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

  • To: chcheng at ieee dot org, 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: Stephan Millet <stephan at telstra dot net>
  • Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 17:09:31 +1000
  • Cc:
  • In-reply-to: <20050927044430.23081.qmail at web52609.mail dot yahoo dot com>
  • 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>
  • Organization: Telstra Internet Developement
  • References: <20050927044430.23081.qmail@web52609.mail.yahoo.com>
  • User-agent: KMail/1.5.4
    • 
      Thank you very much for this response. 
      I was concerned that this proposal was on a track of adoption by APNIC without 
      further consultation with the membership and I am very reassured by this 
      undertaking that the EC will put this up for formal voting both on-site and 
      online via MyAPNIC.
      
      While I will respond with a few more observations to the discussion on the 
      policy itself on the mailing list, I will note here that the major aspect of 
      my objection to the policy is now addressed by this undertaking from the EC 
      to pass this proposal to the membership for a formal vote.
      
      Thank you, & regards,
      
      Stephan Millet
      
      
      On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:44, Che-Hoo CHENG wrote:
      > [With my APNIC EC hat on]
      >
      > 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
      >
      > _______________________________________________
      > sig-nir mailing list
      > sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net
      > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
      
      -- 
      Stephan Millet
      Telstra Internet Networking Development
      INOC-DBA 1221*247
      ph#   +61 2 6208 1681
      mob# +61 408 058 018