made to recover these costs in some proportion to the number resources held, as the benefit derived by those in the community is proportional to their resources held. We could lower base fees and charge separately for services that are optional but reflect best practices (e.g. this includes not only IPv6, but IRR and RPKI) but that doesn?t comport with our mission to support and advance the operation of the Internet - we?d effectively be creating a disincentive for network operator deployment of practices that many others simply consider good manners (e.g. MANRS - https://www.manrs.org/isps/) 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) For me, the yearly increase in maintenance doesn?t offer me more value nor help reduce ARIN?s costs. The costs for provide my support is minimal. It seems to be assuming everyone is taking advantage of IPv6 resources and generating additional ARIN support requirements. Providing a temporary IPv6 fee waiver for organizations in the 3X-Small category that desire a larger address block I?d rather see this feature removed and replaced with transitioning legacy resource holders to the RSP Fee Schedule with the annual cap of total maintenance fees increasing $25 per year. A pure legacy holder shouldn?t need to see fees increased, if they are not using IPv6 addresses. There may be some confusion here, since the proposed fee change does exactly what you ask above - it moves ?legacy resource holders to the RSP Fee Schedule with the annual cap of total maintenance fees increasing $25 per year? Note that this fee consultation results in no change for you, as you have /22 worth of direct allocations and an ASN, and would be invoiced today as an 2X-Small (at $500/year) if it were not for the legacy maintenance fee cap. Because of the cap you are invoiced $125 per year, and in 2022, you will pay $150 (again with the cap increasing $25 per year until you are eventually paying the same as all other 2X-Small ARIN customers. Implementing a $100 fee for OrgCreate and OrgRecovery transactions I believe this is an excellent way to recover costs of ARIN services for legacy holders. Increasing the transfer processing fee to $500 This is also an excellent way to recover costs. I seem to remember in 2017, there was a great deal of effort on my part to effect the transfer. The $500 seems a good initial cost, but if that fee doesn?t cover the entire costs incurred by ARIN the fee should be sufficient to cover the costs of the work. Acknowledged, and very helpful to hear. Thanks again! /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 info at arin.net Thu May 13 09:40:19 2021 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Thu, 13 May 2021 09:40:19 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] ACSP Consultation 2021.3 - ARIN Fees is Now Closed Message-ID: <1C0883B0-BA39-4B94-A498-F171968A3D8F@arin.net> ARIN thanks those who provided valuable feedback during the Consultation on ARIN Fees. The feedback from the community will be provided to the Board for their consideration. Overall, input from the community was supportive of work toward harmonizing fees to achieve equitable cost recovery including: - Increasing the Transfer Fees to $500 - Adding transaction fees for OrgCreate and OrgRecovery - The need for cost-recovery necessary to support the continued development and deployment of Internet routing security services (i.e., RPKI and authenticated IRR) - Harmonizing fees for all customers as fast as reasonably may be accomplished - Simplifying the process of working with ARIN via a single uniform fee schedule Several interesting points were raised in the discussion, and we did our best to address informational questions as they occurred during the consultation. We urge customers to review this dialog in the consultation mailing list archives (https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/). The input provided by the community is a vital part of our planning processes at ARIN, and after reviewing responses to the consultation we will recommend that the Board adopt the proposed 2022 Fee Schedule with a minor adjustment. Due to concerns that a charge of $100 for OrgCreate transactions might create a deterrent to update reassignment data, we plan to reduce the fee for OrgCreate to $50. While this will not allow us to achieve our goal of full cost recovery for these transactions, we feel it achieves an appropriate balance between consideration for the services and encouraging maintenance of accurate registry data. Another major point raised during the consultation was regarding the need for more equitable treatment of legacy resource holders ? in particular whether there could be a faster transition from capped fees to the standard fee schedule. We did weigh several options suggested by the community, but we intend to proceed as planned (i.e., increasing the cap on total annual registry maintenance fees for legacy resource holders by $25 per year.) While this cap is not required contractually for all legacy resource holders, we will