From info at arin.net Wed Apr 3 12:40:40 2024 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2024 12:40:40 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Approaches for Adjusting the ARIN Registration Services Plan Fee Schedule Message-ID: The American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) is currently evaluating potential methods to adjust our Registration Services Plan Fee Schedule and is inviting feedback from the community (https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/consultations/2024/2024-2/). Our goal is to maintain a balanced alignment between operating costs and revenue, ensuring equitable cost recovery across our diverse community. In the past, ARIN has chosen not to automatically adjust the fee schedule annually, instead opting for larger, less frequent adjustments based on the changing landscape of ARIN?s operating costs. These costs include variations in staffing expenses, such as salaries and healthcare, as well as fluctuations in the cost of contracted services. Given the ongoing nature of these expenses, and in pursuit of a sustainable fiscal strategy, the ARIN Board of Trustees is considering two distinct approaches for future fee adjustments: Option A Continue with the current practice of periodically reviewing the alignment between annual revenue and operating costs. Following community consultation, necessary adjustments would be made to the registration services fees to address any discrepancies and recover reserves used during periods of misalignment. This method has been effective but can lead to significant and unpredictable fee increases. Option B Introduce a structured approach to fee adjustments, allowing for an annual increase of no more than 5%, subject to approval by the Board of Trustees. This strategy aims to offer a predictable and manageable escalation in fees, aligning more closely with the budget planning processes of many organizations within our community. The ARIN Board of Trustees is exploring the feasibility of adopting Option B, which would include a specific amendment to the Registration Services Plan Fee Schedule stating, ?The annual Registration Services Plan fee for each service category is subject to an annual increase (as approved by the ARIN Board of Trustees) of no greater than 5%.? We are seeking community input on this potential adjustment to the fee schedule. Please view the proposed Registration Services Plan Fee Schedule (with italicized markup for proposed addition) at: https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/adjusting_fee_schedule_proposed/ This consultation will be open for 30 days. Following this period, a summary of the feedback received will be presented to the Board of Trustees for their consideration. We encourage the community to share their perspectives and preferences regarding these options. Please send your comments to arin-consult at arin.net. You can subscribe to this mailing list at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult. The discussion on arin-consult at arin.net will conclude at 5:00 PM ET on Friday, 3 May. Regards, John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From bill at herrin.us Wed Apr 3 13:20:18 2024 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 10:20:18 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Approaches for Adjusting the ARIN Registration Services Plan Fee Schedule In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 9:40?AM ARIN wrote: > Introduce a structured approach to fee adjustments, allowing > for an annual increase of no more than 5%, subject to approval > by the Board of Trustees. This strategy aims to offer a predictable > and manageable escalation in fees, aligning more closely with the > budget planning processes of many organizations within our community. That's great if inflation stays far enough below 5% to allow for the cost of new services, but what happens when it doesn't? Break the implicit promise of stability in the fees? And what happens when you want to restructure the fees? Is the 5% promise simply void since the new fees are discontinuous from the old? Like what happened to the LRSA folks? And philosophically, should ARIN be experiencing a 5% growth that isn't tied to a comparable growth in its customer base? Isn't that called bloat? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill at herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/ From jcurran at arin.net Wed Apr 3 13:53:45 2024 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 17:53:45 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Approaches for Adjusting the ARIN Registration Services Plan Fee Schedule In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: <70C238C9-D0FC-49D1-B1D8-51A9013607D5@arin.net> > On Apr 3, 2024, at 1:20?PM, William Herrin wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 9:40?AM ARIN wrote: >> Introduce a structured approach to fee adjustments, allowing >> for an annual increase of no more than 5%, subject to approval >> by the Board of Trustees. This strategy aims to offer a predictable >> and manageable escalation in fees, aligning more closely with the >> budget planning processes of many organizations within our community. Hello Bill - You?ve got some great questions ? let's go through each: > That's great if inflation stays far enough below 5% to allow for the > cost of new services, but what happens when it doesn't? Break the > implicit promise of stability in the fees? So it is not the ?cost of new services? that is the concern, it?s rather the routine increase in ARIN?s own operations costs that we have to deal with? While we do make efforts to rebid significant suppliers (e.g., benefits, telecommunications, etc.) in order to manage costs, there are still times when we are unable to avoid seeing cost increases in the services that we contract. In addition, we do provide competitive compensation to the staff, and these results in a 2 to 3% increase in our salary pool each year. As for ?new services?, we generally can accommodate the various changes that are requested (whether features or policy changes) with the existing resources; we balance new feature and maintenance development tasks as needed for this. > And what happens when you want to restructure the fees? Is the 5% > promise simply void since the new fees are discontinuous from the old? > Like what happened to the LRSA folks? Having finally achieved a fee schedule that treats all parties equitably, I would like to think we?re past the point of further restructuring of