From jsweeting at arin.net  Sat Jul  1 22:22:29 2023
From: jsweeting at arin.net (John Sweeting)
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2023 02:22:29 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ASN Fee Harmonization
In-Reply-To: <021ce31365132.5b3a3d3ad39878@layerbridge.com>
References: <01A90030-42A8-4BDE-A246-2728C2FE605E@arin.net>
 <021ce31365132.5b3a3d3ad39878@layerbridge.com>
Message-ID: <0A49888E-F41D-48C9-98A5-2250CBB0DBC7@arin.net>

Andrei,

Thank you for your question. There are no changes to the transactional fee associated with obtaining an ASN from ARIN planned. The current transaction fee of $550 will continue to be invoiced for every ASN issued to an organization.

Regards,

John Sweeting
ARIN CCO

From: ARIN-consult <arin-consult-bounces at arin.net> on behalf of LayerBridge LLC via ARIN-consult <arin-consult at arin.net>
Reply-To: "internal at layerbridge.com" <internal at layerbridge.com>
Date: Friday, June 30, 2023 at 1:37 PM
To: ARIN <info at arin.net>, "arin-consult at arin.net" <arin-consult at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ASN Fee Harmonization

Hi there,

Just out of curiosity. Members that already pay for a RSP (X-Small, for example), will need to pay anything else when requesting an ASN up to a total number of 63 ASNs?

Thank you.
Andrei.

ARIN wrote:

ARIN is consulting with the community (https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/consultations/2023/2023-3/) about harmonizing annual registration services fees for Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs) so that they will be included in the Registration Services Plan (RSP) fee schedule beginning 1 January 2024<x-apple-data-detectors://1>. This change will have the benefit of recovering costs more equitably for services to ASN-only holders, with the added benefit of making ASN-only customers ARIN Service Members, thus providing them with the opportunity to become General Members and participate in ARIN governance if they so choose. This change will bring all ARIN customers into a unified, equitable fee schedule.

In 2022, ARIN transitioned end user customers to the RSP fee schedule based on total IPv4 and IPv6 resources held, to ensure costs were distributed in an equitable manner by eliminating the fee differentiation between ISP and end user organizations. Now ARIN is seeking community feedback on a plan to complete the fee harmonization process by transitioning ASNs to the RSP Fee Schedule.

Proposed Fee Harmonization (all fees in USD)

- Organizations holding 1-3 ASNs will be categorized as 3X-Small, with an annual fee of $250.
- Organizations holding 4-15 ASNs will be categorized as 2X-Small, with an annual fee of $500.
- Organizations holding 16-63 ASNs will be categorized as X-Small, with an annual fee of $1000.
- Organizations holding 64-255 ASNs will be categorized as Small, with an annual fee of $2000.
- Organizations holding 256+ ASNs will be categorized as Medium, with an annual fee of $4000.

Based on financial modeling using May 2023 revenue and customer data, there will be a negligible effect on our existing RSP customers due to the proposed fee change, with only 15 existing organizations holding sufficient ASNs where they will transition to a higher fee tier. Among them, two are expected to transition from the 3X/2X-Small service category to the X-Small bracket, while 13 will move from the 3X-Small to the 2X-Small service category. This shift is attributed to changes in fee size classifications based on the balance of ASNs compared to the IPv4 and IPv6 number resources they currently possess.

Comparatively, for customers who solely hold ASNs, approximately 313 will experience a decrease in their total fees. With the proposed change, they will no longer be charged annual fees for each individual ASN, resulting in savings of between $50 USD to $1,750 USD for these customers. Conversely, the estimated 6,800 single ASN holders will experience an increase in their fees of $100 USD when they are brought under the RSP fee schedule, now falling under the 3X-Small fee service category. While this is a substantial increase on a percentage basis, it more accurately reflects the basic costs of serving an organization with registry services and provides those customers with the opportunity to obtain additional ASN?s, IPv4, and/or IPv6 resources with no change in their fee category.

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<mailto:arin-consult at arin.net>. You can subscribe to this mailing list at https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult.

Discussion on arin-consult at arin.net<mailto:arin-consult at arin.net> will close on 30 July 2023<x-apple-data-detectors://13>.

If you have any questions, please contact us at info at arin.net<mailto:info at arin.net>.

Regards,

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)


_______________________________________________
ARIN-Consult
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing
List (ARIN-consult at arin.net<mailto: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<mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20230702/087972d1/attachment.htm>

From snoble at sonn.com  Mon Jul 10 14:28:51 2023
From: snoble at sonn.com (Steve Noble)
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2023 11:28:51 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ASN Fee Harmonization
In-Reply-To: <01A90030-42A8-4BDE-A246-2728C2FE605E@arin.net>
References: <01A90030-42A8-4BDE-A246-2728C2FE605E@arin.net>
Message-ID: <C1AAA69D-2AC7-4BCD-9605-1A094EF82D01@sonn.com>

Greetings.

In-line

On Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 9:42 AM ARIN <info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net>> wrote:
ARIN is consulting with the community (https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/consultations/2023/2023-3/ <https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/consultations/2023/2023-3/>) about harmonizing annual registration services fees for Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs) so that they will be included in the Registration Services Plan (RSP) fee schedule beginning 1 January 2024. This change will have the benefit of recovering costs more equitably for services to ASN-only holders, with the added benefit of making ASN-only customers ARIN Service Members, thus providing them with the opportunity to become General Members and participate in ARIN governance if they so choose. This change will bring all ARIN customers into a unified, equitable fee schedule.

I am vehemently against this idea as all of the "benefits" are things that the 6800+ single ASN holder (affected parties) could opt in to if they felt that they needed them.  The fee is already excessive and disproportionate for a single resource that requires little to no maintenance or support.

I also note that this does not appear to be sent directly to the affected parties themselves. How many of the affected parties are subscribed to this list?  Having been a fee paying non member of ARIN for over 23 years, iI think it?s important to state how many of us are represented here.


In 2022, ARIN transitioned end user customers to the RSP fee schedule based on total IPv4 and IPv6 resources held, to ensure costs were distributed in an equitable manner by eliminating the fee differentiation between ISP and end user organizations. Now ARIN is seeking community feedback on a plan to complete the fee harmonization process by transitioning ASNs to the RSP Fee Schedule.

Proposed Fee Harmonization (all fees in USD)

- Organizations holding 1-3 ASNs will be categorized as 3X-Small, with an annual fee of $250.
- Organizations holding 4-15 ASNs will be categorized as 2X-Small, with an annual fee of $500.
- Organizations holding 16-63 ASNs will be categorized as X-Small, with an annual fee of $1000.
- Organizations holding 64-255 ASNs will be categorized as Small, with an annual fee of $2000.
- Organizations holding 256+ ASNs will be categorized as Medium, with an annual fee of $4000.

Based on financial modeling using May 2023 revenue and customer data, there will be a negligible effect on our existing RSP customers due to the proposed fee change, with only 15 existing organizations holding sufficient ASNs where they will transition to a higher fee tier. Among them, two are expected to transition from the 3X/2X-Small service category to the X-Small bracket, while 13 will move from the 3X-Small to the 2X-Small service category. This shift is attributed to changes in fee size classifications based on the balance of ASNs compared to the IPv4 and IPv6 number resources they currently possess.  

Comparatively, for customers who solely hold ASNs, approximately 313 will experience a decrease in their total fees. With the proposed change, they will no longer be charged annual fees for each individual ASN, resulting in savings of between $50 USD to $1,750 USD for these customers. Conversely, the estimated 6,800 single ASN holders will experience an increase in their fees of $100 USD when they are brought under the RSP fee schedule, now falling under the 3X-Small fee service category. While this is a substantial increase on a percentage basis, it more accurately reflects the basic costs of serving an organization with registry services and provides those customers with the opportunity to obtain additional ASN?s, IPv4, and/or IPv6 resources with no change in their fee category.


I have a lot of questions:

1. The above paragraph states that there are approximately 6800 organizations holding a single ASN and more specifically 313 with multiple ASNs, what is the actual number of organizations with a single ASN and no other resources? 

2. How many single ASN holding organizations are members of this mailing list?

3. Based on the maximum savings, the largest only ASN holder has 15 ASNs (150*15 - 1750 = 500) and the smallest multiple ASN holder has 2 (300 - 50 =250).  What is the breakdown within the 313 affected parties of the # of ASNs they hold?

4. The customer impact is significantly unbalanced where over 95% of the organizations fees increase vs the 2021 changes (https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/ARIN49/materials/426_feemembership.pdf <https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/ARIN49/materials/426_feemembership.pdf> slide 7) where ~50% stayed the same. Why is this not clearly stated in the document?

5. Of the impacted organizations, how many pay for membership separately?

6. Of the impacted organizations, how many have requested IPv4 resources? 

7. What is the overlap of single ASN holding organizations paying for membership and requesting IP space (two items claimed in the benefit section).

