Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j
: Next unread messagek
: Previous unread messagej a
: Jump to all threadsj l
: Jump to MailingList overview

Re: [sig-policy] Final call forcomments:[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6per address fee for NIRs"
Dear Izumi,
Thank you for your answers. Don't worry about the last questions. I am getting a better picture now.
My suggestion is: -Follow the old structure for the time being.
-Make this case a special policy case where proposal about new fee structure can take place as an add-on to the existing proposal. (I believe in exception for IPv6 especially for the leading pioneers.)
-If possible conclusion can be reached make it a new policy, if can be implemented immediately then do it, else put for final voting in the next APNIC meeting What do you think? Is next APNIC meeting too long to wait?
I think it'll be difficult to come out with a conclusion that is both practically and politically correct. So if possible, keep more of the the practical side in mind.
-ram
-----Original Message----- From: Izumi Okutani [mailto:izumi@nic.ad.jp] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 4:27 PM To: ram@princess1.net Cc: sig-policy@apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Final call forcomments:[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6per address fee for NIRs"
Hi Ram,
Thanks for your questions and your efforts in trying to understand the issue.
ram@princess1.net wrote:
Hello,
I think both sides have different perspectives on the issue. I am not getting the full picture of the issue at the moment.
I understand the per-address-fee for ipv6 that is applied to NIRs (actually it is not a per-address-fee but a per block fee of the allocation to the end-user).
My questions are:
- Is the complexity really a problem? Problem in which aspect? Financial
projection?
Complexity is a problem because it causes confusion over how much they would be charged when LIRs under NIRs make an IPv6 allocation request.
As you can see from my AMM slide, there are so many patterns and calcutations for charges that it could be an easy source of confusion and dispute amonng NIRs and its members.
file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/izumi/Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Int ernet%20Files/Content.IE5/4TCDUP4X/268,14,Example of IPv6 per address fee based on EC decision
There are also other issues such as fairness. For example, for a /21 allocation, NIRs/NIR members must pay per address fee of US$95,360 in addition to the annual membership fee, and US$9,536 even after the 90% discount. On the other hand, directly APNIC members are charged no fee for their IPv6 allocations. This could disadvantage the NIR economies in IPv6 deployment compared to the other economies.
As you can see from this, the proposal basically intends to put NIR members(LIRs under NIRs) to be in the equal condition as direct APNIC members in IPv6 allocations, rather than giving them an extra advantage.
I suppose it really is a balance between the size of the problem and the impact on the whole membership. In this case, the financial impact on APNIC is 0.1%.
- How bad of a short-term problem is it for NIR operations compared to
the
other NIR activities? (rate 1-10 1-not really a problem 10-a very bad problem)
- How bad of a long-term problem is it for NIR operations compared to
other
NIR activities (rate 1-10 1-not really a problem 10-a very bad problem)?
I would skip the ratings as it would be quite subjective. The concern is more for the NIR members(about 500 organizations in total) rather than the NIRs themselves. The reasons are explained above.
- Apart from the proposed solutions are there any other solutions to this
problem?
My suggestions would be;
Perhaps set a gurantee that APNIC can charge back the per address fee, such as require the EC/members to revise every two years, if the concern is that the fee would be abolished for good and there will be a long-term financial impact on APNIC.
Setting a flat 90% discount of fee would solve the complexity problem, although it doesn't solve the issue of unfairness.
There has also been a suggestion to postpone this proposal until the fundamental revision of the NIR fee structure would be implemented. I would support this idea if the proposal has a big financial impact of the rest of APNIC membership, but as already explained, the impact on APNIC revenue is 0.1%.
Any other suggesions are welcome too.
- What is the best solution? Why you think it is the best one? What would
be the short-term and long-term impact for this solution?
I don't know if it's the best solution, but what has been proposed at AMM solves the problem without any impact on APNIC membership fee nor APNIC's finance.
I believe there is no short-term impact. The long term impact may be that it may cause some financial problem for APNIC when IPv6 would be the major source of income for APNIC. However, the proposal is intended to keep it abolished for a short-term and a possible solution to this is suggested in 4).
- Could the solution be altered to accommodate both short-term and long-
term impact before this 8weeks period ends?
Yes, if there are any other suggestions, I'm sure NIRs would be happy to consider it.
- What would be the impact of the altered solution (impact to APNIC,
impact
to the rest of the community, impact of growth on IPv6 allocations by NIR,
other impacts)?
Sorry, I didn't quite understand this. Would you clarify for me a little bit more?
Please let me know if there is anthing you would like to clarify, and thanks once again for your questions.
Regards, Izumi
I like the ipv6 initiatives, but again we are in a community.
Regards, -ram
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