apply it uniformly in order to provide equitable fees of similarly situated organizations. To help customers understand the impact of the Fee Schedule changes we recently updated the ARIN Fee Calculator, available through ARIN Online, to display both the current estimated fees and estimated fees under the proposed 2022 fee schedule. Customers are encouraged use this tool to determine the impact of the fee schedule harmonization on their organizations. This Fee Harmonization was developed with the express goal of ensuring costs are distributed in an equitable manner by eliminating the current fee differentiation between ISP and end user organizations. These changes will 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 our customers. On behalf of ARIN, I would like to thank everyone who participated in the discussion ? your efforts in this and other consultations help keep us aligned with the needs and expectations of the ARIN community. Sincerely, John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From mcr at sandelman.ca Thu May 13 13:56:52 2021 From: mcr at sandelman.ca (Michael Richardson) Date: Thu, 13 May 2021 13:56:52 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] ACSP Consultation 2021.3 - ARIN Fees is Now Closed In-Reply-To: <1C0883B0-BA39-4B94-A498-F171968A3D8F@arin.net> References: <1C0883B0-BA39-4B94-A498-F171968A3D8F@arin.net> Message-ID: <6236.1620928612@localhost> ARIN wrote: > Another major point raised during the consultation was regarding the > need for more equitable treatment of legacy resource holders ? in BTW: how many legacy resource holders are there, and how much/many resource(s) do they have? I assume it's all IPv4 and maybe some ASNs. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect [ ] mcr at sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [ From jsweeting at arin.net Thu May 13 15:56:03 2021 From: jsweeting at arin.net (John Sweeting) Date: Thu, 13 May 2021 19:56:03 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] ACSP Consultation 2021.3 - ARIN Fees is Now Closed In-Reply-To: <6236.1620928612@localhost> References: <1C0883B0-BA39-4B94-A498-F171968A3D8F@arin.net> <6236.1620928612@localhost> Message-ID: <2D07DF17-8C78-48F1-94B8-FB71175A4D4C@arin.net> Hi Michael, Here you go: There are 15,324 total organization not under agreement holding 5,170 ASNs and 613,810,688 IPv4 addresses. None of these resources are under an agreement. ?On 5/13/21, 1:56 PM, "ARIN-consult on behalf of Michael Richardson" wrote: ARIN wrote: > Another major point raised during the consultation was regarding the > need for more equitable treatment of legacy resource holders ? in BTW: how many legacy resource holders are there, and how much/many resource(s) do they have? I assume it's all IPv4 and maybe some ASNs. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect [ ] mcr at sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [ _______________________________________________ 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 farmer at umn.edu Thu May 13 16:52:42 2021 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Thu, 13 May 2021 15:52:42 -0500 Subject: [ARIN-consult] ACSP Consultation 2021.3 - ARIN Fees is Now Closed In-Reply-To: <1C0883B0-BA39-4B94-A498-F171968A3D8F@arin.net> References: <1C0883B0-BA39-4B94-A498-F171968A3D8F@arin.net> Message-ID: John, I apologize for asking a question about the closed consultation, but I need clarification on a point in your summary; On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 8:40 AM ARIN wrote: > > Another major point raised during the consultation was regarding the need > for more equitable treatment of legacy resource holders ? in particular > whether there could be a faster transition from capped fees to the standard > fee schedule. We did weigh several options suggested by the community, but > we intend to proceed as planned (i.e., increasing the cap on total annual > registry maintenance fees for legacy resource holders by $25 per year.) > While this cap is not required contractually for all legacy resource > holders, we will apply it uniformly in order to provide equitable fees of > similarly situated organizations. > Does this include previous and future signatories of the LRSA or only previous signatories? Basically, will future signatories be charged the then-current fees or the capped fees? Personally, I don't have an opinion or expectation, but felt it was worth clarifying. 