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)

[John Curran <jcurran () arin net>]

Alex - 

        We only provide certification services to resource holders who have a registration services agreement with ARIN.

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

> On 16 Sep 2022, at 12:21 PM, Alex Band <alex () nlnetlabs nl> wrote:
>
> John,
>
> In the interest of routing security, when you say ‘basic services’ would ARIN consider offering resource holders who 
> did not sign an (L)RSA the ability to run their own RPKI CA, i.e. you offer them a resource certificate and nothing 
> else, much like what NIC.br currently does in Brazil.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Alex
>
> > On 16 Sep 2022, at 17:53, John Curran <jcurran () arin net> wrote:
> >
> > Tom - 
> >
> > It’s an artifact of our formation that we are presently providing services to any customers absent any agreement 
> > and while ARIN continues to do so (by providing basic services to legacy customers), the long-term direction is 
> > to provide the same services to all customers under the same agreement and fees – anything else wouldn’t be 
> > equitable. 
> >
> > (This is the direction that the ARIN Board of Trustees has set based on community input; I will note that 
> > the ARIN Board is itself elected by the community and that we have our annual election upcoming – 
> > https://www.arin.net/announcements/20220906-arinslate/ ) 
> >
> > FYI,
> > /John
> >
> > John Curran
> > President and CEO
> > American Registry for Internet Numbers
> >
> >
> > > On 16 Sep 2022, at 9:55 AM, Tom Krenn via NANOG <nanog () nanog org> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > > From: John Curran <jcurran () arin net> 
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2022 8:42 PM
> > > To: Tom Krenn <Tom.Krenn () hennepin us>
> > > Cc: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk () gmail com>; North American Network Operators' Group <nanog () 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 () 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/>) 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.