the fee schedule? However, to be clear, the question before the community is whether we come every 2 or 3 years with a proposal to make an adjustment to the existing fee schedule that might be quite significant (i.e. potentially more than 10%) or would the community prefer that the Board do a small adjustment annually based on increase in costs ? an approach that is typical in some industries. > And philosophically, should ARIN be experiencing a 5% growth that > isn't tied to a comparable growth in its customer base? Isn't that > called bloat? As noted, our costs increase nominally each year based on underlying vendors and staff cost, and this does not directly correspond to either number of members or number resources in the registry. In fact, we may easily see a reduction in number of members given that the structure of the fee schedule encourages consolidation of organizational accounts when such is possible (i.e., one can increase the number resources under an RSA by 4x before seeing the fee category increment and corresponding service fee increase by only 2x.) I hope this helps explain somewhat the situation, and the question being asked of the members?it is really a question of how the nominal changes in costs get accommodated; would the community prefer this to occur routinely as a matter of course, or would it prefer revisiting the fees every few years (and potentially considering a significantly larger increase at that time). Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers From farmer at umn.edu Wed Apr 3 14:48:30 2024 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 13:48:30 -0500 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Approaches for Adjusting the ARIN Registration Services Plan Fee Schedule In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I encourage the board to adopt Option B. I also encourage the board to announce the annual increases on a regular cadence and at least six months before going into effect. Thanks On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 11:40?AM ARIN wrote: > The American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) is currently evaluating > potential methods to adjust our Registration Services Plan Fee Schedule and > is inviting feedback from the community ( > https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/consultations/2024/2024-2/). > Our goal is to maintain a balanced alignment between operating costs and > revenue, ensuring equitable cost recovery across our diverse community. > > In the past, ARIN has chosen not to automatically adjust the fee schedule > annually, instead opting for larger, less frequent adjustments based on the > changing landscape of ARIN?s operating costs. These costs include > variations in staffing expenses, such as salaries and healthcare, as well > as fluctuations in the cost of contracted services. > > Given the ongoing nature of these expenses, and in pursuit of a > sustainable fiscal strategy, the ARIN Board of Trustees is considering two > distinct approaches for future fee adjustments: > > Option A > Continue with the current practice of periodically reviewing the alignment > between annual revenue and operating costs. Following community > consultation, necessary adjustments would be made to the registration > services fees to address any discrepancies and recover reserves used during > periods of misalignment. This method has been effective but can lead to > significant and unpredictable fee increases. > > Option B > Introduce a structured approach to fee adjustments, allowing for an annual > increase of no more than 5%, subject to approval by the Board of Trustees. > This strategy aims to offer a predictable and manageable escalation in > fees, aligning more closely with the budget planning processes of many > organizations within our community. > > The ARIN Board of Trustees is exploring the feasibility of adopting Option > B, which would include a specific amendment to the Registration Services > Plan Fee Schedule stating, ?The annual Registration Services Plan fee for > each service category is subject to an annual increase (as approved by the > ARIN Board of Trustees) of no greater than 5%.? We are seeking community > input on this potential adjustment to the fee schedule. > > Please view the proposed Registration Services Plan Fee Schedule (with > italicized markup for proposed addition) at: > > > https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/adjusting_fee_schedule_proposed/ > > This consultation will be open for 30 days. Following this period, a > summary of the feedback received will be presented to the Board of Trustees > for their consideration. > > We encourage the community to share their perspectives and preferences > regarding these options. Please send your comments to > arin-consult at arin.net. You can subscribe to this mailing list at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult. > > The discussion on arin-consult at arin.net will conclude at 5:00 PM ET on > Friday, 3 May. > > Regards, > > John Curran > President and CEO > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > -- =============================================== 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 cstrouth at wvix.us Wed Apr 3 20:05:13 2024 From: cstrouth at wvix.us (Clinton Strouth) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 00:05:13 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Acsp 2024.2 Message-ID: I personally think option b is a better solution however with option b there should be a maximum number of times that the fee schedule can be increased to prevent continuous rate hikes and a cap on the total percentage amount that can be raised over time. For example: Maximum yearly increase of 5% not to exceed 15% in a 5-year period. This allows for 5 3% increases or 3 5% increases. After the 5-year period another discussion to determine the maximum increase percentage over a 5-year term. Clinton Strouth WVIE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bill at herrin.us Thu Apr 4 17:25:46 2024 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 14:25:46 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Approaches for Adjusting the ARIN Registration Services Plan Fee Schedule In-Reply-To: <70C238C9-D0FC-49D1-B1D8-51A9013607D5@arin.net> References:

