[External] Normal ARIN registration service fees for LRSA entrants after 31 Dec 2023 (was: Fwd: [arin-announce] Availability of the Legacy Fee Cap for New LRSA Entrants Ending as of 31 December 2023)

Fri Sep 16 13:55:42 UTC 2022

Thanks John! I've been working on this with our attorneys for almost a year. I did send over the revisions and it will be good to see what they say. But I'm not sure it will be enough to reduce the perceived risk. Has ARIN considered separating the fee structure and service goals from the drive to get everyone under an RSA?

Tom Krenn
Network Architect
Enterprise Architecture - Information Technology
[Hennepin County logo]

From: John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2022 8:42 PM
To: Tom Krenn <Tom.Krenn at hennepin.us>
Cc: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at gmail.com>; North American Network Operators' Group <nanog at nanog.org>
Subject: Re: [External] Normal ARIN registration service fees for LRSA entrants after 31 Dec 2023 (was: Fwd: [arin-announce] Availability of the Legacy Fee Cap for New LRSA Entrants Ending as of 31 December 2023)

On 15 Sep 2022, at 9:29 PM, Tom Krenn via NANOG <nanog at nanog.org<mailto:nanog at nanog.org>> wrote:

An interesting idea, but like others have said I think the ship may have sailed for RPKI. Really I have no problem with the ARIN fees. They are a drop in the bucket for most network budgets. In fact as a legacy holder I would gladly pay the same as an RIR-allocated resource holder if it would allow the use of the more advanced services. It's the ownership question and RSA/LRSA language that throws the wrench in everything.

As John said " I will note that ARIN's approach is the result of aiming for a different target - that more specifically being the lowest possible fees administered on an equitable basis for _all resource holders_ in the region.". If that's the goal, give us the option to pay the same without all the legal mess around signing the RSA/LRSA. I'm sure that's what has been holding some organizations back for the couple decades mentioned. It has been the major stumbling point for a few of the ones I've been part of over the years.

Tom -

Over the years, ARIN has made several revisions to the RSA/LRSA to make it both clearer and more customer friendly,
and the most recent version (announced earlier this week - <https://www.arin.net/announcements/20220912/<https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.arin.net%2Fannouncements%2F20220912%2F&data=05%7C01%7CTom.Krenn%40hennepin.us%7C970ff4a0fade4b7b0d3308da9784b663%7C8aefdf9f878046bf8fb74c924653a8be%7C0%7C0%7C637988893501824755%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=nbnXoX6%2BXkkwKC6sbxokXipFpmdFq8839TvtK0F4SNY%3D&reserved=0>>) strikes
much of the language in section 7 that some legal teams had objection to...   It is likely not everything you want, but I
would suggest taking a fresh look at it as it was substantially reduced specifically to address the most cited customer
concern regarding the legal obligations in the prior version of the RSA/LRSA.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

Disclaimer: If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please immediately notify the sender of the transmission error and then promptly permanently delete this message from your computer system.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20220916/0ff31122/attachment.html>