<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">
On 7 Apr 2022, at 1:16 PM, Owen DeLong <<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com" class="">owen@delong.com</a>> wrote:<br class="">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">
Moved to ARIN-PPML per your previous advice and your request below...<br class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Apr 7, 2022, at 09:25 , John Curran <<a href="mailto:jcurran@arin.net" class="">jcurran@arin.net</a>> wrote:</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">...</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">
<div class="">However, the “Fee Cap on IPv4 maintenance fees” provided to IPv4 legacy resource holders does not apply to such an amount invoiced because the customer is being invoiced for a registration services plan that contains multiple items [services for
IPv4, IPv6, and ASN resources] that are more than just "IPv4 maintenance fees”. Customers can keep their IPv4 resources in a separate billing relationship and then the “Fee Cap on IPv4 maintenance fees” will continue to be applied to their “IPv4 registry
maintenance fees”, exactly as expected. </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
It is not a “fee cap” as you express it. It is a rate of increase cap.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>Mr. Delong - </div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>You are Incorrect: a<span style="font-size: 11px;" class="">s noted in the </span>2018 Fee Consultation - <<a href="https://www.arin.net/vault/announcements/2018/20180606_feeschedule.html" class="">https://www.arin.net/vault/announcements/2018/20180606_feeschedule.html</a>></div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;" class="">
<div>
<div>
<ul style="padding-left: 1.5em; margin: 0px 0px 0px 1em; caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, "Helvetica Neue", Arial;" class="">
<li style="line-height: 22px;" class=""><span style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><i class="">Legacy resource holders pay the same annual registry maintenance fees as End User organizations ($150 USD for each IPv4 address block and $150 USD for each ASN assigned
to the organization.) However, <b class="">there is an annual limit on total maintenance fees applicable to legacy resource holder organizations,</b> and as of 1 July 2018, the annual limit of total maintenance fees for legacy resource holders is set to $125
USD, regardless of the number of legacy resources held or version of their Legacy Registration Services Agreement (LRSA.)</i></span></li></ul>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>So, to be clear – </div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>
<ol class="MailOutline">
<li class="">Organizations can put their IPv4 resources and IPv6 number resources under a single registration services plan and be invoiced one amount based on the higher of the two categories of resources (IPv4 or IPv6) – but then the "<b class="">annual limit
on total maintenance fees for legacy resource holders regardless of the number of legacy resources held”</b> does not apply to that amount (since there’s more than just IPv4 legacy resources being provided services under that plan), _or_</li><li class="">Organizations can maintain a separate billing relationship for their IPv4 legacy resources and then the “<b class="">annual limit on total maintenance fees for legacy resource holders regardless of the number of legacy resources held</b>” (aka
“fee cap”) continues to be applied to their “IPv4 legacy maintenance fees”, exactly as expected. </li></ol>
</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>The choice is entirely the customer’s – either have one billing relationship and gain the benefit of being charged only one amount based the larger of the two resource size categories, or maintain separate relations for the IPv4 legacy resources and gain
the benefit of annual total limit on maintenance fees for legacy resources. <br class="">
<br class="">
</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">
<div class="">I don’t have questions in this process at all. I’ve had opinions and we disagree. I’ve expressed my opinions and you’ve expressed yours.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>Thanks,</div>
<div>/John</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>
<div>John Curran</div>
<div>President and CEO</div>
<div>American Registry for Internet Numbers</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>