<70C238C9-D0FC-49D1-B1D8-51A9013607D5@arin.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 10:53?AM John Curran wrote: > > On Apr 3, 2024, at 1:20?PM, William Herrin wrote: > > That's great if inflation stays far enough below 5% to allow for the > > cost of new services, but what happens when it doesn't? Break the > > implicit promise of stability in the fees? > > So it is not the ?cost of new services? that is the concern, it?s rather the routine > increase in ARIN?s own operations costs that we have to deal with? Hi John, I believe that's called "inflation." Things cost more this year than they did last year. Inflation isn't static. Some years it's more, some years it's less. It was well above 5% in 2021 and 2022, but well below for every other year ARIN has existed. If the objective is for ARIN prices to track with inflation (i.e. for them to stay the same in "constant dollars"), shouldn't you do just that rather than pick a number out of a hat? > > And what happens when you want to restructure the fees? Is the 5% > > promise simply void since the new fees are discontinuous from the old? > > Like what happened to the LRSA folks? > > Having finally achieved a fee schedule that treats all parties equitably, I would > like to think we?re past the point of further restructuring of the fee schedule? Heh. Good one. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill at herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/ From jcurran at arin.net Thu Apr 4 17:35:37 2024 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 21:35:37 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Approaches for Adjusting the ARIN Registration Services Plan Fee Schedule In-Reply-To: References:

<70C238C9-D0FC-49D1-B1D8-51A9013607D5@arin.net> Message-ID: <111E538D-E21D-455B-9D1A-8D663E01EEDD@arin.net> > On Apr 4, 2024, at 5:25?PM, William Herrin wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 10:53?AM John Curran wrote: >>> On Apr 3, 2024, at 1:20?PM, William Herrin wrote: >>> That's great if inflation stays far enough below 5% to allow for the >>> cost of new services, but what happens when it doesn't? Break the >>> implicit promise of stability in the fees? >> >> So it is not the ?cost of new services? that is the concern, it?s rather the routine >> increase in ARIN?s own operations costs that we have to deal with? > > Hi John, > > I believe that's called "inflation." Things cost more this year than > they did last year. Inflation isn't static. Some years it's more, some > years it's less. It was well above 5% in 2021 and 2022, but well below > for every other year ARIN has existed. > > If the objective is for ARIN prices to track with inflation (i.e. for > them to stay the same in "constant dollars"), shouldn't you do just > that rather than pick a number out of a hat? That is the intent, with the ARIN Board of Trustees approving an appropriate value each year. One would hope that such a number isn?t ?picked out of a hat? but rather informed by the inflation rate (e.g. trailing 12-month CPI) and our forecasted costs. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers From dwcarder at es.net Thu Apr 4 17:46:16 2024 From: dwcarder at es.net (Dale W. Carder) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 16:46:16 -0500 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Approaches for Adjusting the ARIN Registration Services Plan Fee Schedule In-Reply-To: References:

<70C238C9-D0FC-49D1-B1D8-51A9013607D5@arin.net> Message-ID: Thus spake William Herrin (bill at herrin.us) on Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 02:25:46PM -0700: > On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 10:53?AM John Curran wrote: > > > On Apr 3, 2024, at 1:20?PM, William Herrin wrote: > > > That's great if inflation stays far enough below 5% to allow for the > > > cost of new services, but what happens when it doesn't? Break the > > > implicit promise of stability in the fees? > > > > So it is not the ?cost of new services? that is the concern, it?s rather the routine > > increase in ARIN?s own operations costs that we have to deal with? > > Hi John, > > I believe that's called "inflation." Things cost more this year than > they did last year. Inflation isn't static. Some years it's more, some > years it's less. It was well above 5% in 2021 and 2022, but well below > for every other year ARIN has existed. > > If the objective is for ARIN prices to track with inflation (i.e. for > them to stay the same in "constant dollars"), shouldn't you do just > that rather than pick a number out of a hat? Some employee costs such as healthcare can vastly outpace inflation. So tracking inflation alone would not be sufficient. In general I like the spirit of Option B, and ARIN needs to ensure its viability while managing budgeting expectations. Dale From gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com Thu Apr 4 18:19:04 2024 From: gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com (Gary Buhrmaster) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 22:19:04 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Approaches for Adjusting the ARIN Registration Services Plan Fee Schedule In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 4:40?PM ARIN wrote: > Given the ongoing nature of these expenses, and in pursuit of a sustainable fiscal strategy, the ARIN Board of Trustees is considering two distinct approaches for future fee adjustments: I (and I presume most) do not like to see fees increasing, but I (and I presume most) do understand that adjustments need to be made over time. I also do not think that it is possible to predict with any accuracy what that increase will need to be in the future (inflation was about 8% not all that long ago), so restricting it to a 5% increase is likely too limiting unless that number is intended to be in addition to the experienced inflation rate. I do think a regular (likely) smaller regular increases are better than a few randomly scheduled chosen larger ones (so option (b)). As I recall, a common complaint about adjustments was the lack of advanced notice so that organizations can make budgeting requests for their next fiscal period (as changing a budget request in the middle of an organizations fiscal period can be easy, or very difficult, depending on the organization and the size of the increase itself, and predicting an increase during the budget request process that had not been communicated by the vendor (rather than reflecting actuals) is sometimes frowned upon). For organizations whose current renewal date is near the end of their fiscal period they may wish to see close to 15 months of advanced notice before the fees change (which might require some amount of clairvoyance by the board to know what ARIN's revenue needs will