[arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2021-8: Deprecation of the ‘Autonomous System Originations’ Field

[Owen DeLong]

> On Nov 1, 2022, at 05:07, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 1 Nov 2022, at 12:31 AM, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>> wrote:
>> ...
>> I’ve done it. It got me out of the fee hikes and double-charging that were imposed as a result of the ARIN board’s fee-asco long ago.
> 
> Owen - 
> 
> The “double-charging” that you allege was imposed by the ARIN Board of Trustees was actually self-imposed by you; i.e., you chose to maintain separate billing relationships with ARIN in order to continue benefiting from annual maintenance fee cap applicable to services for legacy IPv4 number resources.  This fee cap isn’t applicable to IPv6 number resources nor the registration services fee paid for an organization that consolidates resources under a single registration services plan including non-legacy resources.   

We will continue to disagree about this, sir.

When I made the mistake of signing the LRSA, it was fee per ORG and I maintained a single ORG that had both LRSA and RSA resources and a single billing relationship.

When the board pulled the rug out from under that relationship, despite the material adverse change in the relationship, I was not allowed to terminate the LRSA and keep my resources without incurring significant financial penalties and loss of protections that were material to my willingness to sign the LRSA in the first place. Further as a result of that action by the board, ARIN (whether by board decision or by staff choices surrounding the implementation of that decision) chose to bifurcate my organization into two separate organizations for ARIN’s convenience in handling the new billing structure.

That was entirely ARIN’s action resulting from action by the ARIN board. Actions which I strenuously opposed at the time, but had no choice in beyond that opposition which was generally dismissed by both the board and the community.

> This has been already discussed in detail on this list <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2022-April/069518.html>, and alas your decision to maintain two billing relationships had you paying the same amount as all other customers based solely on the number resources in each distinct billing relationship – hence why the the assertion of “double charging” is false and a most inappropriate characterization.  Please refrain from such misrepresentation if you wish to continue participation on ARIN’s mailing lists, as the ARIN Mailing List AUP <https://www.arin.net/participate/community/mailing_lists/aup/> specifically prohibits the posting of false or fictitious statements.

Yep… And by transferring my legacy resources to RIPE, I have solved the problem. My billing relationship with ARIN is no limited to a single organization (admittedly without the fee cap, but that was the case anyway) and my legacy resources are once again free and contract-free.

Again, I didn’t choose to create two billing relationships in the first place. That was an action of ARIN whether directly by the board or by the staff in implementing that board decision.


Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20221101/848e5969/attachment.htm>