<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body>
    <p>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.</p>
    <p>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 ?</p>
    <p>Fernando<br>
    </p>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 15/01/2021 20:33, David Farmer
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAN-Dau0zq=LKxvH4qq6AveXHayU7UXf0_HvAoqo12PJ7_Ckozg@mail.gmail.com">
      <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
      <div dir="auto">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...</div>
      <div dir="auto"><br>
      </div>
      <div dir="auto">Furthermore, not paying fees is only one reason
        resources may be revoked or reclaimed.</div>
      <div dir="auto"><br>
      </div>
      <div dir="auto">I think the new text is a better way to deal with
        the issues.</div>
      <div><br>
        <div class="gmail_quote">
          <div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at
            17:09 Fernando Frediani <<a
              href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" moz-do-not-send="true">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>>
            wrote:<br>
          </div>
          <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">
            <div>
              <p>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 <span lang="en"><span><span>may
                      plead ignorance about it. <br>
                      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 ?<br>
                      This makes part of the Fair and Impartial Number
                      Resources Administration principle.</span></span></span></p>
              <p><span lang="en"><span><span>I see no propose in this
                      proposal therefore I do not support it.</span></span></span></p>
              <p><span lang="en"><span><span>Regards<br>
                      Fernando<br>
                    </span></span></span></p>
              <div>On 15/01/2021 17:55, ARIN wrote:<br>
              </div>
              <blockquote type="cite">
                <div>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">The
                      following Draft Policy has been revised:</span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">*
                      ARIN-2020-8: Clarify and Update 4.2.1.2 Annual
                      Renewal Fee</span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Revised
                      text is below and can be found at:</span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><a
                        href="https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2020_8/"
                        target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2020_8/</a></span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">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:</span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">*
                      Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource
                      Administration</span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">*
                      Technically Sound</span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">*
                      Supported by the Community</span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">The
                      PDP can be found at:</span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><a
                        href="https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/"
                        target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/</a></span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Draft
                      Policies and Proposals under discussion can be
                      found at:</span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><a
                        href="https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/"
                        target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/</a></span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Regards,</span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Sean
                      Hopkins</span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Policy
                      Analyst</span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">American
                      Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)</span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Draft
                      Policy ARIN-2020-8: Clarify and Update 4.2.1.2
                      Annual Renewal Fee</span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Problem
                      Statement:</span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">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.</span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Policy
                      statement:</span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">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:</span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">2.X
                      Registration Services Agreement (RSA)</span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">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).</span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Comments:
                    </span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">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)</span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">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."</span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Timetable
                      for implementation: Immediate</span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Anything
                      else: </span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">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.</span></p>
                </div>
                <br>
                <fieldset></fieldset>
                <pre style="font-family:monospace">_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net" target="_blank" style="font-family:monospace" moz-do-not-send="true">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
<a href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank" style="font-family:monospace" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a>
Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net" target="_blank" style="font-family:monospace" moz-do-not-send="true">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.
</pre>
              </blockquote>
            </div>
            _______________________________________________<br>
            ARIN-PPML<br>
            You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
            the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a
              href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net" target="_blank"
              moz-do-not-send="true">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
            Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
            <a href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml"
              rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
            Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net"
              target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">info@arin.net</a>
            if you experience any issues.<br>
          </blockquote>
        </div>
      </div>
      -- <br>
      <div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"
        data-smartmail="gmail_signature">===============================================<br>
        David Farmer               <a
          href="mailto:Email%3Afarmer@umn.edu" target="_blank"
          moz-do-not-send="true">Email:farmer@umn.edu</a><br>
        Networking & Telecommunication Services<br>
        Office of Information Technology<br>
        University of Minnesota   <br>
        2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815<br>
        Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952<br>
        =============================================== </div>
    </blockquote>
  </body>
</html>