[arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2020-8: Clarify and Update 4.2.1.2 Annual Renewal Fee
Chris Woodfield
chris at semihuman.com
Fri Jan 15 19:07:18 EST 2021
The language, as is, is problematic because there’s a clear delineation between the NRPM and ARIN’s RSA/LRSAs. The former is intended to focus solely on allocation policies, and is a living document subject to change via the PDP. The RSA/LRSA agreements, however, are contracts whose language can only be modified by action from ARIN’s Board of Trustees. Contractual language on member fees, terms and conditions, and related topics are solely the domain of the RSA, and as such the inclusion of language regarding fees in the NRPM should be stricken - this language is already present in the RSA, where it belongs.
The primary reason for this delineation, as I understand it is that language in the RSA is necessary contractual language that ARIN must have in order to provide the necessary income to fulfill ARIN’s mission and responsibilities, and to protect ARIN from unnecessary legal liabilities that may threaten that mission. While number policy is subject to a community-driven policy development process, the language in ARIN's RSAs, for what I hope are obvious reasons, must be controlled far more tightly, hence the separation between the two.
I hope this helps clarify things.
-Chris
> On Jan 15, 2021, at 3:36 PM, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Applies to all resources of course. If not in the appropriate place then add it there then. But not remove something that is very obvious.
>
> How can it deal with the issues better by removing from the text that part that makes it clear that resources may be revoked if they are not payed ?
>
> Fernando
>
> On 15/01/2021 20:33, David Farmer wrote:
>> Are you saying fees only apply to ISPs with IPv4, the current text is in section 4.2.1.4, where section 4.2 applies to Allocations to ISPs...
>>
>> Furthermore, not paying fees is only one reason resources may be revoked or reclaimed.
>>
>> I think the new text is a better way to deal with the issues.
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 17:09 Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> Yes fees are most a RSA thing, but I see no harm to keep the actual wording as it is and make it loud and clear that organizations that don't pay the fees are subjected to resources revocation - which is up to this forum to define - so no one may plead ignorance about it.
>> What is the problem to keep it as it is ? If the newly proposed text mentions that ISPs should take care to ensure that their annual renewal payment is made by their anniversary due date, what's wrong to also remind them that if that is not fulfilled the resources may be revoked ?
>> This makes part of the Fair and Impartial Number Resources Administration principle.
>>
>> I see no propose in this proposal therefore I do not support it.
>>
>> Regards
>> Fernando
>>
>> On 15/01/2021 17:55, ARIN wrote:
>>> The following Draft Policy has been revised:
>>>
>>>
>>> * ARIN-2020-8: Clarify and Update 4.2.1.2 Annual Renewal Fee
>>>
>>>
>>> Revised text is below and can be found at:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2020_8/ <https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2020_8/>
>>>
>>> You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance of this Draft Policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource policy as stated in the Policy Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these principles are:
>>>
>>>
>>> * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
>>>
>>> * Technically Sound
>>>
>>> * Supported by the Community
>>>
>>>
>>> The PDP can be found at:
>>>
>>> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/ <https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/>
>>>
>>> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
>>>
>>> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/ <https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>>
>>> Sean Hopkins
>>>
>>> Policy Analyst
>>>
>>> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Draft Policy ARIN-2020-8: Clarify and Update 4.2.1.2 Annual Renewal Fee
>>>
>>>
>>> Problem Statement:
>>>
>>>
>>> The January 2020 Policy Experience Report highlighted that the existing language in Section 4.2.1.2 "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 4.2.1.2. entirely and add:
>>>
>>>
>>> 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).
>>>
>>>
>>> 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."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ARIN-PPML
>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net <mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>).
>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml <https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
>>> Please contact info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
>> _______________________________________________
>> ARIN-PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net <mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml <https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
>> Please contact info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
>> --
>> ===============================================
>> David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu <mailto:Email%3Afarmer at umn.edu>
>> Networking & Telecommunication Services
>> Office of Information Technology
>> University of Minnesota
>> 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815
>> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952
>> ===============================================
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20210115/0f4daf7d/attachment.htm>
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list