8. For due diligence, based on the data ARIN has compiled, how many of those single ASN organizations would qualify for IPv4 resources and be approved and have them allocated within the billing period that this change would happen? Does ARIN have 6800 /24 IPv4 blocks available to allocate to the affected parties?

In summary, based on the information provided so far, I believe that raising prices for 6800+ organizations to slightly lower the cost burden of 313 is unfair and unreasonable. There has been no data provided to show what the cost of serving a single ASN organization is other than your aggregate groups showing that it is <=$15.

Btw I noticed while trying to research the membership fee information (https://www.arin.net/participate/oversight/membership/ <https://www.arin.net/participate/oversight/membership/>) the page has many broken links.  I don?t even see the current membership fee information on the latest fee page (https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/) vs the 2018 page (https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/2018_fee_schedule)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20230710/0e8082f2/attachment.htm>

From jcurran at arin.net  Mon Jul 10 18:02:53 2023
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2023 22:02:53 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ASN Fee Harmonization
In-Reply-To: <C1AAA69D-2AC7-4BCD-9605-1A094EF82D01@sonn.com>
References: <01A90030-42A8-4BDE-A246-2728C2FE605E@arin.net>
 <C1AAA69D-2AC7-4BCD-9605-1A094EF82D01@sonn.com>
Message-ID: <40D4F5E6-D922-4ABD-BF3A-2B80D9B20953@arin.net>

On Jul 10, 2023, at 2:28 PM, Steve Noble <snoble at sonn.com> wrote:
...
I have a lot of questions:

1. The above paragraph states that there are approximately 6800 organizations holding a single ASN and more specifically 313 with multiple ASNs, what is the actual number of organizations with a single ASN and no other resources?

Steve ?

The ~6800 are ASN-Only holders (no IPv4 or IPv6 resources) with a single ASN.    The 313 are ASN-Only holders (no IPv4 or IPv6 resources) who have multiple ASNs.

2. How many single ASN holding organizations are members of this mailing list?

Unknown.  The arin-consult mailing list is open to all interested parties who comply the Mailing List AUP and ARIN Participants Expected Standards of Behavior ? these are not correlated to ASN holders.

3. Based on the maximum savings, the largest only ASN holder has 15 ASNs (150*15 - 1750 = 500) and the smallest multiple ASN holder has 2 (300 - 50 =250).  What is the breakdown within the 313 affected parties of the # of ASNs they hold?

Note that the distribution is subject to change (as parties acquire/dispose of ASNs) but here?s the present approximation ?

1 organization has 15 ASNs.
1 organization has 12 ASNs.
1 organization has 11 ASNs.
1 organization has 10 ASNs.
1 organization has 8 ASNs.
2 organization has 7 ASNs.
1 organization has 6 ASNs.
5 organization has 5 ASNs.
11 Organizations have 4 ASNs.
42 organization has 3 ASNs.
247 organization has 2 ASNs.

4. The customer impact is significantly unbalanced where over 95% of the organizations fees increase vs the 2021 changes (https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/ARIN49/materials/426_feemembership.pdf slide 7) where ~50% stayed the same. Why is this not clearly stated in the document?

That?s not quite correct - ASN Only Holders represent 30% of total customers [where total customers are Service + General + ASN Only.]

(If one adds uncontracted legacy customers to that total, ASN-Only holders represent only ~18% of total customers.)

5. Of the impacted organizations, how many pay for membership separately?

None, as paid membership was removed as part of the 2022 fee schedule change. This change (ASN Fee Harmonization proposal) in fact provides Service Member status to all ASN holders.

6. Of the impacted organizations, how many have requested IPv4 resources?

Indeterminate, as it is often possible to request resources without supplying ASN holding information and thus correlated.

7. What is the overlap of single ASN holding organizations paying for membership and requesting IP space (two items claimed in the benefit section).

No one is paying for ARIN Membership since the 2022 fee schedule change

(All organizations holding IP number resources under agreement have had service member status since Jan 2022, and can request General Member status if they wish to participate in voting & ARIN governance discussions).

ASN-Only holders will now have Service Member status as part of the ASN Fee Harmonization proposal AND will be able to request corresponding IPv4 and IPv6 space if they choose with no change in fee category.

8. For due diligence, based on the data ARIN has compiled, how many of those single ASN organizations would qualify for IPv4 resources and be approved and have them allocated within the billing period that this change would happen? Does ARIN have 6800 /24 IPv4 blocks available to allocate to the affected parties?

They would all qualify for IPv4 or IPv6 if they are running a network and using their ASN to run BGP.   It probably goes without saying that there is more than enough IPv6 resources for all ASN-only customers...

For IPv4 resources, many would end up on the IPv4 waiting list today, but note that for those who wish to run IPv6, there is enough 4.10 transition IPv4 space (~14.5k /24s are available under 4.10 as of June 2023) to theoretically issue 4.10 IPv4 transition blocks to all of the ASN-Only holders.

In summary, based on the information provided so far, I believe that raising prices for 6800+ organizations to slightly lower the cost burden of 313 is unfair and unreasonable. There has been no data provided to show what the cost of serving a single ASN organization is other than your aggregate groups showing that it is <=$15.

This change provides for recovering costs more equitably for services to across the ARIN customer base, with the added benefit of making ASN-only customers ARIN Service Members, thus providing them with the opportunity to become General Members and participate in ARIN governance if they so choose.

In addition to bringing all ARIN customers into a unified, equitable fee schedule, the ASN Fee harmonization will facilitate ASN-only resource holders obtaining IPv4 and/or IPv6 resources if they choose to do so.

Btw I noticed while trying to research the membership fee information (https://www.arin.net/participate/oversight/membership/) the page has many broken links.  I don?t even see the current membership fee information on the latest fee page (https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/) vs the 2018 page (https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/2018_fee_schedule)

It appears that all links on that page are functional ? please identify any specific links that you are unable to access.   It is correct that the membership fee information is no longer present, as membership option was removed with the 2022 Fee Schedule change (as per https://www.arin.net/announcements/20211229/)

Thanks for the feedback & the excellent questions!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20230710/9b55440d/attachment.htm>

From snoble at sonn.com  Mon Jul 10 23:48:37 2023
From: snoble at sonn.com (Steve Noble)
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2023 20:48:37 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ASN Fee Harmonization
In-Reply-To: <40D4F5E6-D922-4ABD-BF3A-2B80D9B20953@arin.net>
References: <01A90030-42A8-4BDE-A246-2728C2FE605E@arin.net>
 <C1AAA69D-2AC7-4BCD-9605-1A094EF82D01@sonn.com>
 <40D4F5E6-D922-4ABD-BF3A-2B80D9B20953@arin.net>
Message-ID: <869317EA-30B9-4C6D-9CC8-2BB43334D63F@sonn.com>



> On Jul 10, 2023, at 3:02 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Jul 10, 2023, at 2:28 PM, Steve Noble <snoble at sonn.com> wrote:
>> ...
>> I have a lot of questions:
>> 
>> 1. The above paragraph states that there are approximately 6800 organizations holding a single ASN and more specifically 313 with multiple ASNs, what is the actual number of organizations with a single ASN and no other resources? 
> 
> Steve ? 
> 
> The ~6800 are ASN-Only holders (no IPv4 or IPv6 resources) with a single ASN.    The 313 are ASN-Only holders (no IPv4 or IPv6 resources) who have multiple ASNs. 
> 

John -
You did not answer the question, the 6800 is approximate, ARIN must know the actual number.

>> 2. How many single ASN holding organizations are members of this mailing list?
> 
> Unknown.  The arin-consult mailing list is open to all interested parties who comply the Mailing List AUP and ARIN Participants Expected Standards of Behavior ? these are not correlated to ASN holders.

This is concerning since 6800+ organizations would be affected and may not know so since they have not been members and would not be part of the members mailing list, etc.

> 
>> 4. The customer impact is significantly unbalanced where over 95% of the organizations fees increase vs the 2021 changes (https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/ARIN49/materials/426_feemembership.pdf <https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/ARIN49/materials/426_feemembership.pdf> slide 7) where ~50% stayed the same. Why is this not clearly stated in the document?
> 
> That?s not quite correct - ASN Only Holders represent 30% of total customers [where total customers are Service + General + ASN Only.]
> 
> (If one adds uncontracted legacy customers to that total, ASN-Only holders represent only ~18% of total customers.)

John, I am talking about the affected parties, the ~7113 ASN-Only holders, 95% of them will be affected negatively.  What percentage they are of the total number of customers is moot as the document I point to clearly states :

"? Transitioned all customers with IPv4 or IPv6 number resources to the same RSP (Registration Services Plan) Fee Schedule:?

This does not cover ASN only holders.  If ASN only holders were included in the not affected list and chart that would be incorrect as they were not included in the list of customers this was positioned as being.

> 
>> 5. Of the impacted organizations, how many pay for membership separately?
> 
> None, as paid membership was removed as part of the 2022 fee schedule change. This change (ASN Fee Harmonization proposal) in fact provides Service Member status to all ASN holders. 

