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

Fernando Frediani fhfrediani at gmail.com
Sat Jan 16 10:35:22 EST 2021


Hello Owen

*Any* revocation must always be governed by this forum which is the only 
body who has power to define allocation policies and therefore 
revocation. RIRs don't have power for that, except on exceptional 
situations (section 10.1) which have to be confirmed by this forum.
The RIR, based on RSA may stop providing services to organizations that 
are not up to their payments, but a policy that states loud and clear 
that organizations that fail to pay their fees are also subject to 
revocation, reason why I see no harm to leave the text as it is.

Yes, the Board is free to modify the RSA at will, but they need to make 
it coherent to the whatever the policies say, where it applies of course 
(ex: Policy say that undue payments leads to resources revocation. RSA 
may outline the details how the services will stop being provided until 
the resources are revoked in line with this forum has the sole 
prerogative to define.)

Just as a comparison and knowing that each RIR PDP may have its 
differences, the essence of ICP-2 is the same, the LACNIC policy manual 
clearly states in section 7 that lack payment (among other reasons) is a 
reason for revocation. Beyond that which is specifically stated in the 
manual it also says that "violations on contractual obligations with 
LACNIC" may be a reason for revocation. In resume, that is defined by 
the Policy Forum for the RIR to execute.

Fernando

On 16/01/2021 04:24, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>
>> On Jan 15, 2021, at 5:14 PM, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Yes to focus solely on allocation policies that means make it clear 
>> when a revocation may happen which is governed by this forum.
>>
>
> Fernando,
>
> Only my personal opinion on the subject and subject to correction from 
> ARIN staff:
>
> Revocation for non-payment is _NOT_ governed by this forum. A policy 
> which proposed to block revocation due to non-payment or likely even 
> one which sought to control the manner and timing of such revocation 
> would very likely be considered out of scope for the PDP.
>>
>> Agree that RSA can have all the possible details, but I see no harm 
>> in keeping the text exactly as it is. Could anyone explain what sort 
>> of trouble keeping the text there may bring any issues to ARIN on the 
>> allocation/revocation process in place ?
>>
> Christian has already explained this to you. I will expand… Text in 
> the NRPM may or may not be aligned with the RSA. The text in the RSA 
> is controlling, but if it becomes out of sync with text in the policy 
> document (NRPM), it creates unnecessary confusion. The board is free 
> to modify the RSA at will. The NRPM is not (generally) under their 
> direct control and there is a precise and well defined process for 
> updating it which, while supervised by the board, is generally managed 
> by the AC and the community.
>
> Multiple sources of truth are never a good idea… Not in systems 
> administration, not in network management, and certainly not in policy.
>
> Owen
>
>> Fernando
>>
>> On 15/01/2021 21:07, Chris Woodfield wrote:
>>> 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 <mailto: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 contactinfo 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 
>>>> <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 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 if you experience any issues.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20210116/b9c84d8a/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list