[arin-ppml] The annual limit on total maintenance fees for legacy number resources under the ARIN fee schedule

[John Curran]

On 9 Apr 2022, at 2:40 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com<mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:

On Apr 7, 2022, at 14:54 , John Curran <jcurran at arin.net<mailto:jcurran at arin.net>> wrote:
...
The "annual limit on total maintenance fees applicable to legacy resource holder organizations” is the “fee cap” to which I have been referring, and it is only applicable to registry maintenance fees for legacy number resources – regardless of the number of legacy resources held.

While ARIN may have implemented it that way (because they kind of made a hash of it initially), the contractual language in the LRSA referred to a maximum increase in the amount paid under the LRSA of $25/year.

Mr. DeLong -

Yes, ARIN did implement the change to the fee schedule as I stated above - and hence my remark that is it “fee cap” on total maintenance fees is and remains correct.

...
As you can see from the slides — Single maintenance fee $100. I believe that persisted until some time around 2013, so I was wrong about the time between signing the LRSA and the change to the fee structure to make it fee-per resource instead of fee-per-organization.

Yes, you did not have that correct (but it doesn’t matter since we have since moved to the same fee schedule for everyone based on total resources held rather than number of records in the registry.)

...
The creation of bifurcated organizations due to RSA differences was foisted upon LRSA signatories as part of the 2031 Fee structure change.

I believe you mean 2013 in the above.  Note that ARIN doesn’t require or encourage “bifurcation"; we allow customers who wish to have multiple billing arrangements to do so - again, it is their choice.

I have not been expressing an opinion, but rather explaining how the ARIN fee schedule is actually defined and the fact that there is no “double billing” involved.  Customers can’t claim the legacy maintenance “fee cap” for registration service plans with IPv6 resources in them because the "fee cap" as defined is only applicable the registry fees for legacy resources held.

And I’ve been expressing both the facts of how the ARIN fee schedule has evolved to the detriment of end users and opinions as to whether that is fair to end users or not.

Our fees are now the same for all organizations with similar amounts of number resources, regardless of whether they are end-user, ISP, hosting, cloud, data center, enterprise, etc.   This can be mean that some end-user customers are paying more than they were paying before, but other end-user customers are definitely paying less than before – particularly those with smaller amounts of total address space in multiple blocks in the registry.

In either case, it is the same amount paid by all other customers who receiving registry services for comparably-sized total address space.  This was discussed at length during the most recent fee change consultation, and the benefit of having equitable treatment for all customers was deemed the fairest approach for our fees.   I understand you see it differently, but I do not anticipate that ARIN will be changing its fee structure again in the near future.   (You are of course welcome to submit a suggestion to the ARIN Consultation and Suggestion Process <https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/> and it will be considered the next time the fee structure is reviewed.)

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20220409/9a6d1d58/attachment.htm>