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)

Mon Sep 19 16:49:42 UTC 2022

On 19 Sep 2022, at 12:29 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us<mailto:bill at herrin.us>> wrote:

On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 9:21 AM Tom Beecher <beecher at beecher.cc<mailto:beecher at beecher.cc>> wrote:
A bit of an exaggeration there. The RSA says that you are bound
by all current and future policies that come from the Policy Development
Process. The PDP is open to everyone except ARIN Trustees or Staff.
So by definition, ARIN could not unilaterally decide to change a policy
on how addresses were used.

The board of trustees can change the policy development process in
arbitrary ways at any time.

Presently correct.  The ARIN Policy Development Process is an adopted document of the ARIN Board,
and while the practice has been to consult with the community before making changes (such as the
consultation open presently - https://www.arin.net/announcements/20220906-consultopen/) nothing
presently would prevent the Board from changing the PDP absent such a community consultation...

The same could have been said for ARIN's RSA at one point, but given the high stability the Board
opted to change that so require a membership vote to change the terms and conditions for existing
RSA holders (outside of changes necessary to conform with changes to prevailing law.). It’s quite
possible that we’ll get to that same level of stability with the PDP at some point, but presently the
member-elected Board is the one that holds the authority over the policy development process.

(I’ll note, as an aside, that making changes to the PDP also subject to member ratification really
doesn’t change the status quo for legacy resource holders if opt not to become members…)

They have done so more than once since ARIN's inception.

The ARIN PDP has indeed been changed multiple times, but I’d disagree with the characterization
that you suggest (that such changes were “arbitrary”) given that the community was informed in
advance each time with the reasoning behind the changes and an opportunity to provide feedback.

Moreover, in the current process the board has
unilateral authority to reject or adjust proposals which come out of
the process before adoption.

Not quite correct - the ARIN Board presently has the ability to adopt, reject or remand” policies
that come out of the process - it cannot “adjust” such policies (although to the same effect, it has
authority under the present PDP to initiate emergency policy or suspend existing policy for similar
reason.)

As there is presently a consultation open, feel free to provide feedback on how you’d like the PDP
to operate, powers of the Board therein, and change process for PDP - the consultation is open to
all, as noted earlier.

And lest you forget, the current process
starts with the advisory council who can originate and exercise
complete control over the text of policy proposals.

That is correct, but then again, the ARIN AC has to ultimately end up with policies that are fair,
technically sound, and supported by the community before they can recommend them to the
ARIN Board for adoption.

So structurally, ARIN and its officials can indeed unilaterally decide
to change a policy on how addresses are used. They don't currently.
But nothing in the law or the contract prevents it.

See above - ARIN’s Board is actually more tightly constrained when it comes to its ability to arbitrarily
set policy then you suggest, but again the current PDP is presently up under community consultation
if you’d like it to operate differently.

To a point I do. But I have yet to hear an argument from a
legacy allocation holder that didn't boil to "I want to have
the flexibility to do things with this space that I wouldn't have
if I had gotten it assigned post RIR. I don't know what those
things might be, and I don't care if others don't get to do those things too."

For what it's worth, in pursuing equalization I'd rather see the
contractees' rights liberalized than my own rights restricted.

That’s already occurred several times, as the merging of the LRSA and RSA into a single agreement
resulted in clearer and more liberal language that was sought by LRSA customers becoming standard
for all customers.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20220919/91289052/attachment.html>