be that far into the future). Perhaps a solution to the notice issue would be to allow organizations to move their renewal dates to a month that more closely aligns with their internal budgetary cycles. From paul at egate.net Fri Apr 5 13:43:56 2024 From: paul at egate.net (Paul Andersen) Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2024 17:43:56 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Approaches for Adjusting the ARIN Registration Services Plan Fee Schedule Message-ID: John, A point of clarification that would be useful to me and perhaps others. Is Option B prevent the board from any fee schedule restructuring? Similar to the end user move to a service plan a few years ago? I assume Option B allows the board to do modest changes without a consultation up to the 5% and other changes are allowed but with a fee consult? Or are all further changes beyond a raise prohibited under B? Thanks Paul > On Apr 3, 2024, at 1:53?PM, John Curran wrote: > > ? >> On Apr 3, 2024, at 1:20?PM, William Herrin wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 9:40?AM ARIN wrote: >>> Introduce a structured approach to fee adjustments, allowing >>> for an annual increase of no more than 5%, subject to approval >>> by the Board of Trustees. This strategy aims to offer a predictable >>> and manageable escalation in fees, aligning more closely with the >>> budget planning processes of many organizations within our community. > > Hello Bill - > > You?ve got some great questions ? let's go through each: > >> That's great if inflation stays far enough below 5% to allow for the >> cost of new services, but what happens when it doesn't? Break the >> implicit promise of stability in the fees? > > So it is not the ?cost of new services? that is the concern, it?s rather the routine > increase in ARIN?s own operations costs that we have to deal with? While we do > make efforts to rebid significant suppliers (e.g., benefits, telecommunications, etc.) > in order to manage costs, there are still times when we are unable to avoid seeing > cost increases in the services that we contract. In addition, we do provide > competitive compensation to the staff, and these results in a 2 to 3% increase > in our salary pool each year. > > As for ?new services?, we generally can accommodate the various changes that > are requested (whether features or policy changes) with the existing resources; > we balance new feature and maintenance development tasks as needed for this. > >> And what happens when you want to restructure the fees? Is the 5% >> promise simply void since the new fees are discontinuous from the old? >> Like what happened to the LRSA folks? > > Having finally achieved a fee schedule that treats all parties equitably, I would > like to think we?re past the point of further restructuring of the fee schedule? > > However, to be clear, the question before the community is whether we come > every 2 or 3 years with a proposal to make an adjustment to the existing fee > schedule that might be quite significant (i.e. potentially more than 10%) or > would the community prefer that the Board do a small adjustment annually > based on increase in costs ? an approach that is typical in some industries. > >> And philosophically, should ARIN be experiencing a 5% growth that >> isn't tied to a comparable growth in its customer base? Isn't that >> called bloat? > > As noted, our costs increase nominally each year based on underlying > vendors and staff cost, and this does not directly correspond to either > number of members or number resources in the registry. In fact, we may > easily see a reduction in number of members given that the structure of the > fee schedule encourages consolidation of organizational accounts when > such is possible (i.e., one can increase the number resources under an RSA > by 4x before seeing the fee category increment and corresponding service fee > increase by only 2x.) > > I hope this helps explain somewhat the situation, and the question being asked > of the members?it is really a question of how the nominal changes in costs get > accommodated; would the community prefer this to occur routinely as a matter > of course, or would it prefer revisiting the fees every few years (and potentially > considering a significantly larger increase at that time). > > Thanks! > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > American Registry for Internet Numbers > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Consult > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing > List (ARIN-consult at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From jcurran at arin.net Fri Apr 5 15:50:49 2024 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2024 19:50:49 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Approaches for Adjusting the ARIN Registration Services Plan Fee Schedule In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > On Apr 5, 2024, at 1:43?PM, Paul Andersen wrote: > > John, > > > A point of clarification that would be useful to me and perhaps others. > > Is Option B prevent the board from any fee schedule restructuring? Similar to the end user move to a service plan a few years ago? No, option B would simply mean that the fee schedule itself has an adjustment provision that would become the customary way handling cost changes due to inflation (i.e. the Board would be review costs each year and promptly confirm the upcoming year fees within the provisions established.) If does not prevent the Board from proposing making other changes (e.g., a restructuring or making a more significant change due to new member-sought services), but I will note that any such change to the fee schedule would need to go through the ARIN community consultation process. > I assume Option B allows the board to do modest changes without a consultation up to the 5% and other changes are allowed but with a fee consult? That would be correct. > Or are all further changes beyond a raise prohibited under B? No, the fee schedule would still be able to further amended but as you note doing so would require a community consultation. