Re: [hm-staff] Re: [sig-nir] Proposal_Abolishing IPv6 per addressfee for

  • To: anne at apnic dot net
  • Subject: Re: [hm-staff] Re: [sig-nir] Proposal_Abolishing IPv6 per addressfee for NIRs
  • From: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>
  • Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 15:15:51 +0900 (JST)
  • Cc: ckp at nida dot or dot kr, sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net, sig-nir-chair at apnic dot net
  • In-reply-to: <6.2.1.2.0.20050329105537.04ff7e60 at imap dot apnic dot net>
  • List-archive: <http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-nir>
  • List-help: <mailto:sig-nir-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
  • List-id: "APNIC SIG for National Internet Registries \(NIRs\)"<sig-nir.lists.apnic.net>
  • List-post: <mailto:sig-nir@lists.apnic.net>
  • List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir>,<mailto:sig-nir-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
  • List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir>,<mailto:sig-nir-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
  • References: <011901c53361$a3aaef20$c2d0ffcb@Billy><20050328.155929.50047522.izumi@nic.ad.jp><6.2.1.2.0.20050329105537.04ff7e60@imap.apnic.net>
    • 
      
      Thank you for the recommendation. It's a good suggestion to post the
      proposal on the Policy SIG ML as I believe that are not many non-NIR
      people subscribed to this list.
      
      May I clarify that this is to introduce and encourage people to join
      the discussions at NIR SIG and not to move the discussions to the
      Policy SIG? I understand that it requires approval at AMM after
      consensus at NIR SIG.
      
      
      Regards,
      Izumi
      
      From: Anne Lord <anne at apnic dot net>
      Subject: Re: [hm-staff] Re: [sig-nir] Proposal_Abolishing IPv6 per address fee for NIRs
      Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 11:05:42 +1000
      
