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

  • To: chcheng at ieee dot org, 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: Stephan Millet <stephan at telstra dot net>
  • Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 12:22:31 +1000
  • Cc: sig-nir at apnic dot net, sig-policy at apnic dot net
  • In-reply-to: <20050927091303.41675.qmail at web52602.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: <20050927091303.41675.qmail@web52602.mail.yahoo.com>
  • User-agent: KMail/1.5.4
    • 
      Thank you for this clarification, however I am deeply disappointed with
      your response. I had thought that it was established practice for the
      EC to refer all policy proposals with membership fee implications
      to a formal membership vote, and I wonder how the EC believes
      that this particular policy proposal has no fee implication, when its
      entirely all about membership fees.
      
      In this case I do not see that it is reasonable for the EC to make a
      decision on behalf of the entire APNIC member community when it
      has obvious financial implications for all APNIC members. Accordingly,
      I would like to request that the EC pass this proposed policy to
      a formal membership vote, using the online My-APNIC voting
      mechanism as well as an on-site vote at the next APNIC members'
      meeting. That way all the members of APNIC can express their
      preferences on this proposal.
      
      Do other members of APNIC share this perspective of passing this
      proposal to a membership vote?
      
      
      Regards
      
      Stephan Millet
      
      
      On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 19:13, Che-Hoo CHENG wrote:
      > Dear Stephen,
      >
      > 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
      
      -- 
      Stephan Millet
      Telstra Internet Networking Development
      INOC-DBA 1221*247
      ph#   +61 2 6208 1681
      mob# +61 408 058 018