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers From adam at aeb.io Sat Apr 6 00:26:07 2024 From: adam at aeb.io (Adam Brenner) Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2024 21:26:07 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Approaches for Adjusting the ARIN Registration Services Plan Fee Schedule In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 4/3/24 09:40, (ARIN) wrote: > Option B > Introduce a structured approach to fee adjustments, allowing > for an annual increase of no more than 5%, subject to > approval by the Board of Trustees. This strategy aims to > offer a predictable and manageable escalation in fees, > aligning more closely with the budget planning processes of > many organizations within our community. As an active ARIN member who holds valid IP and ASN resources I strongly urge the rejection of option B. If Option B was to pass, ARIN would be disincentivized to be fiscally conservative with fees collected from the community. (1) Vendors that ARIN uses could increase their fees knowing ARIN can afford it by increase membership fees up to 5% with limited community involvement. ARIN would lose one tool for rate negotiation should option B be adopted. (2) The ARIN organization *might* unofficially adopt a "use it or lose" budget policy. Suppose multiple consecutive fee increases were requested and approved under the proposed Option B, but the budget was never fully spent. The organization might find ways to spend the budget in order to justify its current spending but also preserve the option for future fee increases. I am not saying the above is occurring, but could conceivably happen sometime in the future should the board adopt option B. If ARIN leadership (John Curran, et al.) feel they need to increase fees in order to effectively run the organization, they should follow existing procedures -- submit a budget proposal, consult period with community regarding increase in fees, etc. Nothing, as it stands today, prevents ARIN leadership from using existing processes to increase fees as little or frequently to effectively run the organization. Again, I strongly urge that Option B *not* be adopted. -- Adam Brenner https://aeb.io/ From andrew.dul at quark.net Sat Apr 6 10:49:36 2024 From: andrew.dul at quark.net (Andrew Dul) Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2024 09:49:36 -0500 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Approaches for Adjusting the ARIN Registration Services Plan Fee Schedule In-Reply-To: <111E538D-E21D-455B-9D1A-8D663E01EEDD@arin.net> References: <111E538D-E21D-455B-9D1A-8D663E01EEDD@arin.net> Message-ID: <8B9F31D4-F5AC-436A-97F3-C78983A02D2E@quark.net> > On Apr 4, 2024, at 16:35, John Curran wrote: > > ? >> On Apr 4, 2024, at 5:25?PM, William Herrin wrote: >> >> On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 10:53?AM John Curran wrote: >>>>> On Apr 3, 2024, at 1:20?PM, William Herrin wrote: >>>>> That's great if inflation stays far enough below 5% to allow for the >>>>> cost of new services, but what happens when it doesn't? Break the >>>>> implicit promise of stability in the fees? >>> >>> So it is not the ?cost of new services? that is the concern, it?s rather the routine >>> increase in ARIN?s own operations costs that we have to deal with? >> >> Hi John, >> >> I believe that's called "inflation." Things cost more this year than >> they did last year. Inflation isn't static. Some years it's more, some >> years it's less. It was well above 5% in 2021 and 2022, but well below >> for every other year ARIN has existed. >> >> If the objective is for ARIN prices to track with inflation (i.e. for >> them to stay the same in "constant dollars"), shouldn't you do just >> that rather than pick a number out of a hat? > > That is the intent, with the ARIN Board of Trustees approving an appropriate value > each year. One would hope that such a number isn?t ?picked out of a hat? but rather > informed by the inflation rate (e.g. trailing 12-month CPI) and our forecasted costs. > While this consultation is specifically for fee increases, we also in some ways should consider how the services Arin should or shouldn?t provide should factor into this discussion. Specifically are there services that Arin today is providing that perhaps it shouldn?t in the future or areas of expenses that should be cut or trimmed. Arin as an organization has grown significantly over the past two plus decades and while most of that is desired and maybe even required to meet Arin?s mission. I believe there are probably some areas where Arin could be more efficient with its spending and also some areas that perhaps could be cut. To the specific question at hand. I?m not specifically opposed to a yearly standard increase but it does in someways remove an incentive to try and meet Arin?s mission within the funds provided by the membership under a not constantly growing revenue stream. I think the board should enforce some disciple on itself to not just increase fees because that is easier than trimming some expenses. For example, the board might ask the staff each year to provide an expense budget that provides for zero annual fee increase in addition to a budget that has a ?cpi? increase. Andrew From jcurran at arin.net Sat Apr 6 12:39:07 2024 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2024 16:39:07 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Approaches for Adjusting the ARIN Registration Services Plan Fee Schedule In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: <93FBFF9C-B7E6-4CF2-AE1D-A939C631CA3E@arin.net> > On Apr 6, 2024, at 12:26?AM, Adam Brenner via ARIN-consult wrote: > > On 4/3/24 09:40, (ARIN) wrote: >> Option B >> Introduce a structured approach to fee adjustments, allowing >> for an annual increase of no more than 5%, subject to >> approval by the Board of Trustees. This strategy aims to >> offer a predictable and manageable escalation in fees, >> aligning more closely with the budget planning processes of >> many organizations within our community. > > As an active ARIN member who holds valid IP and ASN resources I strongly urge the rejection of option B. > > If Option B was to pass, ARIN would be disincentivized to be fiscally conservative with fees collected from the community. > > (1) Vendors that ARIN uses could increase their fees knowing ARIN can afford it by increase membership fees up to 5% with limited community involvement. ARIN would lose one tool for rate negotiation should option B be adopted. That?s certainly possible ? one would hope it wouldn?t occur due to the competitive rebid activity that we do for major expenses, but arguably it could alter the philosophy of individual vendors bidding and thus have a net effect? > (2) The ARIN organization *might* unofficially adopt a "use it or lose" budget policy. Suppose multiple consecutive fee increases were requested and approved under the proposed Option B, but the budget was never fully spent. The organization might find ways to