      > 
      > Dear Billy,
      > 
      > Thank you for your proposal. The Secretariat will take a look at the 
      > proposal and will provide some feedback.
      > 
      > Following on from Izumi's point there you may wish to consider posting this 
      > proposal to the "sig-policy" mailing list. I would strongly recommend you 
      > do this, so that you gather input from APNIC members and other 
      > stakeholders, since this proposal will need to go through both the policy 
      > process and be voted on by APNIC members at a members meeting.
      > 
      > regards
      > Anne
      > --
      > 
      > 
      > At 04:59 PM 28/03/2005, Izumi Okutani wrote:
      > >Dear Billy,
      > >
      > >
      > >Thank you for submitting a proposal on a revision of the fee scheme
      > >for NIRs.
      > >
      > >This issue will concern APNIC membership as a whole, so comments are
      > >welcome from NIRs as well as from other APNIC members and the APNIC
      > >secretariat.
      > >
      > >
      > >Regards,
      > >Izumi
      > >NIR SIG Chair
      > >
      > >From: "MH Billy Cheon" <cmh at nic dot or dot kr>
      > >Subject: [sig-nir] Proposal_Abolishing IPv6 per address fee for NIRs
      > >Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 15:44:49 +0900
      > >
      > > > Dear All,
      > > >
      > > > Please ignore the previous mail. I think I made a mistake.
      > > > This is the final version.
      > > >
      > > > Sorry for causing confusion :-)
      > > >
      > > > Billy
      > > >
      > > > 
      > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > > >     Draft Proposal    Draft Proposal    Draft Proposal    Draft 
      > > Proposal   Draft Proposal    Draft Proposal
      > > > 
      > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > > >
      > > >  o Proposal : "Abolishing IPv6 per address fee for NIRs"
      > > >
      > > >     This paper proposes that APNIC should not charge per address fee
      > > >     for IPv6 allocations to NIRs until it is necessary.
      > > >
      > > >  o Background
      > > >
      > > >     The current APNIC fee scheme for NIRs consist of "Annual Membership 
      > > Fee"
      > > >     and "Per Address Fee".
      > > >
      > > >     Annual Membership Fee:
      > > >     Fee charged annually to all APNIC members based on the amount of
      > > >     address space that member holds. The annual membership fee is
      > > >     determined by the same method as that of standard APNIC members.
      > > >
      > > >     Per Address Fee: (additionally charged to NIRs)
      > > >     Fee charged to NIRs for every IPv4 and IPv6 allocations made to
      > > >     NIRs/NIR members. It is calculated with a defined formula which
      > > >     allocation size set as a variable. Refer to "Sec 3.4 Per-address
      > > >     fee for confederation member" in APNIC Fee Schedule Document
      > > >     for more details.
      > > >
      > > >    e.g.)
      > > >    A "very large" member(NIR) pays the following per fee for:
      > > >
      > > >    /17 IPv4 allocation  $983.04(32,768 x $0.03)
      > > >    /30 IPv6 allocation  $648.57(21,619 x $0.03)
      > > >
      > > >  o Reasons
      > > >
      > > >  1. Fairness
      > > >      Fee schedule for NIRs disadvantages NIRs/NIR members compared to
      > > >      APNIC direct members. NIRs/NIR members are obliged to pay per
      > > >      address fees for allocations received from APNIC, while APNIC direct
      > > >      members are not required to pay such fees. It is not desirable to
      > > >      have different fee conditions between NIRs/NIR member and APNIC 
      > > direct
      > > >      members for the same resource.
      > > >
      > > >   2. Amount of Fee
      > > >       In addition to the issue of fairness, the current IPv6 per address
      > > >       fee scheme leads NIRs/NIR members to pay unexpectedly large amount
      > > >       of fees. For example, one of the NIRs has paid $63,574 to APNIC
      > > >       for a /21 IPv6 allocation in year 2004, which is even larger in
      > > >       amount than the annual membership fee of the NIR(US$40,000). Other
      > > >       NIRs are also expected to face the same problem under the current
      > > >       fee scheme, and this is clearly disproportionate not only for
      > > >       NIRs, but also from APNIC's budget planning perspective.
      > > >       Therefore, a new reasonable NIR fee scheme should be set up.
      > > >
      > > >   3. Deployment of IPv6
      > > >      Considering the current status of IPv6 address deployment in the
      > > >      AP region, it will take some time before it will be fully deployed
      > > >      and commercialized. Most of ISPs in the AP region are not
      > > >      providing connectivity service with IPv6 addresses at this
      > > >      stage. Charging per address fee in IPv6 may hinder the deployment
      > > >      of IPv6 in the region.
      > > >
      > > >   4. Situation in other RIRs.
      > > >       Other RIRs, do not charge IPv6 per address fee. For example,
      > > >
      > > >       ARIN's fee schedule for IPv6 is as follows:
      > > >
      > > >       "Organizations that are General Members in good standing
      > > >        prior to requesting an initial IPv6 allocation are not charged
      > > >        IPv6 registration fees. Annual renewal fees for IPv6 allocations
      > > >        are also waived for General Members in good standing.
      > > >        ARIN will continue to waive these fees as long as
      > > >        the organization remains a General Member in good standing
      > > >        at the time of renewal, up until Dec. 31, 2006."
      > > >
      > > >       LACNIC IPv6 Fee Schedule:
      > > >
      > > >       "Currently, and until new LACNIC board decision, organizations
      > > >        qualifying to receive IPv6 will have the first two years fees
      > > >        waived. This means, the initial fee and the first annual renewal 
      > > fee."
      > > >
      > > >  o Effect on APNIC
      > > >
      > > >     It is speculated that abolishing per address for IPv6 allocations
      > > >     will not affect APNIC's budget. This is based on studying the past
      > > >     trend of APNIC budget as below:
      > > >
      > > >      Year                      2001       %          2002      % 
      > >      2003      %           2004   %
      > > >                              -------------    -------------- 
      > > --------------    --------------
      > > >      Member fees      2,472,532 72%     2,871,724 75%       3,409,078 
      > > 76%    3,510,392 72%
      > > >      Per Addr v4           523,023 15%        414,301 
      > > 11%         410,471  9%      569,459  12%
      > > >      Per Addr 
      > > v6              4,543   0%           8,232   0%            7,803  0% 
      > >    65,721    1%
      > > >      Non-mem 
      > > fees       37,037   1%          66,105   2%          80,994  2% 
      > > 27,686    1%
      > > >      Applic 
      > > fees            152,401  4%        293,459   8%         351,845  8% 
      > > 351,188    7%
      > > >      Other 
      > > income        245,945  7%         160,667  4%          227,269  5% 
      > > 363,811   7%
      > > >                              -------------    -------------- 
      > > --------------    --------------
      > > >      Tota                   3,435,482            3,814,488 
      > > 4,487,461         4,888,257
      > > >                              -------------    -------------- 
      > > --------------    --------------
      > > >
      > > >     * APNIC has been running its budget with hardly any revenues from
      > > >        IPv6 per address fees(approximately 0%) until year 2003. In year
      > > >        2004, it merely covered approximately 1%(US$65,721) of APNIC's
      > > >        total budget. This implies that the revenue portion from IPv6 per
      > > >        address fee is minimal.
      > > >
      > > >    o Benefits
      > > >
      > > >    - Abolishing per address fee for IPv6 allocations solves
      > > >      "unfairness" between NIRs and other APNIC members.
      > > >
      > > >    - Abolishing per address fee for IPv6 allocations saves NIRs/NIR
      > > >      members from the burden of paying large amount fees beyond
      > > >      a reasonable level.
      > > >
      > > >    - Abolishing per address fee for IPv6 may prevent APNIC fee scheme
      > > >       being the barrier of IPv6 deployment in the AP region.
      > > >
      > > >   o Disadvantage
      > > >
      > > >     - None
      > > >
      > > >   * References *
      > > >
      > > >     [ARIN IPv6 Fee Schdule]
      > > >      http://www.arin.net/registration/fee_schedule.html#ipv6_alloc
      > > >
      > > >     [LACNIC IPv6 Fee Schdule]
      > > >      http://lacnic.net/en/registro/table.html
      > > >
      > > >     [APNIC Fee Schedule]
      > > >      http://www.apnic.net/docs/corpdocs/member-fee-schedule.doc
      > > >
      > > > 
      > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > > >     Draft Proposal    Draft Proposal    Draft Proposal    Draft 
      > > Proposal   Draft Proposal    Draft Proposal
      > > > 
      > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > >
      > >_______________________________________________
      > >sig-nir mailing list
      > >sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net
      > >http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
      > >_______________________________________________
      > >Hostmaster-staff mailing list
      > >Hostmaster-staff at apnic dot net
      > >http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/hostmaster-staff
      > 
      > _______________________________________________
      > sig-nir mailing list
      > sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net
      > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
      > 
      >