So accordingly, zero ASN only organizations applied to be members, I don?t see how forcing them to pay more for something that they never applied for is a valid benefit.

> 
>> 6. Of the impacted organizations, how many have requested IPv4 resources? 
> 
> Indeterminate, as it is often possible to request resources without supplying ASN holding information and thus correlated.  

ARIN should know how many ASN only members requested IP addresses at least on an org level.  If the ASN belongs to a different organization, that would not apply here as we are talking about organizations that only hold ASNs.

> 
>> 7. What is the overlap of single ASN holding organizations paying for membership and requesting IP space (two items claimed in the benefit section).
> 
> No one is paying for ARIN Membership since the 2022 fee schedule change 
> 
> (All organizations holding IP number resources under agreement have had service member status since Jan 2022, and can request General Member status if they wish to participate in voting & ARIN governance discussions). 
> 
> ASN-Only holders will now have Service Member status as part of the ASN Fee Harmonization proposal AND will be able to request corresponding IPv4 and IPv6 space if they choose with no change in fee category. 

But according to above you have provided information that zero ASN only organizations that have done this so far, so ARIN is forcing ~6800 organizations to pay more for a benefit that they have not requested.

> 
>> 8. For due diligence, based on the data ARIN has compiled, how many of those single ASN organizations would qualify for IPv4 resources and be approved and have them allocated within the billing period that this change would happen? Does ARIN have 6800 /24 IPv4 blocks available to allocate to the affected parties?
> 
> They would all qualify for IPv4 or IPv6 if they are running a network and using their ASN to run BGP.   It probably goes without saying that there is more than enough IPv6 resources for all ASN-only customers...
> 
> For IPv4 resources, many would end up on the IPv4 waiting list today, but note that for those who wish to run IPv6, there is enough 4.10 transition IPv4 space (~14.5k /24s are available under 4.10 as of June 2023) to theoretically issue 4.10 IPv4 transition blocks to all of the ASN-Only holders.

I think that is a false equivalence comparing transition space to available space. For example I applied for my ASN 23 years ago, IPv4 space was much easier to get.  Had you charged the same fee whether I had space or not, I would have applied for space. 

> 
>> In summary, based on the information provided so far, I believe that raising prices for 6800+ organizations to slightly lower the cost burden of 313 is unfair and unreasonable. There has been no data provided to show what the cost of serving a single ASN organization is other than your aggregate groups showing that it is <=$15.
> 
> This change provides for recovering costs more equitably for services to across the ARIN customer base, with the added benefit of making ASN-only customers ARIN Service Members, thus providing them with the opportunity to become General Members and participate in ARIN governance if they so choose.

John - How much does it cost to provide service to an ASN only holder?  What actual, tangible benefit do they get with this change?  The affected organizations could have asked to be members or for IP space the entire time.  There is no upside to this that has been documented and it?s certainly all negative from my position.

> 
> In addition to bringing all ARIN customers into a unified, equitable fee schedule, the ASN Fee harmonization will facilitate ASN-only resource holders obtaining IPv4 and/or IPv6 resources if they choose to do so. 

And to this point they should be able to choose, If an ASN only organizations wants resources or to be a member, they can pay more.  If they want to stay how they are they can stay how they are.  Forcing ASN only organizations to foot the bill for those who have or want more is not equitable.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20230710/d1127362/attachment.htm>

From ross at tajvar.io  Tue Jul 11 01:27:02 2023
From: ross at tajvar.io (Ross Tajvar)
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 01:27:02 -0400
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ASN Fee Harmonization
In-Reply-To: <869317EA-30B9-4C6D-9CC8-2BB43334D63F@sonn.com>
References: <01A90030-42A8-4BDE-A246-2728C2FE605E@arin.net>
 <C1AAA69D-2AC7-4BCD-9605-1A094EF82D01@sonn.com>
 <40D4F5E6-D922-4ABD-BF3A-2B80D9B20953@arin.net>
 <869317EA-30B9-4C6D-9CC8-2BB43334D63F@sonn.com>
Message-ID: <CA+FDdDR7eg_vAP=MOZ28f50b8_AhbWh05+2uyEtmC98nN_Xaag@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

While I do think there's merit to Steve's point that ASN-only customers
have chosen not to become members, I have to say, I would care about this a
lot more (at all, really) if the fees were higher. For a business doing
anything real, $250/yr is negligible. Even $500 or $1000 is not a big
deal...keeping an LLC open costs a few hundred dollars a year. Buying
transit (in order to use the ASN) costs a couple hundred dollars a MONTH.

I understand that there is administrative overhead associated with
maintaining a registry of internet numbers, keeping whois services highly
available, handling support requests, etc. ARIN must recover these costs by
charging fees to its customers. I couldn't say what the average cost per
ASN is (maybe John has some estimate there?), but $250/yr for up to 3 ASNs
does not seem wildly unreasonable to me.

I also think there is value in the added simplicity achieved by adopting a
unified fee structure.

For these reasons, I take no issue with this proposed change.

Best regards,
Ross

On Mon, Jul 10, 2023, 11:48 PM Steve Noble <snoble at sonn.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Jul 10, 2023, at 3:02 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>
> On Jul 10, 2023, at 2:28 PM, Steve Noble <snoble at sonn.com> wrote:
> ...
> I have a lot of questions:
>
> 1. The above paragraph states that there are approximately 6800
> organizations holding a single ASN and more specifically 313 with multiple
> ASNs, what is the actual number of organizations with a single ASN and no
> other resources?
>
>
> Steve ?
>
> The ~6800 are ASN-Only holders (no IPv4 or IPv6 resources) with a single
> ASN.    The 313 are ASN-Only holders (no IPv4 or IPv6 resources) who have
> multiple ASNs.
>
>
> John -
> You did not answer the question, the 6800 is approximate, ARIN must know
> the actual number.
>
> 2. How many single ASN holding organizations are members of this mailing
> list?
>
>
> Unknown.  The arin-consult mailing list is open to all interested parties
> who comply the Mailing List AUP and ARIN Participants Expected Standards of
> Behavior ? these are not correlated to ASN holders.
>
>
> This is concerning since 6800+ organizations would be affected and may not
> know so since they have not been members and would not be part of the
> members mailing list, etc.
>
>
> 4. The customer impact is significantly unbalanced where over 95% of the
> organizations fees increase vs the 2021 changes (
> https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/ARIN49/materials/426_feemembership.pdf slide
> 7) where ~50% stayed the same. Why is this not clearly stated in the
> document?
>
>
> That?s not quite correct - ASN Only Holders represent 30% of total
> customers [where total customers are Service + General + ASN Only.]
>
> (If one adds uncontracted legacy customers to that total, ASN-Only holders
> represent only ~18% of total customers.)
>
>
> John, I am talking about the affected parties, the ~7113 ASN-Only holders,
> 95% of them will be affected negatively.  What percentage they are of the
> total number of customers is moot as the document I point to clearly states
> :
>
> "? Transitioned all customers with IPv4 or IPv6 number resources to the
> same RSP (Registration Services Plan) Fee Schedule:?
>
> This does not cover ASN only holders.  If ASN only holders were included
> in the not affected list and chart that would be incorrect as they were not
> included in the list of customers this was positioned as being.
>
>
> 5. Of the impacted organizations, how many pay for membership separately?
>
>
> None, as paid membership was removed as part of the 2022 fee schedule
> change. This change (ASN Fee Harmonization proposal) in fact provides
> Service Member status to all ASN holders.
>
>
> So accordingly, zero ASN only organizations applied to be members, I don?t
> see how forcing them to pay more for something that they never applied for
> is a valid benefit.
>
>
> 6. Of the impacted organizations, how many have requested IPv4 resources?
>
>
> Indeterminate, as it is often possible to request resources without
> supplying ASN holding information and thus correlated.
>
>
> ARIN should know how many ASN only members requested IP addresses at least
> on an org level.  If the ASN belongs to a different organization, that
> would not apply here as we are talking about organizations that only hold
> ASNs.
>
>
> 7. What is the overlap of single ASN holding organizations paying for
> membership and requesting IP space (two items claimed in the benefit
> section).
>
>
> No one is paying for ARIN Membership since the 2022 fee schedule change
>
> (All organizations holding IP number resources under agreement have had
> service member status since Jan 2022, and can request General Member status
> if they wish to participate in voting & ARIN governance discussions).
>
> ASN-Only holders will now have Service Member status as part of the ASN
> Fee Harmonization proposal AND will be able to request corresponding IPv4
> and IPv6 space if they choose with no change in fee category.
>
>
> But according to above you have provided information that zero ASN only
> organizations that have done this so far, so ARIN is forcing ~6800
> organizations to pay more for a benefit that they have not requested.
>
>
> 8. For due diligence, based on the data ARIN has compiled, how many of
> those single ASN organizations would qualify for IPv4 resources and be
> approved and have them allocated within the billing period that this change
> would happen? Does ARIN have 6800 /24 IPv4 blocks available to allocate to
> the affected parties?
>
>
> They would all qualify for IPv4 or IPv6 if they are running a network and
> using their ASN to run BGP.   It probably goes without saying that there is
> more than enough IPv6 resources for all ASN-only customers...
>
> For IPv4 resources, many would end up on the IPv4 waiting list today, but
> note that for those who wish to run IPv6, there is enough 4.10 transition
> IPv4 space (~14.5k /24s are available under 4.10 as of June 2023) to
> theoretically issue 4.10 IPv4 transition blocks to all of the ASN-Only
> holders.
>
>
> I think that is a false equivalence comparing transition space to
> available space. For example I applied for my ASN 23 years ago, IPv4 space
> was much easier to get.  Had you charged the same fee whether I had space
> or not, I would have applied for space.
>
>
> In summary, based on the information provided so far, I believe that
> raising prices for 6800+ organizations to slightly lower the cost burden of
> 313 is unfair and unreasonable. There has been no data provided to show
> what the cost of serving a single ASN organization is other than your
> aggregate groups showing that it is <=$15.
>
>
> This change provides for recovering costs more equitably for services to
> across the ARIN customer base, with the added benefit of making ASN-only
> customers ARIN Service Members, thus providing them with the opportunity to
> become General Members and participate in ARIN governance if they so choose.
>
>
> John - How much does it cost to provide service to an ASN only holder?
> What actual, tangible benefit do they get with this change?  The affected
> organizations could have asked to be members or for IP space the entire
> time.  There is no upside to this that has been documented and it?s
> certainly all negative from my position.
>
>
> In addition to bringing all ARIN customers into a unified, equitable fee
> schedule, the ASN Fee harmonization will facilitate ASN-only resource
> holders obtaining IPv4 and/or IPv6 resources if they choose to do so.
>
>
> And to this point they should be able to choose, If an ASN only
> organizations wants resources or to be a member, they can pay more.  If
> they want to stay how they are they can stay how they are.  Forcing ASN
> only organizations to foot the bill for those who have or want more is not
> equitable.
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20230711/beed6cf9/attachment.htm>