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 owen at delong.com Tue May 18 18:10:41 2021 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 15:10:41 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] What do the ASN fees go to? In-Reply-To: <06DA300B-041D-4388-AFFA-858FEFE827D7@arin.net> References: <06DA300B-041D-4388-AFFA-858FEFE827D7@arin.net> Message-ID: <4335B303-4B33-4B76-9ABB-786F24ED3488@delong.com> Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought under RSP, ASNs had an origination fee, but were subsequently included in RSP subscription at no annual recurring charge. This is a distinction and a change for resource holders not currently under an RSP because they currently do pay a $150/year ASN maintenance fee for each ASN. Owen > On May 10, 2021, at 12:37, John Curran wrote: > > ?Correct - ASN maintenance fees are not affected by the proposed fee change and not the subject of this consultation. > > Thanks, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > American Registry for Internet Numbers > >> On 10 May 2021, at 3:17 PM, Citizen Support ARIN Support wrote: >> >> ARIN is a registrar that handles ASN and IP addresses. If ARIN >> issued you one of these or both of these things they did give service. >> Change of contact info while required and should be up to date is >> not a denial of service to you. This looks like a person who has >> become disgruntled and trying to take this topic off topic from the >> task at hand. >> >> This thread is to talk about the possible future changes to fees which >> in general lower smaller users fee structure. Yes there is a few >> caveats on this but it has nothing to do with the current question of >> how fees are handled. >> >> >> This is an example that I have made for this example based on the fees >> of AS Number only. >> 150/yr >> >> 1u Server hosting in data centers with 1 internet connection using >> Centos 7 and ARINs BGP settings >> 200/month for a 100/mb circuit and 1 U >> 50-200/hr Labor (Can be anything from them helping you to a restart of >> the server due to iLO failure) >> >> now they have to have this in a High Availability Setup in 2+ data centers >> >> and you are complaining for a $12.50 a month fee? If you have a >> problem with your account or your contact info contact ARIN in their >> support paths please do not troll here. >> >> Use of this database, support, and anything else ARIN offers or not >> does not mean you do or do not have to pay them the ASN and IP blocks >> are Leased to you can you lease these forever yes but they are lessed >> not owned. >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> From: >> Date: Mon, May 10, 2021 at 2:38 PM >> Subject: ARIN-consult Digest, Vol 81, Issue 6 >> To: >> >> >> 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: What do the ASN fees go to? (Steve Noble) >> 2. Re: What do the ASN fees go to? (Adam Thompson) >> 3. Re: What do the ASN fees go to? (Steve Noble) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 10:43:05 -0700 >> From: Steve Noble >> To: John Curran >> Cc: "" >> Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] What do the ASN fees go to? >> Message-ID: >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" >> >> >> >> John Curran wrote on 5/10/21 9:47 AM: >>> >>> Steve - >>> >>> As noted earlier, ARIN provides many operational services for all >>> of the resources in the registry ? and these services are provided >>> even for number resources that have no requests pending or when >>> there are requests pending to change information but that lack >>> proper documentation. >>> >>> The consultation that is now underway is with regard to a fee >>> change proposal that does not change the maintenance fees for >>> ASN?s (although it will make them go away for many end-user >>> customers with IPv4 or IPv6 holdings due to their migration to the >>> Registration Services Plan with ASN registry services already >>> included :-) >>> >> >> Hi John, >> >> Since paying the fees does not guarantee that you will receive service, >> it seems clear that the fees should be based on usage, not on >> resources.? If ARIN does not provide the services, then the fee should >> be reduced or removed. >> >> -- >> Thank you, >> Steven >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 13:01:56 -0500 >> From: Adam Thompson >> To: Steve Noble >> Cc: John Curran , >> Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] What do the ASN fees go to? >> Message-ID: >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >> Steven, that feels like a deliberate mis-characterization to me. >> >> You're right, you are not guaranteed to receive service, in much the >> same way you are not guaranteed to receive a payout from your car >> insurance if you don't have an accident. Or that you aren't guaranteed >> to watch CBS content even though it's included in your cable bundle: >> you're paying for (among other things) the right to access it on demand. >> >> >> As far as I know, however, paying your fee _does_ guarantee that ARIN >> services will be available to you if and/or when you need or want it. >> >> We pay for many, many things where we do not always take full advantage >> of the service we're paying for, because the provider has fixed costs >> regardless. Your local cableco charges a fixed amount for packages, >> regardless of which channels in that package you watch. When you stay >> in a hotel, you pay the same fee regardless of whether you spend 10 >> minutes in the room, or 16 hours. Both examples, like ARIN, are where >> there are fixed costs to providing you *any service at all*, so the >> consumer is expected