spend the budget in order to justify its current spending but also preserve the option for future fee increases. We presently engage in zero-based budgeting; i.e. we evaluate the planned activities during the budget process and then build cost-model to sustain them. There?s some cases where we can?t necessarily foresee the activities more than 18 months advance and so there is indeed significant estimation involved. It?s also worth noting that the budget is reviewed in detail by the ARIN Board Finance Committee until they are satisfied, and it is the Finance Committee that recommends the proposed budget for adoption. When it comes to incurring costs, we?re fairly aggressive in minimizing actual expenditures, but I will be the first to admit this is driven out of my desire to have as much ?headroom? as possible throughout the year (because we cannot anticipate what snbudgetted expenses might arise and need to be addressed?) Excellent feedback Adam ? thank you for taking the time to participate! /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers From jcurran at arin.net Sat Apr 6 13:33:35 2024 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2024 17:33:35 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Approaches for Adjusting the ARIN Registration Services Plan Fee Schedule In-Reply-To: <8B9F31D4-F5AC-436A-97F3-C78983A02D2E@quark.net> References: <111E538D-E21D-455B-9D1A-8D663E01EEDD@arin.net> <8B9F31D4-F5AC-436A-97F3-C78983A02D2E@quark.net> Message-ID: <183E55D7-1BA3-4D71-ADE0-8CDE1130602F@arin.net> > On Apr 6, 2024, at 10:49?AM, Andrew Dul wrote: > > While this consultation is specifically for fee increases, we also in some ways should consider how the services Arin should or shouldn?t provide should factor into this discussion. Specifically are there services that Arin today is providing that perhaps it shouldn?t in the future or areas of expenses that should be cut or trimmed. Indeed - we definitely do consider whether there are any services that can be retired in our planning processes and that has led to deprecation of services where possible. (For example, this year will finally be the one that we retire template processing but that hasn?t been an expense concern so much as a tech debt/maintenance/security driven item.) > Arin as an organization has grown significantly over the past two plus decades and while most of that is desired and maybe even required to meet Arin?s mission. I believe there are probably some areas where Arin could be more efficient with its spending and also some areas that perhaps could be cut. Great question. We have added or significant upgraded many services based on community requests (IRR -> authenticated IRR, RPKI services, Qualified Facilitator program), and that does impact our cost base. In addition, there?s quite a bit of difference in the cost model between ?doing a job, doing a good job, and doing a provably good job? (even when describing the very same service.) ARIN has been doing quite a bit of work in the recent years working on having demonstrably good operations and governance ? for example, when the community asked to undertake more robust security auditing, it was not driven by any material gap or incident, but rather driven by the desire to be able to provide better reassurance of our security posture. This has led to us bringing on a CISO and having dedicated security personal, doing updates to our internal documentation, and ultimately the achieving of both PCI and SOC 2 certifications. Even now, we are continuing to strengthen our posture via holding security exercises ? as it is the only way to test how the organization might really fare in a major cybersecurity incident. None of this substantially changes the services that ARIN offers, but does impact our cost model. Note that it?s not just technical areas that we?ve ended up incurring costs as we have matured our practices; for example, our engagement in good governance of the organization has meant a more traditional committee structure, additional support staff, training costs for bringing on new trustees, attention to best practices for non-for-profit governance, formal risk management process, etc. Even improvements with more professional execution of existing functions ? such as ARIN now having an Ombudsperson at our meetings (in order to be able to provide impartial conflict resolution and informal assistance to our community and maintain a healthy and inclusive conference environment) ? end up adding to the cost base for the organization. While not elected, I am an ARIN Trustee ? and I can say that one of the hardest aspects of the role is weighing the very real cost tradeoffs between "organizational leanness/efficiency? versus the adoption of best practices that improve our readiness, our professionalism, and our resilience. (and I am _very_ thankful for having great trustees elected by the community to help in considering such matters.) I would welcome any/all input into either activities that ARIN should not be doing, and/or things we could be doing more efficiently ? please provide such to me (or any trustee) and know that it will be seriously considered. > To the specific question at hand. I?m not specifically opposed to a yearly standard increase but it does in someways remove an incentive to try and meet Arin?s mission within the funds provided by the membership under a not constantly growing revenue stream. > > I think the board should enforce some disciple on itself to not just increase fees because that is easier than trimming some expenses. > > For example, the board might ask the staff each year to provide an expense budget that provides for zero annual fee increase in addition to a budget that has a ?cpi? increase. As noted earlier, we do build a zero-based budget up each year based the coming year?s activity plan; this generally comes up slightly ahead of the previous year since: a) the activities required are always a superset of the prior year, and b) even if activity level were to be unchanged, the underlying costs of both in-house staff and contracted services increase. It would not be difficult to build a budget that was flat year of year, but doing so would require some very clear direction as activities to be cut and activities to be delivered under a more "lean ? approach. