<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 7:33 AM, Andrei via ARIN-consult <arin-consult@arin.net> wrote:</div>
...<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none; float: none; display: inline !important;">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?</span></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<div>Andrei - </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>As per the original consultation – </div>
<blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">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.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">Proposed Fee Harmonization (all fees in USD)</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">- Organizations holding 1-3 ASNs will be categorized as 3X-Small, with an annual fee of $250.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">- Organizations holding 4-15 ASNs will be categorized as 2X-Small, with an annual fee of $500.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">- Organizations holding 16-63 ASNs will be categorized as X-Small, with an annual fee of $1000.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">- Organizations holding 64-255 ASNs will be categorized as Small, with an annual fee of $2000.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">- Organizations holding 256+ ASNs will be categorized as Medium, with an annual fee of $4000.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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...)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks for the feedback!</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>
<div><br>
</div>
</body>
</html>