to defray those. (Insurance isn't so much a >> fixed-cost example, rather it's a "mutual" or "pool", but it works out >> much the same in the end.) >> >> I don't see how this is substantially different from any other provider >> with fixed costs - we shoulder their entire cost, we don't get to pick >> and choose. Where we do get to, the overhead is then baked into each >> and every price, and each and every one of us gets a raw deal. I >> shudder to think what per-second hotel billing would look like. >> >> -Adam Thompson >> athompso at athompso.net >> >> On 2021-05-10 12:43, Steve Noble wrote: >> >>> John Curran wrote on 5/10/21 9:47 AM: >>> >>> Steve - >>> >>> As noted earlier, ARIN provides many operational services for all of the resources in the registry - and these services are provided even for number resources that have no requests pending or when there are requests pending to change information but that lack proper documentation. >>> >>> The consultation that is now underway is with regard to a fee change proposal that does not change the maintenance fees for ASN's (although it will make them go away for many end-user customers with IPv4 or IPv6 holdings due to their migration to the Registration Services Plan with ASN registry services already included :-) >> >> Hi John, >> >> Since paying the fees does not guarantee that you will receive service, >> it seems clear that the fees should be based on usage, not on resources. >> If ARIN does not provide the services, then the fee should be reduced >> or removed. >> >> -- >> Thank you, >> Steven >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 3 >> Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 11:38:46 -0700 >> From: Steve Noble >> To: Adam Thompson >> Cc: John Curran , arin-consult at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] What do the ASN fees go to? >> Message-ID: >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" >> >> Hi Adam, >> >> You make my point exactly, I will follow up in-line. >> >> Adam Thompson wrote on 5/10/21 11:01 AM: >>> >>> Steven, that feels like a deliberate mis-characterization to me. >>> >> It is not, but you may not have history about how I was refused service >> by ARIN for multiple years. >>> >>> You're right, you are not guaranteed to receive service, in much the >>> same way you are not guaranteed to receive a payout from your car >>> insurance if you don't have an accident.? Or that you aren't >>> guaranteed to watch CBS content even though it's included in your >>> cable bundle: you're paying for (among other things) the right to >>> access it on demand. >>> >>> As far as I know, however, paying your fee /does/?guarantee?that ARIN >>> services will be available to you if and/or when you need or want it. >>> >> That is incorrect, John can confirm that I was not allowed to use any >> services from ARIN for my ASN for a few years due to an issue with their >> database.? I was still required to pay the fee but I was not given >> access to the services i.e. I couldn't even update the mailing address, >> which I believe you are required to keep updated. >>> >>> We pay for many, many things where we do not always take full >>> advantage of the service we're paying for, because the provider has >>> fixed costs regardless.? Your local cableco charges a fixed amount for >>> packages, regardless of which channels in that package you watch.? >>> When you stay in a hotel, you pay the same fee regardless of whether >>> you spend 10 minutes in the room, or 16?hours.? Both examples, like >>> ARIN, are where there are fixed costs to providing you *any service at >>> all*, so the consumer is expected to defray those.? (Insurance isn't >>> so much a fixed-cost example, rather it's a "mutual" or "pool", but it >>> works out much the same in the end.) >>> >> If my cable company did not provide service to me for a year, I would >> expect that I would get that money back, so to your point, I should >> expect ARIN to pay me back for the time that they refused to provide >> services?? Since ARIN does not guarantee that the objects are usable, we >> are not paying for that, we are paying for services. >>> >>> I don't see how this is substantially different from any other >>> provider with fixed costs - we shoulder their entire cost, we don't >>> get to pick and choose.? Where we do get to, the overhead is then >>> baked into each and every price, and each and every one of us gets a >>> raw deal.? I shudder to think what per-second hotel billing would look >>> like. >>> >> It isn't and hence ARIN like all of the above named entities would be >> required to compensate any individual/organization that was denied service. >>> >>> -Adam Thompson >>> ?athompso at athompso.net >>> >>> >>>> On 2021-05-10 12:43, Steve Noble wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> John Curran wrote on 5/10/21 9:47 AM: >>>> >>>> Steve - >>>> >>>> As noted earlier, ARIN provides many operational services for >>>> all of the resources in the registry ? and these services are >>>> provided even