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)

Owen DeLong owen at
Tue Sep 20 03:51:02 UTC 2022

> On Sep 19, 2022, at 09:50, John Curran <jcurran at> wrote:
>> On 19 Sep 2022, at 12:29 PM, William Herrin <bill at> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 9:21 AM Tom Beecher <beecher at> 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.

Read carefully. You describe the current PDP, but Bill is correct that the board has the power to unilaterally change the PDP any way they wish at any time. 

>> 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 - 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. 

Some existing RSA holders (at least some LRSA holders have RSAs that can’t be amended unilaterally and require the consent of the signatory as well as ARIN. 

> (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…)

It actually does in that many legacy holders are also members. Also in that it is significantly less likely that the membership at large would support a modification that arbitrarily or capriciously attacks legacy holders than that the board would try to do so as a forcing function towards membership. 

>> 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. 

Yes, but there is nothing at present to guarantee that happens in the future. 

>> 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.) 

It can. It had. They can merely present the policy changes they want through their own emergency PDP and voila. Admittedly there’s a limit to how long the change lasts (unless they also modify the PDP), but there’s nothing to present that other than the next board election. 

> 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. 

True, but they are also the arbiters of whether or not a policy meets those tests. 

>> 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. 

There’s lip service to that effect, but a determined board would not actually be constrained by that language because of the built in workarounds available to them (changing the PDP to remove the safeguards and the emergency PDP for example). 

>>> 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.

This is true, but the most important changes still aren’t in line with the ARIN board’s unwillingness to provide any way out to a subscriber who no longer wishes to play, but still wants to keep their rights to the registration. 


> FYI,
> /John
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the NANOG mailing list