> On Apr 6, 2022, at 04:48 , John Curran <jcur...@arin.net> wrote: > > On 5 Apr 2022, at 11:57 PM, William Herrin <b...@herrin.us > <mailto:b...@herrin.us>> wrote: >> >> On 5 Apr 2022, at 8:38 PM, Dan Mahoney (Gushi) <d...@prime.gushi.org >> <mailto:d...@prime.gushi.org>> wrote: >>> But say they sign an LRSA: Those $0 fees would go up to 150, this year, 175 >>> next year, 200 the following...250 in year five... to be able to simply add >>> DNSSEC, RPKI, and Validated IRR. >> >> Hi Dan, >> >> Speaking for myself, I'd be happy to pay the normal block size fee >> just to get DNSSEC, RPKI and a validated IRR. I pay $80/month just for >> my residential Internet service and another $80 or so for my off-site >> virtual machines. A couple hundred bucks a _year_ for the niceties >> which come with ARIN registration is no imposition at all. > > Bill - > > Good to hear - one hopes that the value is sufficient (but we should still > look for opportunities for further improvements on both services and fees.) > >> My objection lies in having ARIN's RSA adhere to my address block >> overall. I may feel differently about ARIN next year than I do this >> year but once I've signed that RSA, well, that's just too bad. I now >> have obligations to ARIN, some of them on shifting sand, and if I >> don't fulfill them the addresses are gone. > > > That’s an Interesting perspective - thank you for sending. It is true that > both you and ARIN have obligations once you sign an RSA, but that’s true of > any standardized agreement that you enter – standard agreements are found > everywhere in life and are enforceable if applied uniformly with reasonable > terms.
Most standard agreements don’t include “And if you terminate the agreement, we take away your toys.” > The part of your statement I don’t understand is that some of your > obligations to ARIN are "on shifting sand"… If anything, you’ve got more > protections in place regarding your ARIN RSA agreement than likely in most > other standard agreement contexts (although it is true that we at ARIN don’t > exactly emphasize these aspects as often as we might…) For example, the ARIN community can at any time change policy or the board can enact changes in the fee structure and there is no ability to opt out of these changes and preserve the original terms of the agreement. > Unlike many other standard agreements that you might find yourself in: > > ARIN is an actual membership organization and governed accordingly. Every > customer with IPv4 or IPv6 resources under agreement is an ARIN member and > has the option to participate in the ARIN election for Trustees and ARIN AC > members. <https://www.arin.net/participate/oversight/membership/explained/ > <https://www.arin.net/participate/oversight/membership/explained/>> (I > know of many not-for-profits that have “members” but not actual membership > organizations, and the difference is substantial regarding one’s legal rights > and enforceability of same.) > While ARIN previously did have the ability to revise your registration > services agreement (RSA) at will, we’ve achieved sufficient stability that it > was possible to end that flexibility – now ARIN may only modify the terms of > the RSA agreement if necessary due to a specific change in relevant statute > or caselaw, or upon recommendation of the Board _and_ ratification vote by > the ARIN members. Yes, but changing the effective terms of the agreement doesn’t require modifying the agreement any more, either. (See above) > If ARIN fails to live up to its obligations under the agreement and our > performance is found to have provided valid cause for termination, the > agreement ends – and you keep your legacy number resources with them > returning to their status before agreement. Yes, but if you don’t have a contract with ARIN, ARIN’s ability to revoke your resources because the community decided it might be fun is significantly less certain for ARIN at best and highly unlikely at worst. > It is true that our number resource policies are subject to change by the > community through the open policy development process, and therefore your > obligations under them might be the “shifting sand” to which you refer. If > that’s the case then I understand the reference, but as you’re aware that’s > an inevitable consequence of having community-driven number resource policy – > ARIN’s number resource policy instantiates community consensus regarding such > obligations, which is not much different than obligations/expectation that > networks face in other aspects of Internet operation, aside from actually > being clearly written down in one place when it comes to the registry > obligations. I think it’s more about the consequences if one no longer wishes to abide the agreement. The fact that one cannot terminate the agreement voluntarily and return to the previous status is, I believe, the sticking point. Owen
