Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j: Next unread messagek: Previous unread messagej a: Jump to all threadsj l: Jump to MailingList overview
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@telstra.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@lists.apnic.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@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
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@telstra.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@lists.apnic.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@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
Dear Stephen,
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@telstra.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@telstra.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 ===
Che-Hoo,
Thank-you for the assurances and the clarification.
Regards
Stephan Millet
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 12:36, Che-Hoo CHENG wrote:
Dear Stephen,
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@telstra.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
Activity Summary
- 6580 days inactive
- 6580 days old
- sig-nir@lists.apnic.net
- 2 participants
- 3 comments