From internal at layerbridge.com  Tue Jul 11 07:33:07 2023
From: internal at layerbridge.com (Andrei)
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 14:33:07 +0300
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ASN Fee Harmonization
In-Reply-To: <CA+FDdDR7eg_vAP=MOZ28f50b8_AhbWh05+2uyEtmC98nN_Xaag@mail.gmail.com>
References: <01A90030-42A8-4BDE-A246-2728C2FE605E@arin.net>
 <C1AAA69D-2AC7-4BCD-9605-1A094EF82D01@sonn.com>
 <40D4F5E6-D922-4ABD-BF3A-2B80D9B20953@arin.net>
 <869317EA-30B9-4C6D-9CC8-2BB43334D63F@sonn.com>
 <CA+FDdDR7eg_vAP=MOZ28f50b8_AhbWh05+2uyEtmC98nN_Xaag@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7ae595d2-764d-1fce-61d1-caefa163cfe9@layerbridge.com>

Hi there,

To be honest, I see the approach RIPE has on AS numbers a little bit 
more sane than ARIN's.
Not talking about huge organizations, with a great turnover, for which a 
setup fee of $500 is not a big deal, but the regular user. Startups, 
small businesses, individuals or even educational networks. Those can't 
really afford to pay a $500 fee for ARIN AS Number.
The vast majority of them go to RIPE, complete a dummy justification 
with a VM rented in EU zone and get an AS number for as low as $20-$30 
one-time.

Why wouldn't ARIN do something to encourage small businesses also to 
register an AS number in the correct RIR. As I saw many US ISPs do not 
include RIPE as IRR and vice-versa.. EU ISPs don't include ARIN as an 
IRR source when validating prefixes for ASN/AS-SET.
Is there so much work to do, while issuing an AS number to an 
ORG/End-User to justify $500 setup fee? Why can't it be somehow included 
in the RSP plan?
If, for example, on X-Small plan you pay $1,000 per year for holding a 
maximum of /20 IPv4 and /32 IPv6, why don't you add a 3rd resource for 
ASN? Each RSP plan to include a max. number of ASNs without any fee and 
if exceeded, to choose either to upgrade to the next slab or to start 
paying for setup fee if the amount of included ASNs is exceeded?

We're not a member for so long, only ~2 years. But I've seen only price 
increase or new fees for tasks (OrgCreate for example) which are kinda 
ridiculous, in my opinion at least.

Regards,
Andrei.

On 2023-07-11 8:27 AM, Ross Tajvar wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> While I do think there's merit to Steve's point that ASN-only 
> customers have chosen not to become members, I have to say, I would 
> care about this a lot more (at all, really) if the fees were higher. 
> For a business doing anything real, $250/yr is negligible. Even $500 
> or $1000 is not a big deal...keeping an LLC open costs a few 
> hundred?dollars a year. Buying transit (in order to use the ASN) costs 
> a couple hundred dollars a MONTH.
>
> I understand that there is administrative overhead associated with 
> maintaining a registry of internet numbers, keeping whois services 
> highly available, handling support requests, etc. ARIN must recover 
> these costs by charging fees to its customers. I couldn't say what the 
> average cost per ASN is (maybe John has some estimate there?), but 
> $250/yr for up to 3 ASNs does not seem wildly unreasonable to me.
>
> I also think there is value in the added simplicity achieved by 
> adopting a unified fee structure.
>
> For these reasons, I take no issue with this proposed change.
>
> Best regards,
> Ross
>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2023, 11:48 PM Steve Noble <snoble at sonn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>     On Jul 10, 2023, at 3:02 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>>
>>>     On Jul 10, 2023, at 2:28 PM, Steve Noble <snoble at sonn.com> wrote:
>>>     ...
>>>     I have a lot of questions:
>>>
>>>     1. The above paragraph states that there are approximately 6800
>>>     organizations holding a single ASN and more specifically 313
>>>     with multiple ASNs, what is the actual number of organizations
>>>     with a single ASN and no other resources?
>>
>>     Steve ?
>>
>>     The ~6800 are ASN-Only holders (no IPv4 or IPv6 resources) with a
>>     single ASN. ? ?The 313 are ASN-Only holders (no IPv4 or IPv6
>>     resources) who have multiple ASNs.
>>
>
>     John -
>     You did not answer the question, the 6800 is approximate, ARIN
>     must know the actual number.
>
>>>     2. How many single ASN holding organizations are members of this
>>>     mailing list?
>>
>>     Unknown.? The arin-consult mailing list is open to all interested
>>     parties who comply the Mailing List AUP and ARIN Participants
>>     Expected Standards of Behavior ? these are not correlated to ASN
>>     holders.
>
>     This is concerning since 6800+ organizations would be affected and
>     may not know so since they have not been members and would not be
>     part of the members mailing list, etc.
>
>>
>>>     4. The customer impact is significantly unbalanced where over
>>>     95% of the organizations fees increase vs the 2021 changes
>>>     (https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/ARIN49/materials/426_feemembership.pdf?slide
>>>     7) where ~50% stayed the same. Why is this not clearly stated in
>>>     the document?
>>
>>     That?s not quite correct -?ASN Only Holders represent 30% of
>>     total customers [where total customers are Service + General +
>>     ASN Only.]
>>
>>     (If one adds uncontracted legacy customers to that total,
>>     ASN-Only holders represent only ~18% of total customers.)
>
>     John, I am talking about the affected parties, the ~7113 ASN-Only
>     holders, 95% of them will be affected negatively.? What percentage
>     they are of the total number of customers is moot as the document
>     I point to clearly states :
>
>     "? Transitioned all customers with IPv4 or IPv6 number resources
>     to the same RSP (Registration Services Plan) Fee Schedule:?
>
>     This does not cover ASN only holders.? If ASN only holders were
>     included in the not affected list and chart that would be
>     incorrect as they were not included in the list of customers this
>     was positioned as being.
>
>>
>>>     5. Of the impacted organizations, how many pay for membership
>>>     separately?
>>
>>     None, as paid membership was removed as part of the 2022 fee
>>     schedule change. This change (ASN Fee Harmonization proposal) in
>>     fact provides Service Member status to all ASN holders.
>
>     So accordingly, zero ASN only organizations applied to be members,
>     I don?t see how forcing them to pay more for something that they
>     never applied for is a valid benefit.
>
>>
>>>     6. Of the impacted organizations, how many have requested IPv4
>>>     resources? 
>>
>>     Indeterminate, as it is often possible to request resources
>>     without supplying ASN holding information and thus correlated.
>
>     ARIN should know how many ASN only members requested IP addresses
>     at least on an org level.? If the ASN belongs to a different
>     organization, that would not apply here as we are talking about
>     organizations that only hold ASNs.
>
>>
>>>     7. What is the overlap of single ASN holding organizations
>>>     paying for membership and requesting IP space (two items claimed
>>>     in the benefit section).
>>
>>     No one is paying for ARIN Membership since the 2022 fee schedule
>>     change
>>
>>     (All organizations holding IP number resources under agreement
>>     have had service member status since Jan 2022, and can request
>>     General Member status if they wish to participate in voting &
>>     ARIN governance discussions).
>>
>>     ASN-Only holders will now have Service Member status as part of
>>     the ASN Fee Harmonization proposal AND will be able to request
>>     corresponding IPv4 and IPv6 space if they choose with no change
>>     in fee category.
>
>     But according to above you have provided information that zero ASN
>     only organizations that have done this so far, so ARIN is forcing
>     ~6800 organizations to pay more for a benefit that they have not
>     requested.
>
>>
>>>     8. For due diligence, based on the data ARIN has compiled, how
>>>     many of those single ASN organizations would qualify for IPv4
>>>     resources and be approved and have them allocated within the
>>>     billing period that this change would happen? Does ARIN have
>>>     6800 /24 IPv4 blocks available to allocate to the affected parties?
>>
>>     They would all qualify for IPv4 or IPv6 if they are running a
>>     network and using their ASN to run BGP. ? It probably goes
>>     without saying that there is more than enough IPv6 resources for
>>     all ASN-only customers...
>>
>>     For IPv4 resources, many would end up on the IPv4 waiting list
>>     today, but note that for those who wish to run IPv6, there is
>>     enough 4.10 transition IPv4 space (~14.5k /24s are available
>>     under 4.10 as of June 2023) to theoretically issue 4.10 IPv4
>>     transition blocks to all of the ASN-Only holders.
>
>     I think that is a false equivalence comparing transition space to
>     available space. For example I applied for my ASN 23 years ago,
>     IPv4 space was much easier to get.? Had you charged the same fee
>     whether I had space or not, I would have applied for space.
>
>>
>>>     In summary, based on the information provided so far, I believe
>>>     that raising prices for 6800+ organizations to slightly lower
>>>     the cost burden of 313 is unfair and unreasonable. There has
>>>     been no data provided to show what the cost of serving a single
>>>     ASN organization is other than your aggregate groups showing
>>>     that it is <=$15.
>>
>>     This change provides for recovering costs more equitably for
>>     services to across the ARIN customer base, with the added benefit
>>     of making ASN-only customers ARIN Service Members, thus providing
>>     them with the opportunity to become General Members and
>>     participate in ARIN governance if they so choose.
>
>     John - How much does it cost to provide service to an ASN only
>     holder?? What actual, tangible benefit do they get with this
>     change?? The affected organizations could have asked to be members
>     or for IP space the entire time.? There is no upside to this that
>     has been documented and it?s certainly all negative from my position.
>
>>
>>     In addition to bringing all ARIN customers into a unified,
>>     equitable fee schedule, the ASN Fee harmonization will facilitate
>>     ASN-only resource holders obtaining IPv4 and/or IPv6 resources if
>>     they choose to do so.
>
>     And to this point they should be able to choose, If an ASN only
>     organizations wants resources or to be a member, they can pay
>     more.? If they want to stay how they are they can stay how they
>     are. Forcing ASN only organizations to foot the bill for those who
>     have or want more is not equitable.
>     _______________________________________________
>     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 atinfo at arin.net  if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20230711/7f3cddd4/attachment.htm>