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers From chris at semihuman.com Sat Apr 6 13:59:44 2024 From: chris at semihuman.com (Chris Woodfield) Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2024 10:59:44 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Approaches for Adjusting the ARIN Registration Services Plan Fee Schedule In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: I feel like option #2 would be more palatable if there was some sort of external constraint, such as tying the annual increase to CPI or other index. If there?s concern that such an index might not track with costs, remember that this only covers fee increases that can be implemented without a community consultation - the Board can always vote to raise fees higher if truly needed, they just need to consult, such as current status quo. Hasn?t been a huge hurdle in the past. Regarding a ?use it or lose it?, I?ve seen similar rules/laws (thinking mainly of some municipal rent control statutes) where a capped increase can be banked, so assuming a 5% cap, it would be possible to increase, say, 4% one year, then 6% the next, leveraging the banked 1% from the previous year. This has been implicitly stated, but support for this policy from me would need to hinge on an explicit scope limit stating that any reorganization of fees (read: anything that doesn?t simply add an inflationary index to the existing fee structure) would not be covered by it. I do concede the concern that this could more or less bake in increases in ARIN?s costs, as vendors, staff, et al are in a better position to predict ARIN?s revenues in the future and could use that info against ARIN in pricing negotiations. That said, there are enough other variables (on the plus side: legacy space coming under LRSA or RSA via transfers; on the minus side, increases in inter-RIR outbound transfers) that could impact the top line, which I?d hope could blunt this some. -C > > > (2) The ARIN organization *might* unofficially adopt a "use it or lose" budget policy. Suppose multiple consecutive fee increases were requested and approved under the proposed Option B, but the budget was never fully spent. The organization might find ways to spend the budget in order to justify its current spending but also preserve the option for future fee increases. > > I am not saying the above is occurring, but could conceivably happen sometime in the future should the board adopt option B. > > > > If ARIN leadership (John Curran, et al.) feel they need to increase fees in order to effectively run the organization, they should follow existing procedures -- submit a budget proposal, consult period with community regarding increase in fees, etc. > > Nothing, as it stands today, prevents ARIN leadership from using existing processes to increase fees as little or frequently to effectively run the organization. > > > Again, I strongly urge that Option B *not* be adopted. > > -- > Adam Brenner > https://aeb.io/ > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sat Apr 6 18:02:12 2024 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2024 22:02:12 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Approaches for Adjusting the ARIN Registration Services Plan Fee Schedule In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: <3F12EB56-044D-4584-A103-7F97EC190620@arin.net> > On Apr 6, 2024, at 1:59?PM, Chris Woodfield wrote: > > I feel like option #2 would be more palatable if there was some sort of external constraint, such as tying the annual increase to CPI or other index. Acknowledged. There are several possible indexes commonly utilized for such purposes, so that is fairly easy to accomplish. > If there?s concern that such an index might not track with costs, remember that this only covers fee increases that can be implemented without a community consultation - the Board can always vote to raise fees higher if truly needed, they just need to consult, such as current status quo. Hasn?t been a huge hurdle in the past. Agreed. The Board of Trustees certainly has the tools (and the duty) to handle such situations; the question is really about how the community wishes to handle the impact typical inflation-based cost changes ? i.e. should ARIN have an adjustment process that incorporate such (within some reasonable bound), or would the community prefer the existing approach maintaining present fees unchanged as long as possible, but recognizing that the changes & restructuring that follows a few year could represent substantial increases. > Regarding a ?use it or lose it?, I?ve seen similar rules/laws (thinking mainly of some municipal rent control statutes) where a capped increase can be banked, so assuming a 5% cap, it would be possible to increase, say, 4% one year, then 6% the next, leveraging the banked 1% from the previous year. > > This has been implicitly stated, but support for this policy from me would need to hinge on an explicit scope limit stating that any reorganization of fees (read: anything that doesn?t simply add an inflationary index to the existing fee structure) would not be covered by it. > > I do concede the concern that this could more or less bake in increases in ARIN?s costs, as vendors, staff, et al are in a better position to predict ARIN?s revenues in the future and could use that info against ARIN in pricing negotiations. That said, there are enough other variables (on the plus side: legacy space coming under LRSA or RSA via transfers; on the minus side, increases in inter-RIR outbound transfers) that could impact the top line, which I?d hope could blunt this some. We are indeed seeing a significant increase in resources under agreement ? but note that many of those have the benefit of the legacy resources fee cap and hence don?t quite generate the same revenue as one would expect. Thanks for the input Chris! /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers From scott at solarnetone.org Sat Apr 6 18:07:59 2024 From: scott at solarnetone.org (scott at solarnetone.org) Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2024 18:07:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Approaches for Adjusting the ARIN Registration Services Plan Fee Schedule In-Reply-To: <3F12EB56-044D-4584-A103-7F97EC190620@arin.net> References:

