Re: [sig-nir] Re: [sig-policy] Final call for comments:[prop-031-v002] "
- To: "'Geoff Huston'" <gih at apnic dot net>
- Subject: Re: [sig-nir] Re: [sig-policy] Final call for comments:[prop-031-v002] "Proposal to amend APNIC IPv6 assignment andutilisation requirement policy"
- From: David Chen <david at twnic dot net dot tw>
- Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 15:24:26 +0800
- Cc: 'Randy Bush' <randy at psg dot com>, sig-nir at apnic dot net, Kenny Huang <huangk at alum dot sinica dot edu>, sig-policy at apnic dot net
- In-reply-to: <E1EKrxC-0001Wb-00 at alum dot sinica dot edu>
- List-archive: <http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-nir>
- List-help: <mailto:email@example.com?subject=help>
- List-id: "APNIC SIG for National Internet Registries \(NIRs\)" <sig-nir.lists.apnic.net>
- List-post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <E1EKrxC-0001Wbemail@example.com>
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax)
Dear Geoff and Randy, Thank you very much for your reply.I agree with Kenny. At this stage, we just focus on the HD ratio amendment. I think IPv6 fee schedule or financial issue could be postponed to next meeting or forum discussion.
Best Regards, David Chen Kenny Huang wrote:
Dear Geoff and Randy: The current practice in Policy SIG is, normally fee or financial issue wasnot addressed, although the boundary of policy interests is not clearly defined. However,it is worthy to have input from the community to assess the appropriateness of having proposal with finanacial implication. Best Regards Kenny Huang huangk at alum dot sinica dot edu -----Original Message----- From: sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net] On Behalf Of Geoff Huston Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 11:51 AM To: Randy Bush Cc: sig-nir at apnic dot net; sig-policy at apnic dot net Subject: Re: [sig-nir] Re: [sig-policy] Final call for comments:[prop-031-v002] "Proposal to amend APNIC IPv6 assignment andutilisation requirement policy" I agree with Randy here, and as co-author of the original APNIC proposal, here's some initial personal thoughts on this topic: It would make sense to me that when this proposal returns to APNIC in February that it has an associated proposal relating to membership fees. The most direct way to do this is to attempt to preserve two components of the current fee structure, namely that: 1. That the minimum IPv6 allocation would have the same membership fee as it has at present and 2. That for holding above the minimum allocation unit, that same number of 'useable' end hosts (i.e. application of the 0.94 HD ratio to the total holding) attract the same fee as the same number of useable end hosts would under the current 0.8 HD ratio Does this appear to be a useful / fair / reasonable / rational starting point for consideration? regards, Geoff At 09:02 AM 29/09/2005, Randy Bush wrote:perhaps, analogous to some folk's suggestions in the nir paf discussion, the on-going financial fix could be part of this proposal before it is finalized?Another interpretation is that nothing has changed in the APNICIPv6 fee structure, and that an explicit proposal would need to be made to propose aligning the IPv6 fee structure with the IPv6 allocation policy in the event that APNIC formally adopts this proposed IPv6 allocation policy[ american (and general english?) idiom time again: what's good for the goose is good for the gander ] randy* 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 * 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