[arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2020-8: Clarify and Update 184.108.40.206 Annual Renewal Fee
ppml at rsuc.gweep.net
Mon Dec 14 17:37:09 EST 2020
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 03:47:21PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Speaking only about my own personal opinion and observation on the situation with no authority whatsoever...
> > On Nov 20, 2020, at 10:22 AM, Chris Woodfield <chris at semihuman.com> wrote:
> > FD: This policy is a work produce of the AC???s Policy Experience Report working group, which I currently chair.
> > Taking my AC/WG chair hat off, I am in support of the updated language, with the caveat that the following assumptions can be relied upon:
> > 1. The added language cannot be interpreted to place additional conditions on legacy resource holders that do not exist today. I???m interpreting the reference to resources ???allocated and assigned under these policies??? as implicitly excluding legacy resource holders, but please correct me if that assumption is incorrect.
> AIUI, legacy allocations or assignments are equally subject to ARIN policy as any other allocation or assignment. However, since the language in question specifically limits its scope to resources ???issued by ARIN??????, it clearly does not apply to legacy legacy registrations since those registrations were,
> by definition, issued by ARIN predecessors.
> > 2. The term ???Registration Services Agreement??? is used generically, and is inclusive of RSA and LRSA agreements, or other future agreements ARIN may have with resource holders.
> I would suggest expanding ??????Registration Services Agreement (RSA)??? to ??????Registration Services Agreement (RSA, LRSA, etc.)??? in the policy text to clarify this intent.
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.
> >> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> >> Draft Policy ARIN-2020-8: Clarify and Update 220.127.116.11 Annual Renewal Fee
> >> Problem Statement:
> >> The January 2020 Policy Experience Report highlighted that the existing language in Section 18.104.22.168 "Annual Renewal" references fees. Fees are not considered a member qualification criteria. Since fees aren't referenced elsewhere in community policy, the wording was reviewed by the PEG.
> >> Policy Statement:
> >> Given that the Registration Services Agreement (RSA) already contains language regarding fees, the AC Shepherds recommend to eliminate 22.214.171.124. entirely and add:
> >> 2.X Registration Services Agreement (RSA)
> >> Number resources allocated or assigned by ARIN under these policies are subject to a Registration Services Agreement (RSA) between ARIN and the resource holder. This agreement covers terms, rights, responsibilities and conditions of service; failure to adhere to the RSA may result in revocation of number resources.
> >> 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 126.96.36.199. 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."
> >> Timetable for Implementation: Immediate
> >> Anything Else: Community input since adopting draft has informed this direction. The 2.X placeholder is used as this seems like it might be foundational enough to not be 2.17 but the Shepherds would rather not upset current indexing arbitrarily.
Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header.
Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling
More information about the ARIN-PPML