for number resources that have no requests >>>> pending or when there are requests pending to change >>>> information but that lack proper documentation. >>>> The consultation that is now underway is with regard to a fee >>>> change proposal that does not change the maintenance fees for >>>> ASN's (although it will make them go away for many end-user >>>> customers with IPv4 or IPv6 holdings due to their migration >>>> to the Registration Services Plan with ASN registry services >>>> already included :-) >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi John, >>>> >>>> Since paying the fees does not guarantee that you will receive >>>> service, it seems clear that the fees should be based on usage, not >>>> on resources.? If ARIN does not provide the services, then the fee >>>> should be reduced or removed. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Thank you, >>>> Steven >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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. >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Thank you, >> Steven >> -------------- 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 81, Issue 6 >> ******************************************* >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. From jcurran at arin.net Tue May 18 18:25:31 2021 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 22:25:31 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] What do the ASN fees go to? In-Reply-To: <4335B303-4B33-4B76-9ABB-786F24ED3488@delong.com> References: <06DA300B-041D-4388-AFFA-858FEFE827D7@arin.net> <4335B303-4B33-4B76-9ABB-786F24ED3488@delong.com> Message-ID: <554B9E80-C63D-45AD-891E-B146FF4FEB96@arin.net> Owen - Yes, organizations that were previously paying a per-object ASN maintenance fee and who now move to a Registration Services Plan as a result of having IPv4 or IPv6 resources will no longer pay annual ASN maintenance fees anymore - ASN maintenance fees are subsumed for all customers with a Registration Services Plan. The reason that I noted that that ASN fees are not changing is for the sake of those organizations that are _not_ moving - i.e. those that solely have ASN?s under their RSA. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers > On 18 May 2021, at 6:10 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought under RSP, ASNs had an origination fee, but were subsequently included in RSP subscription at no annual recurring charge. > > This is a distinction and a change for resource holders not currently under an RSP because they currently do pay a $150/year ASN maintenance fee for each ASN. > > Owen > > >> On May 10, 2021, at 12:37, John Curran wrote: >> >> ?Correct - ASN maintenance fees are not affected by the proposed fee change and not the subject of this consultation. >> >> Thanks, >> /John >> >> John Curran >> President and CEO >> American Registry for Internet Numbers >> >>> On 10 May 2021, at 3:17 PM, Citizen Support ARIN Support wrote: >>> >>> ARIN is a registrar that handles ASN and IP addresses. If ARIN >>> issued you one of these or both of these things they did give service. >>> Change of contact info while required and should be up to date is >>> not a denial of service to you. This looks like a person who has >>> become disgruntled and trying to take this topic off topic from the >>> task at hand. >>> >>> This thread is to talk about the possible future changes to fees which >>> in general lower smaller users fee structure. Yes there is a few >>> caveats on this but it has nothing to do with the current question of >>> how fees are handled. >>> >>> >>> This is an example that I have made for this example based on the fees >>> of AS Number only. >>> 150/yr >>> >>> 1u Server hosting in data centers with 1 internet connection using >>> Centos 7 and ARINs BGP settings >>> 200/month for a 100/mb circuit and 1 U >>> 50-200/hr Labor (Can be anything from them helping you to a restart of >>> the server due to iLO failure) >>> >>> now they have to have this in a High Availability Setup in 2+ data centers >>> >>> and you are complaining for a $12.50 a month fee? If you have a >>> problem with your account or your contact info contact ARIN in their >>> support paths please do not troll here. >>> >>> Use of this database, support, and anything else ARIN offers or not >>> does not mean you do or do not have to pay them the ASN and IP blocks >>> are Leased to you can you lease these forever yes but they are lessed >>> not owned. >>> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>> From: >>> Date: Mon, May 10, 2021 at 2:38 PM >>> Subject: ARIN-consult Digest, Vol 81, Issue 6 >>> To: >>> >>> >>> 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: What do the ASN fees go to? (Steve Noble) >>> 2. Re: What do the ASN fees go to? (Adam Thompson) >>> 3. Re: What do the ASN fees go to? (Steve Noble) >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Message: 1 >>> Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 10:43:05 -0700 >>> From: Steve Noble >>> To: John Curran >>> Cc: "" >>> Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] What do the ASN fees go to? >>> Message-ID: >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" >>> >>> >>> >>> John Curran wrote on 5/10/21 9:47 AM: >>>> >>>> Steve - >>>> >>>> As noted earlier, ARIN provides many operational services for all >>>> of the resources in the registry ? and these services are provided >>>> even for number resources that have no requests pending or when >>>> there are requests pending to change information but that lack >>>> proper documentation. >>>> >>>> The consultation that is now underway is with regard to a fee >>>> change proposal that does not change the maintenance fees for >>>> ASN?s (although it will make them go away for many end-user >>>> customers with IPv4 or IPv6 holdings due to their migration to the >>>> Registration Services Plan with ASN registry services already >>>> included :-) >>>> >>> >>> Hi John, >>> >>> Since paying the fees does not guarantee that you will receive service, >>> it seems clear that the fees should be based on usage, not on >>> resources.? If ARIN does not provide the services, then the fee should >>> be reduced or removed. >>> >>> -- >>> Thank you, >>> Steven >>> -------------- next part -------------- >>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>> URL: >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 2 >>> Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 13:01:56 -0500 >>> From: Adam Thompson >>> To: Steve Noble >>> Cc: John Curran , >>> Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] What do the ASN fees go to? >>> Message-ID: >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >>> >>> Steven, that feels like a deliberate mis-characterization to me. >>> >>> You're right, you are not guaranteed to receive service, in much the >>> same way you are not guaranteed to receive a payout from your car >>> insurance if you don't have an accident. Or that you aren't guaranteed >>> to watch CBS content even though it's included in your cable bundle: >>> you're paying for (among other things) the right to access it on demand. >>> >>> >>> As far as I know, however, paying your fee _does_ guarantee that ARIN >>> services will be available to you if and/or when you need or want it. >>> >>> We pay for many, many things where we do not always take full advantage >>> of the service we're paying for, because the provider has fixed costs >>> regardless. Your local cableco charges a fixed amount for packages, >>> regardless of which channels in that package you watch. When you stay >>> in a hotel, you pay the same fee regardless of whether you spend 10 >>> minutes in the room, or 16 hours. Both examples, like ARIN, are where >>> there are fixed costs to providing you *any service at all*, so the >>> consumer is expected to defray those. (Insurance isn't so much a >>> fixed-cost example, rather it's a "mutual" or "pool", but it works out >>> much the same in the end.) >>> >>> I don't see how this is substantially different from any other provider >>> with fixed costs - we shoulder their entire cost, we don't get to pick >>> and choose. Where we do get to, the overhead is then baked into each >>> and every price, and each and every one of us gets a raw deal. I >>> shudder to think what per-second hotel billing would look like. >>> >>> -Adam Thompson >>> athompso at athompso.net >>> >>> On 2021-05-10 12:43, Steve Noble wrote: >>> >>>> John Curran wrote on 5/10/21 9:47 AM: >>>> >>>> Steve - >>>> >>>> As noted earlier, ARIN provides many operational services for all of the resources in the registry - and these services are provided even for number resources that have no requests pending or when there are requests pending to change information but that lack proper documentation. >>>> >>>> The consultation that is now underway is with regard to a fee change proposal that does not change the maintenance fees for ASN's (although it will make them go away for many end-user customers with IPv4 or IPv6 holdings due to their migration to the Registration Services Plan with ASN registry services already included :-) >>> >>> Hi John, >>> >>> Since paying the fees does not guarantee that you will receive service, >>> it seems clear that the fees should be based on usage, not on resources. >>> If ARIN does not provide the services, then the fee should be reduced >>> or removed. >>> >>> -- >>> Thank you, >>> Steven >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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: >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 3 >>> Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 11:38:46 -0700 >>> From: Steve Noble >>> To: Adam Thompson >>> Cc: John Curran , arin-consult at arin.net >>> Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] What do the ASN fees go to? >>> Message-ID: >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" >>> >>> Hi Adam, >>> >>> You make my point exactly, I will follow up in-line. >>> >>> Adam Thompson wrote on 5/10/21 11:01 AM: >>>> >>>> Steven, that feels