From jcurran at arin.net  Tue Jul 11 07:43:52 2023
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 11:43:52 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ASN Fee Harmonization
In-Reply-To: <7ae595d2-764d-1fce-61d1-caefa163cfe9@layerbridge.com>
References: <01A90030-42A8-4BDE-A246-2728C2FE605E@arin.net>
 <C1AAA69D-2AC7-4BCD-9605-1A094EF82D01@sonn.com>
 <40D4F5E6-D922-4ABD-BF3A-2B80D9B20953@arin.net>
 <869317EA-30B9-4C6D-9CC8-2BB43334D63F@sonn.com>
 <CA+FDdDR7eg_vAP=MOZ28f50b8_AhbWh05+2uyEtmC98nN_Xaag@mail.gmail.com>
 <7ae595d2-764d-1fce-61d1-caefa163cfe9@layerbridge.com>
Message-ID: <BDA799DC-BC96-4B55-85B1-8081F93CC8FD@arin.net>


On Jul 11, 2023, at 7:33 AM, Andrei via ARIN-consult <arin-consult at arin.net> wrote:
...
If, for example, on X-Small plan you pay $1,000 per year for holding a maximum of /20 IPv4 and /32 IPv6, why don't you add a 3rd resource for ASN? Each RSP plan to include a max. number of ASNs without any fee and if exceeded, to choose either to upgrade to the next slab or to start paying for setup fee if the amount of included ASNs is exceeded?

Andrei -

This is essentially the approach that is being proposed in the ASN Fee Harmonization proposal ? ARIN proposes adding a third column to the RSP plan fee schedule with each size category covering a certain number of ASNs.

As per the original consultation ?

In 2022, ARIN transitioned end user customers to the RSP fee schedule based on total IPv4 and IPv6 resources held, to ensure costs were distributed in an equitable manner by eliminating the fee differentiation between ISP and end user organizations. Now ARIN is seeking community feedback on a plan to complete the fee harmonization process by transitioning ASNs to the RSP Fee Schedule.

Proposed Fee Harmonization (all fees in USD)

- Organizations holding 1-3 ASNs will be categorized as 3X-Small, with an annual fee of $250.
- Organizations holding 4-15 ASNs will be categorized as 2X-Small, with an annual fee of $500.
- Organizations holding 16-63 ASNs will be categorized as X-Small, with an annual fee of $1000.
- Organizations holding 64-255 ASNs will be categorized as Small, with an annual fee of $2000.
- Organizations holding 256+ ASNs will be categorized as Medium, with an annual fee of $4000.

If I understand correctly, I believe the refinement that you are proposing is that once an organization has a Registration Services Plan, they not pay setup fees for additional ASNs.

That is an excellent suggestion well worth considering (and would be similar to how requests for IPv4/IPv6 resources are handled under an RSP place today...)

Thanks for the feedback!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20230711/aaae6346/attachment.htm>

From internal at layerbridge.com  Tue Jul 11 07:48:21 2023
From: internal at layerbridge.com (Andrei)
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 14:48:21 +0300
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ASN Fee Harmonization
In-Reply-To: <BDA799DC-BC96-4B55-85B1-8081F93CC8FD@arin.net>
References: <01A90030-42A8-4BDE-A246-2728C2FE605E@arin.net>
 <C1AAA69D-2AC7-4BCD-9605-1A094EF82D01@sonn.com>
 <40D4F5E6-D922-4ABD-BF3A-2B80D9B20953@arin.net>
 <869317EA-30B9-4C6D-9CC8-2BB43334D63F@sonn.com>
 <CA+FDdDR7eg_vAP=MOZ28f50b8_AhbWh05+2uyEtmC98nN_Xaag@mail.gmail.com>
 <7ae595d2-764d-1fce-61d1-caefa163cfe9@layerbridge.com>
 <BDA799DC-BC96-4B55-85B1-8081F93CC8FD@arin.net>
Message-ID: <7f374e2f-3c35-2e76-4bea-7399ee59ec5b@layerbridge.com>

Hi John,

Yeah, that's basically what I suggested. To waive the setup fee for ASN 
allocation, should a LIR have a RSP plan active.
Could be a little bit lowered for individuals and educational/research 
networks, but that may open a little door for abusive allocations (eg. 
GRE-tunneled IXP for "research").

I'm very glad you actually considered my feedback, would be amazing if 
will be implemented as well.

Thank you,
Andrei.

On 2023-07-11 2:43 PM, John Curran wrote:
>
>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 7:33 AM, Andrei via ARIN-consult 
>> <arin-consult at arin.net> wrote:
>> ...
>> If, for example, on X-Small plan you pay $1,000 per year for holding 
>> a maximum of /20 IPv4 and /32 IPv6, why don't you add a 3rd resource 
>> for ASN? Each RSP plan to include a max. number of ASNs without any 
>> fee and if exceeded, to choose either to upgrade to the next slab or 
>> to start paying for setup fee if the amount of included ASNs is exceeded?
>
> Andrei -
>
> This is essentially the approach that is being proposed in the ASN Fee 
> Harmonization proposal ? ARIN proposes adding a third column to the 
> RSP plan fee schedule with each size category covering a certain 
> number of ASNs.
>
> As per the original consultation ?
>
>
>>>     In 2022, ARIN transitioned end user customers to the RSP fee
>>>     schedule based on total IPv4 and IPv6 resources held, to ensure
>>>     costs were distributed in an equitable manner by eliminating the
>>>     fee differentiation between ISP and end user organizations. Now
>>>     ARIN is seeking community feedback on a plan to complete the fee
>>>     harmonization process by transitioning ASNs to the RSP Fee Schedule.
>>>
>>>     Proposed Fee Harmonization (all fees in USD)
>>>
>>>     - Organizations holding 1-3 ASNs will be categorized as
>>>     3X-Small, with an annual fee of $250.
>>>     - Organizations holding 4-15 ASNs will be categorized as
>>>     2X-Small, with an annual fee of $500.
>>>     - Organizations holding 16-63 ASNs will be categorized as
>>>     X-Small, with an annual fee of $1000.
>>>     - Organizations holding 64-255 ASNs will be categorized as
>>>     Small, with an annual fee of $2000.
>>>     - Organizations holding 256+ ASNs will be categorized as Medium,
>>>     with an annual fee of $4000.
>
>
> If I understand correctly, I believe the refinement that you are 
> proposing is that once an organization has a Registration Services 
> Plan, they not pay setup fees for additional ASNs.
>
> That is an excellent suggestion well worth considering (and would be 
> similar to how requests for IPv4/IPv6 resources are handled under an 
> RSP place today...)
>
> Thanks for the feedback!
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20230711/776331da/attachment.htm>

