<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
I think we're on the same page that there are four categories
relevant here:<br>
<p>1: Legacy holders with no agreement: $0</p>
<p>2: Legacy holders with older LRSA: $125 + $25/year until regular
fee; takes e.g. 300 years.<br>
</p>
<p>3: Legacy holders with newer (L)RSA: ARIN proposed $125 +
$25/year until regular fee; takes e.g. 300 years. I proposed: $125
+ something/year until regular fee; takes e.g. 10 years.<br>
</p>
<p>4: Non-legacy holders with RSA: regular fee</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>You have noted that category 1 is significant. But if ARIN is not
able or willing to compel them to pay fees, that's mostly
irrelevant for this discussion. I realize that raising fees on
category 3 disincentives organizations in category 1 from signing,
but if they haven't by now, I'm not sure what else can be done to
make them (and this isn't that discussion anyway). If fees are the
reason, you can't unring that bell; they presumably understand the
stated intention to harmonize fees whether you actually make this
move now or not, and on what schedule.<br>
</p>
<p>I didn't see any answer to my question about whether categories 2
+ 3 are material on fees. I want to be pragmatic here; if this is
costing category 4 organizations $10/year more, it's probably not
worth arguing about. But absent an answer, I guess I'll assume it
is material?<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Legacy holders who moved from category 1 to 2 or 3 by signing an
LRSA might consider that to have been a bad idea and that the
results are unfair relative to their original state 1, now that
they're being asked to pay more. While I understand their
position, I have little sympathy for it, given that they are
asking others to subsidize them indefinitely.<br>
</p>
<p>I do have sympathy for them regarding a sudden large increase. A
one year jump seems unreasonable. That's why I proposed a longer,
but still reasonable timeframe of e.g. 10 years. Whatever happens,
I also encourage ARIN to work with any that wish to voluntarily
accelerate the transition, as David Farmer brought up.<br>
</p>
<p>I, as someone who works at a company in category 4, consider the
continued existence of the other categories inequitable. Legacy
holders, in many cases, received large allocations (which, if not
fully utilized, now have significant resale value). We can't
change that, any more than the fact that some organizations
previously received allocations from ARIN for free and now we have
to pay on the transfer market. (My employer has both.) But that's
different from an ongoing inequitable annual cost recovery, which
can be addressed.<br>
</p>
<p>You have been "handling it as if [the $25/year cap was] present
for all LRSA agreements to maintain equitable fees for similar
customers in comparable situations". I understand that you
consider "legacy resource holder" to be "similar customer" here.
From my perspective, we are all similar customers. (I realize that
category 1 is a bit different, as they may not get full ARIN
services.)<br>
</p>
<p>Removing the $25/year cap from the agreements was not an
accident. ARIN did this for a reason, AFAIK specifically to allow
eventually harmonizing the fees. Now you are there, but you are
proposing to not do so even in cases (category 3) where you could.</p>
<p>I maintain my position that you should harmonize the fees faster,
where contractually permitted.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Richard</pre>
</body>
</html>