like a deliberate mis-characterization to me. >>>> >>> It is not, but you may not have history about how I was refused service >>> by ARIN for multiple years. >>>> >>>> You're right, you are not guaranteed to receive service, in much the >>>> same way you are not guaranteed to receive a payout from your car >>>> insurance if you don't have an accident.? Or that you aren't >>>> guaranteed to watch CBS content even though it's included in your >>>> cable bundle: you're paying for (among other things) the right to >>>> access it on demand. >>>> >>>> As far as I know, however, paying your fee /does/?guarantee?that ARIN >>>> services will be available to you if and/or when you need or want it. >>>> >>> That is incorrect, John can confirm that I was not allowed to use any >>> services from ARIN for my ASN for a few years due to an issue with their >>> database.? I was still required to pay the fee but I was not given >>> access to the services i.e. I couldn't even update the mailing address, >>> which I believe you are required to keep updated. >>>> >>>> We pay for many, many things where we do not always take full >>>> advantage of the service we're paying for, because the provider has >>>> fixed costs regardless.? Your local cableco charges a fixed amount for >>>> packages, regardless of which channels in that package you watch.? >>>> When you stay in a hotel, you pay the same fee regardless of whether >>>> you spend 10 minutes in the room, or 16?hours.? Both examples, like >>>> ARIN, are where there are fixed costs to providing you *any service at >>>> all*, so the consumer is expected to defray those.? (Insurance isn't >>>> so much a fixed-cost example, rather it's a "mutual" or "pool", but it >>>> works out much the same in the end.) >>>> >>> If my cable company did not provide service to me for a year, I would >>> expect that I would get that money back, so to your point, I should >>> expect ARIN to pay me back for the time that they refused to provide >>> services?? Since ARIN does not guarantee that the objects are usable, we >>> are not paying for that, we are paying for services. >>>> >>>> I don't see how this is substantially different from any other >>>> provider with fixed costs - we shoulder their entire cost, we don't >>>> get to pick and choose.? Where we do get to, the overhead is then >>>> baked into each and every price, and each and every one of us gets a >>>> raw deal.? I shudder to think what per-second hotel billing would look >>>> like. >>>> >>> It isn't and hence ARIN like all of the above named entities would be >>> required to compensate any individual/organization that was denied service. >>>> >>>> -Adam Thompson >>>> ?athompso at athompso.net >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 2021-05-10 12:43, Steve Noble wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> John Curran wrote on 5/10/21 9:47 AM: >>>>> >>>>> Steve - >>>>> >>>>> As noted earlier, ARIN provides many operational services for >>>>> all of the resources in the registry ? and these services are >>>>> provided even for number resources that have no requests >>>>> pending or when there are requests pending to change >>>>> information but that lack proper documentation. >>>>> The consultation that is now underway is with regard to a fee >>>>> change proposal that does not change the maintenance fees for >>>>> ASN's (although it will make them go away for many end-user >>>>> customers with IPv4 or IPv6 holdings due to their migration >>>>> to the Registration Services Plan with ASN registry services >>>>> already included :-) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi John, >>>>> >>>>> Since paying the fees does not guarantee that you will receive >>>>> service, it seems clear that the fees should be based on usage, not >>>>> on resources.? If ARIN does not provide the services, then the fee >>>>> should be reduced or removed. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> Steven >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Thank you, >>> Steven >>> -------------- 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 81, Issue 6 >>> ******************************************* >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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. > From owen at delong.com Tue May 18 18:34:38 2021 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 15:34:38 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > On May 10, 2021, at 05:00, John Curran wrote: > > ? On 10 May 2021, at 7:11 AM, Glen A. Pearce wrote: >> >> I'd have to say that I agree with Owen here that organizations with an RSA and a LRSA should only have to pay the higher of the two fees for their LRSA IPv4 resource (price cap included) or their RSA IPv6 resources rather than both added together even if they are under 2 separate contracts. So in Owen's case this would mean paying $250/year (based on his /48 of IPv6) until the capped fee on his legacy IPv4 creeps over that. >> ... >> I think this is a reasonable accommodation for people that