[sig-nir] Re: [sig-policy] Final call for comments: [prop-028-v001] "Abo

  • To: Stephan Millet <stephan at telstra dot net>
  • Subject: [sig-nir] Re: [sig-policy] Final call for comments: [prop-028-v001] "Abolishing IPv6 per address fee for NIRs"
  • From: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>
  • Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:55:46 +0900
  • Cc: sig-nir at apnic dot net, sig-policy at apnic dot net
  • In-reply-to: <200509230959.02640.stephan at telstra 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: <200509230959.02640.stephan@telstra.net>
  • User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716)
    • the Membership Meeting to explain the consensus decision of the NIR SIG.
      
      There are a few things I'd like to clarify.
      
      If you have an objection against this proposal, fair enough. What you
      are doing right now is exactly working as a check to prevent a small
      group of people trying to pass a proposal for their own interests, so I
      don't really see a problem with the current policy process.
      
      In anycase, it wasn't the intention of the NIRs to pass the proposal
      against the will of the rest of the membership and there are genuine
      reasons for proposing this change.
      
      The concern for complication is not because it is difficult for NIRs to
      understand, but it would be a source of misunderstanding when they
      explain this to LIRs under our management. Since paying 10% or 100% fee
      makes a huge difference, it can be a serious source of dispute between
      NIRs and NIR members.
      
      If NIRs simply tried to bargain the address fee to their advantage and
      ignore the implications on the rest of the membership, they would have
      proposed to abolish the per address fee for IPv4, as the amount is much
      higher than that of IPv6.Abolishing IPv6 per address fee has only impact
      of 0.1% to APNIC's revenue(as 90% discount is implemted now). 
      Furthermore, this is a provisional solutution, not intended to keep it
      abolished for good.
      
      Note that NIRs are paying the per address fee in addition to the annual
      membership fee, and in many cases, they are forced to charge the per
      address fees for their members as well.This can still be acceptable in
      IPv4 where the commercial service is already spread, but the per address
      fee for IPv6 could be a barrier in starting an experimental service in
      some of the NIR economies. On the other hand, direct APNIC members won't
      face this problem as they are not charged with per address fee.
      
      As you can see from this, the per address fee based fee structure has
      quite a few issues to be addressed. We have started  working at the last
      NIR SIG on the possibe long term revision of the fee structure for NIRs
      and is expected to move into the direction of creating a new annual
      membership for NIRs.
      
      I'd like to emphasize that NIRs see the fee scheme based on "per address
      fee" as the problem, not the amount of fee itself. I believe they are
      happy to contribute the same amount of fee as right now, as long as it
      is based on a clearly explained, stable fee model.
      
      I hope this clarifies the background of the proposal. I appreciate that
      you have openly expressed your view on this, and further feedbacks are
      welcome ofcourse.
      
      Stephan Millet wrote:
      > I wish to voice my strong objection to this proposed policy.
      > 
      > The basis of this objection is that it is not reflective of the position of 
      > the entire membership, but is a self-serving policy that merely serves the 
      > interests of a small number of National Registries, at the ultimate cost of 
      > the entire remainder of the membership. If the National Registries pay less 
      > then all the rest of the membership will pay more. I see no reason why these 
      > small number of privileged members whose total contribution to APNIC is 
      > less than 10% of the finances can dictate the direction of the entire 
      > membership organization. The rest of us can't afford to attend in person 
      > these meetings in exotic locations, and because we can't attend we can't 
      > vote against such unfair policy proposals that serve only the financial 
      > interests of national registries while the rest of us end up having to pay 
      > more.
      > 
      > If I understand the transcript of the members' meeting on Friday the 
      > rational for this proposal is that the Japanese think that the existing 
      > IPv6 fees are "too complicated". This is complete nonsense! Are they that 
      > simple-minded that they cannot understand the fee schedule? Does this "too 
      > complicated" excuse set a precedent for the rest of us? If I think that the 
      > formulae for my organization's membership is "too complicated" can I also 
      > get my fees waived?
      > 
      > In voicing a strong objection to this policy because it is unfair to the 
      > rest of the APNIC membership, I would like to propose a change to the APNIC 
      > policy process - namely that _all_ policy proposals be put to the entire 
      > membership of APNIC with a one member one online vote mechanism, and that 
      > final approval by the EC be conditional upon a majority of all the APNIC 
      > members voting in favour of the proposal.
      > 
      > At least this policy proposal will prevent the current meeting stacking by 
      > NIRs, who then abuse the process by voting themselves fee waivers!
      > 
      > 
      > Stephan Millet
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
      > _______________________________________________
      > sig-policy mailing list
      > sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
      > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
      >