From jcurran at arin.net  Tue Jul 11 10:49:43 2023
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 14:49:43 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ASN Fee Harmonization
In-Reply-To: <869317EA-30B9-4C6D-9CC8-2BB43334D63F@sonn.com>
References: <01A90030-42A8-4BDE-A246-2728C2FE605E@arin.net>
 <C1AAA69D-2AC7-4BCD-9605-1A094EF82D01@sonn.com>
 <40D4F5E6-D922-4ABD-BF3A-2B80D9B20953@arin.net>
 <869317EA-30B9-4C6D-9CC8-2BB43334D63F@sonn.com>
Message-ID: <F75682A8-1EC0-40F3-AF65-17F7C32113DC@arin.net>

On Jul 10, 2023, at 11:48 PM, Steve Noble <snoble at sonn.com> wrote:

On Jul 10, 2023, at 3:02 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net<mailto:jcurran at arin.net>> wrote:

On Jul 10, 2023, at 2:28 PM, Steve Noble <snoble at sonn.com<mailto:snoble at sonn.com>> wrote:
...

The ~6800 are ASN-Only holders (no IPv4 or IPv6 resources) with a single ASN.    The 313 are ASN-Only holders (no IPv4 or IPv6 resources) who have multiple ASNs.
John -
You did not answer the question, the 6800 is approximate, ARIN must know the actual number.

The number changes over time.  Today, the number of customers who only have ASNs is: 7169. Of these, 324 have multiple ASNs, and 6845 have just one ASN.

2. How many single ASN holding organizations are members of this mailing list?

Unknown.  The arin-consult mailing list is open to all interested parties who comply the Mailing List AUP and ARIN Participants Expected Standards of Behavior ? these are not correlated to ASN holders.

This is concerning since 6800+ organizations would be affected and may not know so since they have not been members and would not be part of the members mailing list, etc.

Correct.  While all interested parties (who comply with the AUP and standards of behavior) can participate in arin-consult, they are presently not able to become ARIN member or participate in ARIN governance, including voting and the general members mailing list.  That is something that would change as a result of the ASN fee harmonization proposal ? all customers who have ASNs would be service members and could opt to be general members if they so wished.

...
8. For due diligence, based on the data ARIN has compiled, how many of those single ASN organizations would qualify for IPv4 resources and be approved and have them allocated within the billing period that this change would happen? Does ARIN have 6800 /24 IPv4 blocks available to allocate to the affected parties?

They would all qualify for IPv4 or IPv6 if they are running a network and using their ASN to run BGP.   It probably goes without saying that there is more than enough IPv6 resources for all ASN-only customers...

For IPv4 resources, many would end up on the IPv4 waiting list today, but note that for those who wish to run IPv6, there is enough 4.10 transition IPv4 space (~14.5k /24s are available under 4.10 as of June 2023) to theoretically issue 4.10 IPv4 transition blocks to all of the ASN-Only holders.

I think that is a false equivalence comparing transition space to available space. For example I applied for my ASN 23 years ago, IPv4 space was much easier to get.  Had you charged the same fee whether I had space or not, I would have applied for space.

You asked about IPv4 blocks available to allocate to the affected parties, and the answer is that both IPv4 waiting list resources and NRPM 4.10 transitional IPv4 space (for those who are also running IPv6) are available for ASN holders ? and would not change their 3X-small fee category if they were issued a /24 IPv4 block in either manner.

...
This change provides for recovering costs more equitably for services to across the ARIN customer base, with the added benefit of making ASN-only customers ARIN Service Members, thus providing them with the opportunity to become General Members and participate in ARIN governance if they so choose.

John - How much does it cost to provide service to an ASN only holder?  What actual, tangible benefit do they get with this change?  The affected organizations could have asked to be members or for IP space the entire time.

ASN-only customers are not (and cannot become) ARIN members today ? that is only available to customers with IPv4 or IPv6 resources under a Registration Services Plan (RSP).

ARIN has to recover costs fairly across its entire customer base.  At present, all customers holding IPv4 resources and/or IPv6 resources are treated similarly based on their total resources held and the corresponding category on the RSP fee schedule.

Size categories on the RSP fee schedule span a 4x increase in total resources held, and then the next higher category begins with an annual fee twice that of the smaller category ? thus the fees scale with resources held.

This is not the case for those with ASNs ? they pay a fee for each and every ASN, and furthermore do not gain the ability to be ARIN members and this is not equitable treatment compared to RSP customers.

In addition, for those with IPv4 and/or IPv6 under a Registration Services Plan and also who have ASNs, their total number of ASN?s has no effect of their size category on the fee schedule or fees charged (their ASN maintenance cost is subsumed by the RSP plan) ? even if they have hundreds of ASNs and very small IPv4/IPv6 holdings.  This obviously isn?t equitable when compared to those who have to pay the per-ASN maintenance fees today.

If the ASN fee harmonization is adopted, all ARIN customers will pay the same fees based their size category that us based on total resources held (regardless of whether those number resources are IPv4, IPv6, ASNs, or some combination), and all will be service members ? with the option of becoming a general member and participating in ARIN governance and voting if they so choose.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20230711/450379db/attachment.htm>

From owen at delong.com  Tue Jul 11 11:23:12 2023
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 08:23:12 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ASN Fee Harmonization
In-Reply-To: <F75682A8-1EC0-40F3-AF65-17F7C32113DC@arin.net>
References: <01A90030-42A8-4BDE-A246-2728C2FE605E@arin.net>
 <C1AAA69D-2AC7-4BCD-9605-1A094EF82D01@sonn.com>
 <40D4F5E6-D922-4ABD-BF3A-2B80D9B20953@arin.net>
 <869317EA-30B9-4C6D-9CC8-2BB43334D63F@sonn.com>
 <F75682A8-1EC0-40F3-AF65-17F7C32113DC@arin.net>
Message-ID: <55534C30-E323-4BEF-9CC0-4F278D22450A@delong.com>



> On Jul 11, 2023, at 07:49, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Jul 10, 2023, at 11:48 PM, Steve Noble <snoble at sonn.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Jul 10, 2023, at 3:02 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net <mailto:jcurran at arin.net>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Jul 10, 2023, at 2:28 PM, Steve Noble <snoble at sonn.com <mailto:snoble at sonn.com>> wrote:
>>>> ...
> 
>>>> 2. How many single ASN holding organizations are members of this mailing list?
>>> 
>>> Unknown.  The arin-consult mailing list is open to all interested parties who comply the Mailing List AUP and ARIN Participants Expected Standards of Behavior ? these are not correlated to ASN holders.
>> 
>> This is concerning since 6800+ organizations would be affected and may not know so since they have not been members and would not be part of the members mailing list, etc.
> 
> Correct.  While all interested parties (who comply with the AUP and standards of behavior) can participate in arin-consult, they are presently not able to become ARIN member or participate in ARIN governance, including voting and the general members mailing list.  That is something that would change as a result of the ASN fee harmonization proposal ? all customers who have ASNs would be service members and could opt to be general members if they so wished.  
> 

Is it meaningfully different, though?

What fraction of those 7000+ organizations that would be impacted are legacy holders who pay no fees at all to ARIN?

I know of at least one organization which is an ASN-ONLY holder in appearance only. AS1734 is mine. Due to a historical SNAFU, i inherited it from an organization that chose not to utilize it and the paperwork never got cleaned up. Cleaning it up now would involve converting it to an RSA, so I am financially and contractually incentivized to preserve the status quo.

However, that ASN actually originates multiple prefixes (one of which is ARIN registered, the other two I transferred to RIPE-NCC due to ARIN financial and contractual incentives to do so).

I?m an ARIN member and I vote. (by virtue of the one prefix that remains under ARIN RSA).

However, i suspect that the vast majority of legacy holders that have not signed an RSA may not even be aware of the mechanisms for participating in ARIN governance that are open to them. (Frankly, I suspect many of them are defunct, and while there are monetary incentives for people to find and recycle defunct IPv4 address space, no such incentives really exist for ASNs).