<3F12EB56-044D-4584-A103-7F97EC190620@arin.net> Message-ID: <37efd2be-2710-6640-ead6-c33961737f1c@solarnetone.org> Hi All, Perhaps we could move to accepting gold only as payment. It would be both inflation proof, and be Constituional currency in the US. It is silly, I know, but given that the existing fiat currency is inflationary by design, it would be a more stable measure of value. requiring no incremental fee increases over time. Scott On Sat, 6 Apr 2024, John Curran wrote: > >> On Apr 6, 2024, at 1:59?PM, Chris Woodfield wrote: >> >> I feel like option #2 would be more palatable if there was some sort of external constraint, such as tying the annual increase to CPI or other index. > > Acknowledged. There are several possible indexes commonly utilized for such purposes, so that is fairly easy to accomplish. > >> If there?s concern that such an index might not track with costs, remember that this only covers fee increases that can be implemented without a community consultation - the Board can always vote to raise fees higher if truly needed, they just need to consult, such as current status quo. Hasn?t been a huge hurdle in the past. > > Agreed. The Board of Trustees certainly has the tools (and the duty) to handle such situations; the question is really about how the community wishes to handle the impact typical inflation-based cost changes ? i.e. should ARIN have an adjustment process that incorporate such (within some reasonable bound), or would the community prefer the existing approach maintaining present fees unchanged as long as possible, but recognizing that the changes & restructuring that follows a few year could represent substantial increases. > >> Regarding a ?use it or lose it?, I?ve seen similar rules/laws (thinking mainly of some municipal rent control statutes) where a capped increase can be banked, so assuming a 5% cap, it would be possible to increase, say, 4% one year, then 6% the next, leveraging the banked 1% from the previous year. >> >> This has been implicitly stated, but support for this policy from me would need to hinge on an explicit scope limit stating that any reorganization of fees (read: anything that doesn?t simply add an inflationary index to the existing fee structure) would not be covered by it. >> >> I do concede the concern that this could more or less bake in increases in ARIN?s costs, as vendors, staff, et al are in a better position to predict ARIN?s revenues in the future and could use that info against ARIN in pricing negotiations. That said, there are enough other variables (on the plus side: legacy space coming under LRSA or RSA via transfers; on the minus side, increases in inter-RIR outbound transfers) that could impact the top line, which I?d hope could blunt this some. > > > We are indeed seeing a significant increase in resources under agreement ? but note that many of those have the benefit of the legacy resources fee cap and hence don?t quite generate the same revenue as one would expect. > > Thanks for the input Chris! > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > American Registry for Internet Numbers > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Consult > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing > List (ARIN-consult at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From jcurran at arin.net Fri Apr 12 11:42:16 2024 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 15:42:16 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] ARIN Customer Count and Average Revenue Trend (was: Re: [General-members] Consultation on Approaches for Adjusting the ARIN Registration Services Plan Fee Schedule) In-Reply-To: <5B9E1B00-B7A7-47FB-96B6-DCA11B046BBA@delong.com> References: <9A388656-A539-47AE-BF2B-D57AA3D3952C@arin.net> <5B9E1B00-B7A7-47FB-96B6-DCA11B046BBA@delong.com> Message-ID: <8E3A09A2-9B11-45E9-A130-D890BE84E9B1@arin.net> On Apr 3, 2024, at 5:58?PM, Owen DeLong via General-members wrote: ... I don?t know what the average ARIN price increase per year has been over the last 20+ years, and it might be useful if ARIN were able to produce some statistics on the matter. I realize this is a somewhat complex question because ARIN has repeatedly rejiggered how fees are computed as well as the price per unit (including changes to what constitutes a ?unit? for pricing). Nonetheless, since ARIN knows every member?s billing history, it ought to be possible for ARIN to do some level of historic analysis of the average price per / paid by all registrants and then compute the average price increase per year from that. Owen ? I did not forget about your request for additional information ? but rather, as you note, it is a somewhat complicated question that took a bit of effort to extract properly. We were able to do this for 2002 through 2022 (the fee restructure of 2023 is a tad more complex and still being looked at?) So, attached is the ARIN customer count (i.e. all paying customers, including RSA/LRSA and AS holders) from 2002 to 2022, and the average revenue per customer in that period. I will also note that the services provided to customers over that period have increased substantially (although that?s not something that?s really reducible to a chartable data series, and hence not reflected below.) I hope you find this information helpful! /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers p.s. Owen posted the query to general-members, but I am following up to both general-members and arin-consult as the information may be germane to the current open consolation regarding approaches for adjustment of fees. Please continue the discussion just on the arin-consult mailing list given the existing open consultation taking place there - Thanks! /John [ARIN Customer Count and Average Revenue .png] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ARIN Customer Count and Average Revenue .png Type: image/png Size: 108193 bytes Desc: ARIN Customer Count and Average Revenue .png URL: From info at arin.net Tue Apr 23 11:49:21 2024 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 11:49:21 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Reminder on ARIN Consultation on Approaches for Adjusting the Registration Services Plan Fee Schedule Message-ID: ARIN would like to remind the community about the ongoing consultation on approaches for adjusting the ARIN Registration Services Plan Fee Schedule. This consultation is scheduled to close on Friday, 3 May. Please 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/2024/2024-2/ As of 22 April, we have received several comments from the community regarding this consultation. If you have feedback you?d like to share with ARIN, please provide it to the arin-consult mailing list via arin-consult at arin.net. You may subscribe to this mailing list at https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult. ARIN will use the feedback provided to determine how we move forward with adjustments to our fees. Thank you for your participation in this community consultation. Regards, John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)