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

  • To: Stephan Millet <stephan at telstra dot net>
  • 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 19:36:09 -0700 (PDT)
  • Cc: sig-nir at apnic dot net, sig-policy at apnic dot net
  • In-reply-to: <200509281222.31748.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
    • 
      I didn't say the EC would not put this proposal for membership voting and I
      didn't say "EC believes that this particular policy proposal has no fee
      implication".  I can't tell you what the decision will be simply because
      the EC has not formally discussed it yet.  You were not at the NIR SIG
      meeting so you didn't know there was heated discussion on this topic and
      some EC members did voice out serious concerns then.  But I guess you
      understand that it is totally inappropriate for EC to stop this kind of
      proposal to go through the process.  Anyway, I can assure you that the EC
      is very very concerned about the overall financials of APNIC and your
      comments will be seriously considered when the EC makes decision on it.
      
      Hope that it is clear.
      
      Thanks a lot.
      
      Che-Hoo
      
      --- Stephan Millet <stephan at telstra dot net> wrote:
      
      > Che-Hoo
      > 
      > 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.
      > > > > >
      > 
      === message truncated ===