I wonder how many of the ASN-only organizations used to have IPv4 resources.
How many have IPv4 resources that are registered to different organizations through other historical accidents?
For that matter, how many have IPv6 or other RSA resources, but don?t consolidate their ASN into the same organization for monetary and/or contractual reasons related to ARIN?s current or proposed fee structure or ARIN?s history of changing the fee structure in interesting ways?

I realize that these are questions for which the necessary data to provide factual answers are simply unavailable, but that?s kind of the point here? This is not a neat and tidy situation where the impacts of a change can be accurately predicted.

>>> This change provides for recovering costs more equitably for services to across the ARIN customer base, with the added benefit of making ASN-only customers ARIN Service Members, thus providing them with the opportunity to become General Members and participate in ARIN governance if they so choose.
>> 
>> John - How much does it cost to provide service to an ASN only holder?  What actual, tangible benefit do they get with this change?  The affected organizations could have asked to be members or for IP space the entire time.
> 
> ASN-only customers are not (and cannot become) ARIN members today ? that is only available to customers with IPv4 or IPv6 resources under a Registration Services Plan (RSP). 
> 
> ARIN has to recover costs fairly across its entire customer base.  At present, all customers holding IPv4 resources and/or IPv6 resources are treated similarly based on their total resources held and the corresponding category on the RSP fee schedule.  

Well? Yes, sort of, but with exceptions.

> Size categories on the RSP fee schedule span a 4x increase in total resources held, and then the next higher category begins with an annual fee twice that of the smaller category ? thus the fees scale with resources held. 

For the moment? Until the board decides to mess with it again.

> This is not the case for those with ASNs ? they pay a fee for each and every ASN, and furthermore do not gain the ability to be ARIN members and this is not equitable treatment compared to RSP customers. 

Is that really true for the majority of these ASN-only customers? What fraction of those 7000+ customers are currently under an RSA?

I?m willing to bet that a lot of them (quite likely the vast majority) are legacy without contract.

> In addition, for those with IPv4 and/or IPv6 under a Registration Services Plan and also who have ASNs, their total number of ASN?s has no effect of their size category on the fee schedule or fees charged (their ASN maintenance cost is subsumed by the RSP plan) ? even if they have hundreds of ASNs and very small IPv4/IPv6 holdings.  This obviously isn?t equitable when compared to those who have to pay the per-ASN maintenance fees today. 

Are you sure about that? Looks to me like there are multiple ASN situations that could easily occur to drive someone into the next higher fee tier regardless of their IP resources held.

> If the ASN fee harmonization is adopted, all ARIN customers will pay the same fees based their size category that us based on total resources held (regardless of whether those number resources are IPv4, IPv6, ASNs, or some combination), and all will be service members ? with the option of becoming a general member and participating in ARIN governance and voting if they so choose. 

Except that?s not how the categories work currently. Currently, the categories are MAX(A,B) where A,B are IPv4, IPv6. (with exceptions due to issues we?ve already discussed to death previously).

The proposed structure is MAX(A,B,C), where A,B,C are IPv4, IPv6, ASN.

To the best of my knowledge, ARIN has never (except as noted above) done SUM(A,B) or SUM(A,B,C).

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20230711/d20eb1bd/attachment.htm>

From owen at delong.com  Tue Jul 11 11:27:52 2023
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 08:27:52 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ASN Fee Harmonization
In-Reply-To: <CA+FDdDR7eg_vAP=MOZ28f50b8_AhbWh05+2uyEtmC98nN_Xaag@mail.gmail.com>
References: <01A90030-42A8-4BDE-A246-2728C2FE605E@arin.net>
 <C1AAA69D-2AC7-4BCD-9605-1A094EF82D01@sonn.com>
 <40D4F5E6-D922-4ABD-BF3A-2B80D9B20953@arin.net>
 <869317EA-30B9-4C6D-9CC8-2BB43334D63F@sonn.com>
 <CA+FDdDR7eg_vAP=MOZ28f50b8_AhbWh05+2uyEtmC98nN_Xaag@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3D7A13A9-9B6C-4386-ABEF-C4E71826D2F1@delong.com>



> On Jul 10, 2023, at 22:27, Ross Tajvar <ross at tajvar.io> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> While I do think there's merit to Steve's point that ASN-only customers have chosen not to become members, I have to say, I would care about this a lot more (at all, really) if the fees were higher. For a business doing anything real, $250/yr is negligible. Even $500 or $1000 is not a big deal...keeping an LLC open costs a few hundred dollars a year. Buying transit (in order to use the ASN) costs a couple hundred dollars a MONTH.

Not every ASN holder is a business.

> I understand that there is administrative overhead associated with maintaining a registry of internet numbers, keeping whois services highly available, handling support requests, etc. ARIN must recover these costs by charging fees to its customers. I couldn't say what the average cost per ASN is (maybe John has some estimate there?), but $250/yr for up to 3 ASNs does not seem wildly unreasonable to me.

Given that RIPE seems to be able to do it for $20-30/ASN (so let?s be generous and call it $100 for 3 ASNs and the fact that almost everything else imaginable is more expensive in Europe than in north America, I?d have to say that $250 for 3 ASNs does seem rather excessive for ?equitable cost recovery? in this case.

> I also think there is value in the added simplicity achieved by adopting a unified fee structure.

I?m guessing you?re not one of the people on the pay-more-per-year for the same thing you had (and possibly other things you don?t really care about) side of this equation.

I?m not on that side of this equation this time, but I have been in the past in other fee structure changes by ARIN. I will say that IMHO, the value of that simplicity paled
in comparison to the amount of money it was intended to cost me.

So much os that I transferred some (most of the paid ones) of my resources out of the ARIN region to avoid said fee changes.

Owen




From owen at delong.com  Tue Jul 11 11:30:48 2023
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 08:30:48 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ASN Fee Harmonization
In-Reply-To: <40D4F5E6-D922-4ABD-BF3A-2B80D9B20953@arin.net>
References: <01A90030-42A8-4BDE-A246-2728C2FE605E@arin.net>
 <C1AAA69D-2AC7-4BCD-9605-1A094EF82D01@sonn.com>
 <40D4F5E6-D922-4ABD-BF3A-2B80D9B20953@arin.net>
Message-ID: <E58B4081-564A-4314-ADA6-E9CE3DF0078A@delong.com>

> 
>> 2. How many single ASN holding organizations are members of this mailing list?
> 
> Unknown.  The arin-consult mailing list is open to all interested parties who comply the Mailing List AUP and ARIN Participants Expected Standards of Behavior ? these are not correlated to ASN holders.
> 

How many of the ASNs have at least one registered contact sbuscribed to this list using the email address listed for that contact?

While the first question is impossible for ARIN to answer, that question shouldn?t even be hard to answer.

Owen



From jcurran at arin.net  Tue Jul 11 11:36:32 2023
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 15:36:32 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ASN Fee Harmonization
In-Reply-To: <55534C30-E323-4BEF-9CC0-4F278D22450A@delong.com>
References: <01A90030-42A8-4BDE-A246-2728C2FE605E@arin.net>
 <C1AAA69D-2AC7-4BCD-9605-1A094EF82D01@sonn.com>
 <40D4F5E6-D922-4ABD-BF3A-2B80D9B20953@arin.net>
 <869317EA-30B9-4C6D-9CC8-2BB43334D63F@sonn.com>
 <F75682A8-1EC0-40F3-AF65-17F7C32113DC@arin.net>
 <55534C30-E323-4BEF-9CC0-4F278D22450A@delong.com>
Message-ID: <17276454-0E08-4245-8150-DC5375372B2D@arin.net>


On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:23 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

On Jul 11, 2023, at 07:49, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

Correct.  While all interested parties (who comply with the AUP and standards of behavior) can participate in arin-consult, they are presently not able to become ARIN member or participate in ARIN governance, including voting and the general members mailing list.  That is something that would change as a result of the ASN fee harmonization proposal ? all customers who have ASNs would be service members and could opt to be general members if they so wished.


Is it meaningfully different, though?

What fraction of those 7000+ organizations that would be impacted are legacy holders who pay no fees at all to ARIN?

The reference is to the number of customers who have obtained ASN?s under an RSA and pay fees accordingly.
(legacy resource holders are not included in the above)

...
This is not the case for those with ASNs ? they pay a fee for each and every ASN, and furthermore do not gain the ability to be ARIN members and this is not equitable treatment compared to RSP customers.

Is that really true for the majority of these ASN-only customers? What fraction of those 7000+ customers are currently under an RSA?

All of them.

I?m willing to bet that a lot of them (quite likely the vast majority) are legacy without contract.

You?d lose that bet (as legacy resource holders are not included in the counts provided.)

In addition, for those with IPv4 and/or IPv6 under a Registration Services Plan and also who have ASNs, their total number of ASN?s has no effect of their size category on the fee schedule or fees charged (their ASN maintenance cost is subsumed by the RSP plan) ? even if they have hundreds of ASNs and very small IPv4/IPv6 holdings.  This obviously isn?t equitable when compared to those who have to pay the per-ASN maintenance fees today.

