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

  • To: sig-nir at apnic dot net, sig-policy at apnic dot net
  • Subject: Re: [sig-nir] Re: [sig-policy] Final call for comments: [prop-028-v001] "AbolishingIPv6 per address fee for NIRs"
  • From: Che-Hoo CHENG <chcheng at ieee dot org>
  • Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 21:44:29 -0700 (PDT)
  • Cc:
  • In-reply-to: <200509271041.CGC69295.FBNN@maem.org>
  • 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>
  • Reply-to: chcheng@ieee.org
    • 
      The new membership fee proposal for NIRs will be put up (by APNIC
      Secretariat/EC after enough discussion and consultation) for formal voting
      by all the members on-site or through online voting on MyAPNIC.  I don't
      think it can be blocked by the people going to APNIC meetings.  So, don't
      worry too much on this part.  :)
      
      Che-Hoo
      
      
      --- MAEMURA Akinori <maem at maem dot org> wrote:
      
      > Stephan,
      > 
      > Out of 2006, 2016 and 2026 the most realistic target should 
      > be 2006 and this is a major assumption to take this interim
      > solution.
      > 
      > We might have some unexpected delay, but in my mind,  a 
      > detailed proposal to be raised for discussion at APNIC21, 
      > Perth Feb 2006, and to seek the membership concensus in the
      > next, APNIC22.
      > 
      > 
      > I am sad to see that you like to regard us NIR people doing 
      > something badly political or playing a selfish process just 
      > for our short-term benefit.  We need to keep on convincing
      > you that we are reasonable enough.
      > 
      > 
      > With the EC hat on from now on,
      > 
      > For the process, APNIC Secretariat is aware that concensus
      > in the on-site meeting is not enough to implement it into
      > the operation, while APNIC want more and more people come
      > to on-site meeting.  That is why you have the room for
      > objection on the mailing list.
      > 
      > Right now one or two strong objection are seen on the list
      > against on-site concensus, they may cease or we have some 
      > more objections.  Such situation will be reported and 
      > reviewed by the EC for its endorsement.  
      > 
      > That's our process which is already in effect.  IMHO 
      > membership vote for all policy proposals would be unreasonably 
      > heavy, but I'd like to have opinion from everyone.
      > 
      > 
      > Kind Regards,
      > Akinori
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > In message <200509271111.55014.stephan at telstra dot net>
      >    "Re: [sig-policy] Final call for comments: [prop-028-v001]
      > "AbolishingIPv6 per address fee for NIRs""
      >    "Stephan Millet <stephan at telstra dot net>" wrote:
      > 
      > | Thank you for your response, however I do not believe that
      > | you have addressed the major points of the objection I've raised.
      > | 
      > | The IPv6 fee for NIRs is proposed to be abolished because
      > | it is "too complicated" . This does not strike me as a sensible
      > | reason to remove the fee.
      > | 
      > | You call it an "interim solution". When does the new fee schedule
      > | arrive? 2006? 2016? 2026? It seems to me that once the NIRs get
      > | this IPv6 fee waived they have no interest to bring in any new fees
      > | in the future. With the current policy process then all they need
      > | to do is to keep sending their people to APNIC meetings and  they
      > | will block any new fee proposal indefinitely.
      > | 
      > | I have proposed that to stop this form of meeting stacking by the
      > | NIRs that all policy proposals be passed to an online vote by the
      > | entire APNIC membership, and that the EC approval of the policy
      > | proposal is only possible if a majority of the members are in favour.
      > | 
      > | Regards
      > | 
      > | Stephan Millet
      > | 
      > | On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:41, MAEMURA Akinori wrote:
      > | > I do agree NIR system might be more complex than not having
      > | > that.
      > | >
      > | > However it is really disappointing for me to hear you say
      > | > like that multiple lauguage and culutural system is too
      > | > complicated and it should be abolished.  Thus it sounds
      > | > as a joke no longer because NIRs have made a tremendous
      > | > effort for years to include non-native in-country stakeholders
      > | > into APNIC's policy process.
      > | >
      > | >
      > | > That was a small proposal to propose abolish remaining 10%
      > | > of IPv6 per address fee, where IPv6 PAF contributes 1% of
      > | > APNIC's revenue.  NIRs said "to simplify" after they know
      > | > the size of impact.  Moreover it is for interim solution
      > | > until we have more appropriate NIR fee structure - NIRs think
      > | > current PAF structure will never fit for larger allocations.
      > | >
      > | >
      > | >
      > | > Anyway, we would be really happy to have on-line discussion
      > | > in order to have the same picture of this issue.
      > | >
      > | > Keep on discussing.
      > | >
      > | >
      > | > Regards,
      > | > -----
      > | > MAEMURA Akinori                Director, JPNIC IP Department
      > | >                               maem at maem dot org , maem at nic dot ad dot jp
      > | 
      > | 
      > _______________________________________________
      > sig-nir mailing list
      > sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net
      > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
      >