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

  • To: Stephan Millet <stephan at telstra dot net>, Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>
  • Subject: Re: [sig-nir] Re: [sig-policy] Final call for comments: [prop-028-v001] "Abolishing IPv6 per address fee for NIRs"
  • From: Che-Hoo CHENG <chcheng at ieee dot org>
  • Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 02:13:03 -0700 (PDT)
  • Cc: sig-nir at apnic dot net, sig-policy at apnic dot net
  • In-reply-to: <200509271901.35453.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>
  • Reply-to: chcheng@ieee.org
    • 
      Sorry that you should have misunderstood me.  As I mentioned in my last
      mail, what I was referring to is the long-term new membership fee proposal
      to be developed.  I was not referring to this particular proposal.  In
      fact, EC won't make decision/endorsement to this particular proposal until
      after hearing all the comments made during the Final Call for Comments
      period.  So, I can't tell what the final decision will be.
      
      Hope that it is clear now.
      
      Thanks.
      
      Che-Hoo
      
      --- Stephan Millet <stephan at telstra dot net> wrote:
      
      > Izumi,
      > 
      > 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
      > 
      > regard.
      > 
      > 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.
      > 
      > Regards
      > 
      > 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
      > 
      > _______________________________________________
      > sig-nir mailing list
      > sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net
      > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
      >