On 8/25/2020 2:41 PM, ARIN wrote:
[snipped to focus on the relevant details]
4.2.1.2. Annual Renewal
An annual fee for registered space is due by the anniversary date of the ISP’s
first allocation from ARIN. ISPs should take care to ensure that their annual
renewal payment is made by their anniversary due date in accordance with the
Registration Services Agreement. If not paid by the anniversary date, the
address space may be revoked. Please review the Annual Renewal/Maintenance Fees
Page for more details.
Proposed Policy
[Remove the last 2 sentences from the paragraph above]
Comments:
The AC’s understanding is that community policy should not include language
referring to fees, as such language is already present in the Registration
Services Agreement (RSA). Registration Services has informed us that “Section
4.2.1.2. contains language detailing fee due dates, encouraging on-time
payments, and mentions potential revocations. It also contains a reference to
web documentation that has evolved significantly since this policy was
implemented, and may continue to do so. Essentially the entire section is made
of language that is already in the Registration Services Agreement, and is
generally fee-focused, making it outside normal scope for Internet number
resource policy.”
In light of this, shouldn't the entire section be removed?
For example, I understand the Board sets the fees and payment details. If they
decide to change the payment terms to "net 30 days" after billing, which they
decide should occur on the renewal date, this section would be in conflict. If
they decide to provide a discount for advanced payment for several years instead
of just one year, or decide to make the renewals biennial or other such changes,
I don't think policy should impede this, unless there is an explicit decision
under the PDP to do so.
Is it necessary for the NRPM address the fact that the Board sets fees and
related schedules, addresses billing issues, and deals with non-payment? Or is
that implicit in the foundational structure of ARIN which includes the NRPM for
non-financial issues? (Not being a lawyer, but recently involved in some
complicated legal documents, I've noticed sometimes they seem to spell out in
detail things which I would think were normal and assumed, but other times seem
to accept by default things that I would think would need to be specified!)
I suspect this policy arose because people thought "we should say something" and
no one really thought twice about it.
On the other hand maybe this was all discussed way back when, in which case it
would be helpful for someone with the history to review and summarize.
--
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
