<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Hi John,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Side topic.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>How can the cost of 8.2 transfers be so low compared to 8.3 and 8.4 transfers?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>This makes no sense to me as 8.2 transfers take longer and seem to involve a lot more work.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Regards,<br>Mike<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> ARIN-consult <arin-consult-bounces@arin.net> <b>On Behalf Of </b>John Curran<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, April 20, 2021 11:54 AM<br><b>To:</b> Dale W. Carder <dwcarder@es.net><br><b>Cc:</b> <arin-consult@arin.net> <arin-consult@arin.net><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>On 20 Apr 2021, at 11:07 AM, Dale W. Carder <<a href="mailto:dwcarder@es.net">dwcarder@es.net</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Thus spake ARIN (<a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a>) on Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 04:38:21PM -0400:<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>ARIN’s Fee Schedule has always been based on the principle of equitable cost recovery across our community through a stable and consistent fee schedule. In general, this means that ARIN has avoided making routine changes to the Fee Schedule (for example, making annual readjustments for changing costs) and instead has only made changes when deemed necessary.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><br>I'd challenge the board to consider how the fee schedule could be made<br>sustainable year over year. Certainly with other non-profits I've<br>worked with, a set of published fixed rates doesn't reflect the costs <br>of staff & benefits that increase yearly. Maybe we can get to the point<br>where there are not stair steps but a socially expected 'n'% increase <br>yearly.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>Dale - <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>It is certainly possible for ARIN to take that approach, but we’ve previously heard input that says “Keep my fees the same each year so that I don’t need to get approval to renew any higher number”… We’d need to have quite a bit of community feedback before going to any annually adjusting model compared to our present “review every four or five years” approach.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>We are consulting with the community regarding changes to the ARIN Fee Schedule that are intended for implementation in January of 2022. These changes are:<br><br> * Transitioning End Users from annual per-resource maintenance fees to the RSP (Registration Services Plan) Fee Schedule<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><br>I have always found the end-user vs lir distinction confusing, but I get<br>why it exists.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>Indeed - it is a frequently cited concern. <o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Are there also policy changes happening (or have happened) in the NPRM<br>that coincide with the change here to treat them the same with respect<br>to services used? It would appear that this could result in a sizable<br>bill increase for orgs used to paying per-resource? Or in practice,<br>does it come out to a wash in which case the simplification is worth it?<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>The number resource policy manual is fairly agnostic on fees and services, and our traditional approach to issuance has end-user organizations receiving significantly smaller blocks than service providers; as such, it doesn’t appear that any policy changes are necessitating by the fee change. (As I noted in a message to arin-consult on 14 April 2021, the community may explore potential policies that restrict subassignment of address blocks of “end-users”, but that’s entirely up to the community as to the merit/issues in doing so...) <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal> * Transitioning Legacy resource holders from annual per-resource maintenance fees to the RSP Fee Schedule while maintaining the annual cap of total maintenance fees (which will increase $25 per year)<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><br>This seems totally reasonable.<br><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal> * Providing a temporary IPv6 fee waiver for organizations in the 3X-Small category that desire a larger address block<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><br>This seems like a gimmick of penetration pricing and a bit disingenuous in the <br>spirit of a membership organization. <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>Alas, it is not clear that a permanent fee change is viable over the long-term for the organization, and yet there was support in providing some option for very small organizations to obtain larger IPv6 blocks - that left us with the waiver as the best approach for the time being. <o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal> * Implementing a $100 fee for OrgCreate and OrgRecovery transactions<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><br>I guess I'd be slightly careful here that we don't unnecessarily create<br>disincentives for correct registrations due to there being a fee for this.<br>I would have thought this processing fee to be adequately covered in the <br>service category fee (bigger categories probably do more of them,<br>smaller ones less) or bundled into the transfer processing fee (below)<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><br><br></span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>It’s important to encourage accurate recordkeeping and that would suggest that no fee is preferred, but we also should have some consideration for vetting services conducted and the contract being entered. It was felt that $100 struck a reasonable balance between these two goals. </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal> * Increasing the transfer processing fee to $500<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></blockquote></div></div><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I would think that the fee here should be the full cost recovery to process the <br>transaction. Is that the case here?<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>We’ve got some real challenges with equitable fees for transfers… It’s important to encourage accurate recordkeeping, and that means that a fixed fee is preferred despite the highly variable costs. In addition, there are many teams involved, including registration, finance, and legal. We realize that transfers were having a substantial toll on the organization, so we did a review of the full set of 2019 transfers and the costs incurred (see below) which resulted in a clear understanding that the present $300 fee was insufficient – <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><img border=0 width=640 height=33 style='width:6.6666in;height:.3472in' id="_x0032_B637B39-5AFD-4EF0-9AF8-133DFC1A2F80" src="cid:image001.png@01D735DF.6408B3B0"></span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Great feedback, and I hope the above information is helpful in understanding some of the factors that led to the proposed change.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Thanks again! <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>/John<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>John Curran</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>President and CEO</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>American Registry for Internet Numbers</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><br><br></span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><br><br></span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></div></div></body></html>