didn't actually have to pay anything but stepped forward to pay what at the time they thought was a reasonable amount towards keeping the registry running. > > Glen - > > Those who stepped forward received the numerous benefits including clear rights via contract and access to enhanced services developed by investment from this community. The also received a significant cap on their fees compared to all other registry customers, and have been benefiting from that for more than a decade. As one of those who stepped forward, I will say: Clear contractual rights have little value to me in this case. I was not living in fear of ARIN revoking my legacy resources. The so-called enhanced devices include primarily things I would classify as ?mostly harmless at best? such as RPKI. The one and only resource I didn?t (couldn?t due to paperwork snafu) bring under RSA (which I am now grateful escaped this process) means I can?t actually use the new IRR anyway (my ASN is not under RSA), so even though I?ve been paying my share of its development, I?m precluded from using it. RDAP: sure, it?s an incremental improvement over Whois, and has been a long time coming, but I hardly think it was worth the amount I?ve paid. > >> I tend to think of legacy registrations as the "native land" of the internet, at least that's the analogy I use when explaining it to someone. > > Alas, legacy resource assignments were more akin to placement on government-controlled reservations absent any actual legal rights and/or mechanism for self-rule? That?s not entirely true, but the mechanism was definitely less formal. Self rule back then was largely through the IETF and the IANA functions. Addresses weren?t perceived to have monetary value and the community was a lot smaller and generally more cooperative and cohesive. I?m not saying it?s necessarily bad that changed, nor do I say it is good. I think it was inevitable as the internet left the laboratory and started to scale to most of humanity. I am saying, however, that there was a lot less controversy over address policy, and self rule was mostly accomplished over beers and a hand shake or some humming. > the formation of ARIN was specifically so that Internet community could engage in self-determination over their IP number resources; "Creation of ARIN will give the users of IP numbers (mostly Internet service providers, corporations and other large institutions) a voice in the policies by which they are managed and allocated within the North American region? [1] Isn?t it amazing how that incorrect assumption still gets quoted even today. ISPs, and large corporations and institutions may hold the majority of space under ARIN management, but they are far from the majority of IP users. Indeed, the vast majority of IP users in the ARIN region don?t even know that ARIN exists or that they could have a say in it. The vast majority of IP users are customers of the ISPs that are well represented in the ARIN community. >> Ultimately in the far future when IPv6 is dominant and IPv4 is only used for the niche of "retro-computing" and it's users have to tunnel IPv4 over IPv6 to use it none of this will really matter as everyone will either have to pay for their IPv6 space or make do with space assigned by their ISP and any IPv4 space, legacy or otherwise, won't have much use outside that small niche. > > > ARIN's present provisioning of basic registration services without contract or fee for IPv4 legacy resource holders is not assured into ?the far future? and (as has been raised during this consultation) is probably worth revisiting once we?ve achieved consistent fee schedule for all customers. It would not surprise me to ultimately find out that those legacy resource holders who stepped forward and entered into the LRSA (including its significant cap of total annual fees) may actually prove to be far more shrewd in the end than you imagine. It would surprise me, but it would not be my first LRSA surprise. It would be the first semi-pleasant one. Owen > > Thanks for the feedback! > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > American Registry for Internet Numbers > > [1] https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=102819 - "Internet Moves Toward Privatization / IP numbers handled by non-profit? > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Fri May 21 15:56:50 2021 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 21 May 2021 12:56:50 -0700 Subject: New fee structure and dual RSA ORGs Message-ID: <6A06B449-3506-4A3D-A0EA-E3EBAC6F49EE@delong.com> A question just occurred to me that I hadn?t thought to ask previously... Does the duplicative billing of LRSA+RSA that results from the ARIN initiated forced split of a dual-RSA ORG into ORG and ORG-Z come with dual voting? Since the new forced RSP subscription would come with membership status included, would this forced bifurcation effectively double the power of LRSA holders that also hold RSA resources? (In my case, it would be more than that because I?d be going from 0 votes to 2). Owen