[arin-ppml] LRSA v3.0 . MWE revised 8-16-11 (Comment)

[Brett Frankenberger]

On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 10:46:35PM -0400, William Herrin wrote:
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> One of us isn't understanding the other. I'm not sure which.
> 
> 1. Under the ARIN fee schedule, a non-legacy end-user under RSA pays a
> $100 annual maintenance fee.
> 
> 2. Under the LRSA draft a legacy end user pays a $300 annual maintenance fee.
> 
> 3. Under the LRSA draft an end user pays no more than the non-legacy
> end user holding the same resources.

The actual text is:
  ARIN may increase the Annual Legacy Maintenance Fee after December
  31, 2013, provided that (i) the ... Fee cannot exceed the annual
  maintenance fee charged to comparable non-legacy holders for ...
  comparable number resources.

I think the effect of the languge is that ARIN cannot increase the fee
if the resulting fee would result in the legacy holder paying more than
a similarly situated non-legacy holder.  That would mean that ARIN can
(under the proposed new LRSA) charge legacy end-users $300/year, but,
should ARIN then subsequently exercise its right to increase the fee,
they would not be able to do so for end users unless and until the
annual fee for non-legacy end users exceeded $300 (until then, end
users could continue to pay $300; providers would pay the increased
fee).

An alternate reading, which I don't think is correct, is that the "Fee
cannot exceed" cause applies not just to increases, but to the initial
fee also, which would mean that end-users would pay only $100/year, but
providers would pay $300.

(On the other hand, I think ARIN's intent -- as distinct from what I
think is the effect of the currentlu proposed language -- is to not
charge legacy holders more than similarly situated non-legacy holders
under any circumstances.  If that's the case, then I'd suggest ARIN
alter the wording to clarify that.)

> All three statements can not be true at the same time; it's a logical
> contradiction. So, which one is falsified by the others?

     -- Brett