[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-8: Clarify and Update 4.2.1.2 Annual Renewal Fee

John Santos john at egh.com
Tue Aug 25 15:44:39 EDT 2020



On 8/25/2020 2:41 PM, ARIN wrote:
[snipped to focus on the relevant details]
> 4.2.1.2. Annual Renewal
> 
> An annual fee for registered space is due by the anniversary date of the ISP’s 
> first allocation from ARIN. ISPs should take care to ensure that their annual 
> renewal payment is made by their anniversary due date in accordance with the 
> Registration Services Agreement. If not paid by the anniversary date, the 
> address space may be revoked. Please review the Annual Renewal/Maintenance Fees 
> Page for more details.
> 
> Proposed Policy
> 
[Remove the last 2 sentences from the paragraph above]

> 
> Comments:
> 
> The AC’s understanding is that community policy should not include language 
> referring to fees, as such language is already present in the Registration 
> Services Agreement (RSA). Registration Services has informed us that “Section 
> 4.2.1.2. contains language detailing fee due dates, encouraging on-time 
> payments, and mentions potential revocations. It also contains a reference to 
> web documentation that has evolved significantly since this policy was 
> implemented, and may continue to do so. Essentially the entire section is made 
> of language that is already in the Registration Services Agreement, and is 
> generally fee-focused, making it outside normal scope for Internet number 
> resource policy.”
> 

In light of this, shouldn't the entire section be removed?

For example, I understand the Board sets the fees and payment details.  If they 
decide to change the payment terms to "net 30 days" after billing, which they 
decide should occur on the renewal date, this section would be in conflict.  If 
they decide to provide a discount for advanced payment for several years instead 
of just one year, or decide to make the renewals biennial or other such changes,
I don't think policy should impede this, unless there is an explicit decision 
under the PDP to do so.

Is it necessary for the NRPM address the fact that the Board sets fees and 
related schedules, addresses billing issues, and deals with non-payment?  Or is
that implicit in the foundational structure of ARIN which includes the NRPM for 
non-financial issues?  (Not being a lawyer, but recently involved in some 
complicated legal documents, I've noticed sometimes they seem to spell out in 
detail things which I would think were normal and assumed, but other times seem 
to accept by default things that I would think would need to be specified!)

I suspect this policy arose because people thought "we should say something" and 
no one really thought twice about it.

On the other hand maybe this was all discussed way back when, in which case it
would be helpful for someone with the history to review and summarize.

-- 
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list