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

[Martin Hannigan]

On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 5:49 PM Joe Provo <ppml at rsuc.gweep.net> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 02:42:45PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > [really big snips]
> >
> > >
> > > In the interest of both simplification and striving to eliminate
> > > the fee or contract details within policy, I'm a fan of Mr Woodfield's
> > > suggestion for simple generalization. What do folks think about:
> > >
> > > 2.X Registration Services Agreement (RSA)
> > >
> > > Number resources allocated or assigned by ARIN under these policies are
> > > subject to a contractural agreement between ARIN and the resource
> holder.
> > > Throughout this document, any and all forms of this agreement, past or
> > > future, is simply referred to as the Registration Services Agreement
> > > (RSA).  This agreement covers terms, rights, responsibilities and
> > > conditions of service; failure to adhere to the RSA may result in
> > > revocation of number resources.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Joe
> >
> > I like it, but I suggest ??????are simply referred to by the term
> Registration Services Agreement (RSA)??????
> >
> > Alternatively, ??????each and every form of this agreement (past,
> present, and future), is referred to as??????
> >
> > I would leave off the last sentence. It gets into spelling out what???s
> contained in the RSA which I believe is out of scope for the PDP.
> >
> > To clarify, proposed alternate version:
> >
> > 2.X Registration Services Agreement (RSA)
> > Number resources allocated or assigned by ARIN under these policies are
> > subject to a contractural agreement between ARIN and the resource
> holder.
> > Throughout this document, any and all forms of this agreement, past or
> > future, are simply referred to as the Registration Services Agreement
> > (RSA).
>
>
> SGTM but there was previous discussion indicating people didn't want
> to trim the references to consequences [see August thread and ARIN46
> discussion].  Personally, I do not believe it belongs in the NRPM but
> am amenable if the community thinks it does.
>
> Hopefully this will trigger some more feedback from the community. :-)
>

[ clip ]

The RSA seem to already cover this in detail. 14(c) seems to be the
kneecapping this appears to want to help provide.

$0.02

Best regards,

-M<
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20201215/bc0231ad/attachment.htm>