<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;">
<br>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:23 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:</div>
<div>
<div style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;">
<br>
<div style="font-size: 16px;">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On Jul 11, 2023, at 07:49, John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:</div>
<div>
<div style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;">
<div dir="auto" style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;">
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
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. </div>
<div>
<div>
<div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;">
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="font-size: 16px;"><br>
</div>
Is it meaningfully different, though?</div>
<div style="font-size: 16px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-size: 16px;">What fraction of those 7000+ organizations that would be impacted are legacy holders who pay no fees at all to ARIN?</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
The reference is to the number of customers who have obtained ASN’s under an RSA and pay fees accordingly. </div>
<div>(legacy resource holders are not included in the above) </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="font-size: 16px;">...<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;">
<div dir="auto" style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;">
<div>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. </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="font-size: 16px;"><br>
</div>
Is that really true for the majority of these ASN-only customers? What fraction of those 7000+ customers are currently under an RSA?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
All of them. <br>
<div style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="font-size: 16px;"><br>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="font-size: 16px;">I’m willing to bet that a lot of them (quite likely the vast majority) are legacy without contract.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
You’d lose that bet (as legacy resource holders are not included in the counts provided.)<br>
<div style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="font-size: 16px;"><br>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="font-size: 16px;">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;">
<div dir="auto" style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;">
<div>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. </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="font-size: 16px;"><br>
</div>
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.</div>
<div style="font-size: 16px;"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;">
<div dir="auto" style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;">
<div>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. </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="font-size: 16px;"><br>
</div>
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).</div>
<div style="font-size: 16px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-size: 16px;">The proposed structure is MAX(A,B,C), where A,B,C are IPv4, IPv6, ASN.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
My wording may not have been quite as precise, but you are correct in your reading of the ASN Fee Harmonization proposal. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks,</div>
<div>/John</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>John Curran</div>
<div>President and CEO</div>
<div>American Registry for Internet Numbers</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
</body>
</html>