Are you sure about that? Looks to me like there are multiple ASN situations that could easily occur to drive someone into the next higher fee tier regardless of their IP resources held.

If the ASN fee harmonization is adopted, all ARIN customers will pay the same fees based their size category that us based on total resources held (regardless of whether those number resources are IPv4, IPv6, ASNs, or some combination), and all will be service members ? with the option of becoming a general member and participating in ARIN governance and voting if they so choose.

Except that?s not how the categories work currently. Currently, the categories are MAX(A,B) where A,B are IPv4, IPv6. (with exceptions due to issues we?ve already discussed to death previously).

The proposed structure is MAX(A,B,C), where A,B,C are IPv4, IPv6, ASN.

My wording may not have been quite as precise, but you are correct in your reading of the ASN Fee Harmonization proposal.

The proposed structure is would have ARIN no longer charge annual per-ASN maintenance fees and instead to set each customer?s annual RSP fee based on the the size category corresponding to the largest category of resources held ? now with the addition of considering the ASN resources held as their own category just as is presently done for IPv4 and IPv6 number resources held.

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20230711/580eb270/attachment.htm>

From jcurran at arin.net  Tue Jul 11 11:40:38 2023
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 15:40:38 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ASN Fee Harmonization
In-Reply-To: <E58B4081-564A-4314-ADA6-E9CE3DF0078A@delong.com>
References: <01A90030-42A8-4BDE-A246-2728C2FE605E@arin.net>
 <C1AAA69D-2AC7-4BCD-9605-1A094EF82D01@sonn.com>
 <40D4F5E6-D922-4ABD-BF3A-2B80D9B20953@arin.net>
 <E58B4081-564A-4314-ADA6-E9CE3DF0078A@delong.com>
Message-ID: <6290ABD6-E676-4120-9AF6-1B841807CBC7@arin.net>

> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:30 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> 2. How many single ASN holding organizations are members of this mailing list?
>> 
>> Unknown.  The arin-consult mailing list is open to all interested parties who comply the Mailing List AUP and ARIN Participants Expected Standards of Behavior ? these are not correlated to ASN holders.
> 
> How many of the ASNs have at least one registered contact sbuscribed to this list using the email address listed for that contact?

Owen - 

Presumably 100% of those interested are subscribed (as all have the opportunity to be on arin-consult as noted earlier) but note that ARIN does not force any parties to participate in this mailing list. 

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers


From owen at delong.com  Tue Jul 11 11:51:27 2023
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 08:51:27 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ASN Fee Harmonization
In-Reply-To: <6290ABD6-E676-4120-9AF6-1B841807CBC7@arin.net>
References: <01A90030-42A8-4BDE-A246-2728C2FE605E@arin.net>
 <C1AAA69D-2AC7-4BCD-9605-1A094EF82D01@sonn.com>
 <40D4F5E6-D922-4ABD-BF3A-2B80D9B20953@arin.net>
 <E58B4081-564A-4314-ADA6-E9CE3DF0078A@delong.com>
 <6290ABD6-E676-4120-9AF6-1B841807CBC7@arin.net>
Message-ID: <08DA2648-E0F4-4ABD-9472-268B58C57A73@delong.com>



> On Jul 11, 2023, at 08:40, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:30 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 2. How many single ASN holding organizations are members of this mailing list?
>>> 
>>> Unknown.  The arin-consult mailing list is open to all interested parties who comply the Mailing List AUP and ARIN Participants Expected Standards of Behavior ? these are not correlated to ASN holders.
>> 
>> How many of the ASNs have at least one registered contact sbuscribed to this list using the email address listed for that contact?
> 
> Owen - 
> 
> Presumably 100% of those interested are subscribed (as all have the opportunity to be on arin-consult as noted earlier) but note that ARIN does not force any parties to participate in this mailing list. 
> 
> Thanks,
> /John
> 
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers
> 

That dodges the question and you know it.

I?m not asking for PII or anything privileged here. It would be a relatively simple PERL script to take the list of subscribers and the list of POC email addresses associated with ASN-only customers and produce an answer.

Since you?ve only reported the Fee-paying ASN-only customers, I have to ask? How much does the number of (potentially) affected organizations grow if you include non-fee paying ASN-only organizations?

Owen



From jcurran at arin.net  Tue Jul 11 12:33:26 2023
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 16:33:26 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ASN Fee Harmonization
In-Reply-To: <08DA2648-E0F4-4ABD-9472-268B58C57A73@delong.com>
References: <01A90030-42A8-4BDE-A246-2728C2FE605E@arin.net>
 <C1AAA69D-2AC7-4BCD-9605-1A094EF82D01@sonn.com>
 <40D4F5E6-D922-4ABD-BF3A-2B80D9B20953@arin.net>
 <E58B4081-564A-4314-ADA6-E9CE3DF0078A@delong.com>
 <6290ABD6-E676-4120-9AF6-1B841807CBC7@arin.net>
 <08DA2648-E0F4-4ABD-9472-268B58C57A73@delong.com>
Message-ID: <B7FB6AA6-E15D-466D-AD61-9DC7617D530B@arin.net>


> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:51 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 08:40, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Presumably 100% of those interested are subscribed (as all have the opportunity to be on arin-consult as noted earlier) but note that ARIN does not force any parties to participate in this mailing list. 
>> ...
> 
> That dodges the question and you know it.
> 
> I?m not asking for PII or anything privileged here. It would be a relatively simple PERL script to take the list of subscribers and the list of POC email addresses associated with ASN-only customers and produce an answer.
> 
> Since you?ve only reported the Fee-paying ASN-only customers, I have to ask? How much does the number of (potentially) affected organizations grow if you include non-fee paying ASN-only organizations?


Owen - 

In addition to the previously-noted 7169 ASN-only customers under agreement, there are 1615 ASN-only legacy resource holders who are not presently paying any registry maintenance fees for their ASN holdings. 

There are 339 subscribers today on arin-consult, so this mailing list reaches a relatively small percentage of the ASN-only resource holders in any case.   

(Of course, the news of this consultation also went out to arin-announce mailing list ? which presently has more than four thousand subscribers?) 

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers





From info at arin.net  Mon Jul 17 10:29:10 2023
From: info at arin.net (ARIN)
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2023 10:29:10 -0400
Subject: [ARIN-consult] =?utf-8?q?Reminder_=E2=80=93_Consultation_on_ASN_?=
 =?utf-8?q?Fee_Harmonization_closes_on_30_July?=
Message-ID: <64E5E6E7-A087-40B5-A993-884AB5782792@arin.net>

ARIN would like to remind the community about the ongoing consultation on harmonizing annual registration services fees for Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs) so that they will be included in the Registration Services Plan (RSP) fee schedule beginning 1 January 2024.  

This consultation is slated to close on Sunday, 30 July, so be sure to submit your comments to the arin-consult mailing list before then.  

Read the full text of the consultation at: https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/consultations/2023/2023-3/ 

Please provide your comments to arin-consult at arin.net. You can subscribe to this mailing list at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult. 

We look forward to your feedback on this important issue. 

 
Regards, 

John Curran 
President and CEO 
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)




From farmer at umn.edu  Fri Jul 28 20:24:21 2023
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2023 19:24:21 -0500
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ASN Fee Harmonization
In-Reply-To: <BDA799DC-BC96-4B55-85B1-8081F93CC8FD@arin.net>
References: <01A90030-42A8-4BDE-A246-2728C2FE605E@arin.net>
 <C1AAA69D-2AC7-4BCD-9605-1A094EF82D01@sonn.com>
 <40D4F5E6-D922-4ABD-BF3A-2B80D9B20953@arin.net>
 <869317EA-30B9-4C6D-9CC8-2BB43334D63F@sonn.com>
 <CA+FDdDR7eg_vAP=MOZ28f50b8_AhbWh05+2uyEtmC98nN_Xaag@mail.gmail.com>
 <7ae595d2-764d-1fce-61d1-caefa163cfe9@layerbridge.com>
 <BDA799DC-BC96-4B55-85B1-8081F93CC8FD@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAN-Dau0n5W_z-L4G3G_-=sZCqfFsg8ScJKr2vfZezBAts-pVJQ@mail.gmail.com>

I support the elimination of additional fees for the allocation of an ASN
for couple of reasons;

1. As mentioned, other resources, IPv4 and IPv6, don't have such additional
fees for allocations.

2. With ARIN-2022-2, which I believe is in the final stages of
implementation, the allocation of at least the first ASN becomes Pro-forma.

Thanks.

On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 6:43?AM John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote
...

> If I understand correctly, I believe the refinement that you are proposing
> is that once an organization has a Registration Services Plan, they not pay
> setup fees for additional ASNs.
>
> That is an excellent suggestion well worth considering (and would be
> similar to how requests for IPv4/IPv6 resources are handled under an RSP
> place today...)
>
> Thanks for the feedback!
> /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.
>


-- 
===============================================
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
===============================================
-- 
===============================================
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: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20230728/22b7dcf7/attachment.htm>