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

  • To: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>
  • Subject: [sig-nir] Re: [sig-policy] Final call for comments: [prop-028-v001] "Abolishing IPv6 per address fee for NIRs"
  • From: Stephan Millet <stephan at telstra dot net>
  • Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 19:01:35 +1000
  • Cc: sig-nir at apnic dot net, sig-policy at apnic dot net
  • In-reply-to: <43378D62.5020709 at nic dot ad dot jp>
  • 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: <200509230959.02640.stephan@telstra.net> <43378D62.5020709@nic.ad.jp>
  • User-agent: KMail/1.5.4
      Thanks for your thoughtful response. I have already noted in response to
      a posting by Che-Hoo that the EC undertaking to pass this proposal for a 
      formal vote on-site and online by the APNIC membership does address my major
      concern about this process, and I appreciate the EC's undertaking in this 
      In continuing the dialogue over the policy proposal, I agree with some of
      the points you are making, but find myself not in a position to agree
      with other parts.
      There is no doubt that NIR's have done great work in the Asia Pacific region 
      to promote and develop  Internet usage and sensible addressing policy, but 
      equally individual ISPs and industry players have also been part of the same 
      effort and have the same  objectives here.
      The principal position here is that a "New NIR Fee Structure for IPv6
      allocations" is required. The inherent nature of this proposal is to abolish
      the existing per address fee whilst a new fee structure is discussed and
      adopted if at all.
      It seems unusual to me that we should eliminate the fee completely, and 
      thereby reduce APNIC's income while we discuss a new fee structure. It would
      make more sense to develop this fee structure immediately without having a 
      period where there are no NIR one-off fees for IPv6. Its common experience in 
      any  industry that its far easier to eliminate a fee than it is to 
      re-introduce it later. I note that in looking through the documentation here 
      that the IPv6 fee for NIRs has already been reduced by 90%. I believe this is 
      an adequate concession whilst a new fee structure is proposed and worked on.
      Stephan Millet
      On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:55, Izumi Okutani wrote:
      > Hi, I'm Izumi Okutani, and I was the one who made the presentation at
      > 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
      Stephan Millet
      Telstra Internet Networking Development
      INOC-DBA 1221*247
      ph#   +61 2 6208 1681
      mob# +61 408 058 018