Thank you for your input. If the rest of the community feels more comfortable that way, well, why not.
All I wanted to do is to make sure people understand the situation properly, so I'll leave it upto the indivisual members of the community(including the NIRs) to comment on how they feel about it.
Izumi
ram@princess1.net wrote:
Dear Izumi,
Thank you for your answers. Don't worry about the last questions. I am getting a better picture now.
My suggestion is: -Follow the old structure for the time being.
-Make this case a special policy case where proposal about new fee structure can take place as an add-on to the existing proposal. (I believe in exception for IPv6 especially for the leading pioneers.)
-If possible conclusion can be reached make it a new policy, if can be implemented immediately then do it, else put for final voting in the next APNIC meeting What do you think? Is next APNIC meeting too long to wait?
I think it'll be difficult to come out with a conclusion that is both practically and politically correct. So if possible, keep more of the the practical side in mind.
-ram
-----Original Message----- From: Izumi Okutani [mailto:izumi@nic.ad.jp] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 4:27 PM To: ram@princess1.net Cc: sig-policy@apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Final call forcomments:[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6per address fee for NIRs"
Hi Ram,
Thanks for your questions and your efforts in trying to understand the issue.
ram@princess1.net wrote:
Hello,
I think both sides have different perspectives on the issue. I am not getting the full picture of the issue at the moment.
I understand the per-address-fee for ipv6 that is applied to NIRs (actually it is not a per-address-fee but a per block fee of the allocation to the end-user).
My questions are:
- Is the complexity really a problem? Problem in which aspect? Financial
projection?
Complexity is a problem because it causes confusion over how much they would be charged when LIRs under NIRs make an IPv6 allocation request.
As you can see from my AMM slide, there are so many patterns and calcutations for charges that it could be an easy source of confusion and dispute amonng NIRs and its members.
file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/izumi/Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Int ernet%20Files/Content.IE5/4TCDUP4X/268,14,Example of IPv6 per address fee based on EC decision
There are also other issues such as fairness. For example, for a /21 allocation, NIRs/NIR members must pay per address fee of US$95,360 in addition to the annual membership fee, and US$9,536 even after the 90% discount. On the other hand, directly APNIC members are charged no fee for their IPv6 allocations. This could disadvantage the NIR economies in IPv6 deployment compared to the other economies.
As you can see from this, the proposal basically intends to put NIR members(LIRs under NIRs) to be in the equal condition as direct APNIC members in IPv6 allocations, rather than giving them an extra advantage.
I suppose it really is a balance between the size of the problem and the impact on the whole membership. In this case, the financial impact on APNIC is 0.1%.
- How bad of a short-term problem is it for NIR operations compared to
the
other NIR activities? (rate 1-10 1-not really a problem 10-a very bad problem)
- How bad of a long-term problem is it for NIR operations compared to
other
NIR activities (rate 1-10 1-not really a problem 10-a very bad problem)?
I would skip the ratings as it would be quite subjective. The concern is more for the NIR members(about 500 organizations in total) rather than the NIRs themselves. The reasons are explained above.
- Apart from the proposed solutions are there any other solutions to this
problem?
My suggestions would be;
Perhaps set a gurantee that APNIC can charge back the per address fee, such as require the EC/members to revise every two years, if the concern is that the fee would be abolished for good and there will be a long-term financial impact on APNIC.
Setting a flat 90% discount of fee would solve the complexity problem, although it doesn't solve the issue of unfairness.
There has also been a suggestion to postpone this proposal until the fundamental revision of the NIR fee structure would be implemented. I would support this idea if the proposal has a big financial impact of the rest of APNIC membership, but as already explained, the impact on APNIC revenue is 0.1%.
Any other suggesions are welcome too.
- What is the best solution? Why you think it is the best one? What would
be the short-term and long-term impact for this solution?
I don't know if it's the best solution, but what has been proposed at AMM solves the problem without any impact on APNIC membership fee nor APNIC's finance.
I believe there is no short-term impact. The long term impact may be that it may cause some financial problem for APNIC when IPv6 would be the major source of income for APNIC. However, the proposal is intended to keep it abolished for a short-term and a possible solution to this is suggested in 4).
- Could the solution be altered to accommodate both short-term and long-
term impact before this 8weeks period ends?
Yes, if there are any other suggestions, I'm sure NIRs would be happy to consider it.
- What would be the impact of the altered solution (impact to APNIC,
impact
to the rest of the community, impact of growth on IPv6 allocations by NIR,
other impacts)?
Sorry, I didn't quite understand this. Would you clarify for me a little bit more?
Please let me know if there is anthing you would like to clarify, and thanks once again for your questions.
Regards, Izumi
I like the ipv6 initiatives, but again we are in a community.
Regards, -ram
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
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

The mailing list is very quiet now, but I'm interesed to hear opinions again on how people feel about this proposal after some discussions.
a) against the proposal b) support the proposal c) doesn't mind either way d) other opinion
If possible, it would also help if you could also explain the reason for your position. Thanks!
Izumi
Izumi Okutani wrote:
Thank you for your input. If the rest of the community feels more comfortable that way, well, why not.
All I wanted to do is to make sure people understand the situation properly, so I'll leave it upto the indivisual members of the community(including the NIRs) to comment on how they feel about it.
Izumi
ram@princess1.net wrote:
Dear Izumi,
Thank you for your answers. Don't worry about the last questions. I am getting a better picture now.
My suggestion is: -Follow the old structure for the time being.
-Make this case a special policy case where proposal about new fee structure can take place as an add-on to the existing proposal. (I believe in exception for IPv6 especially for the leading pioneers.)
-If possible conclusion can be reached make it a new policy, if can be implemented immediately then do it, else put for final voting in the next APNIC meeting What do you think? Is next APNIC meeting too long to wait?
I think it'll be difficult to come out with a conclusion that is both practically and politically correct. So if possible, keep more of the the practical side in mind.
-ram
-----Original Message----- From: Izumi Okutani [mailto:izumi@nic.ad.jp] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 4:27 PM To: ram@princess1.net Cc: sig-policy@apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Final call forcomments:[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6per address fee for NIRs"
Hi Ram,
Thanks for your questions and your efforts in trying to understand the issue.
ram@princess1.net wrote:
Hello,
I think both sides have different perspectives on the issue. I am not getting the full picture of the issue at the moment.
I understand the per-address-fee for ipv6 that is applied to NIRs (actually it is not a per-address-fee but a per block fee of the allocation to the end-user).
My questions are:
- Is the complexity really a problem? Problem in which aspect? Financial
projection?
Complexity is a problem because it causes confusion over how much they would be charged when LIRs under NIRs make an IPv6 allocation request.
As you can see from my AMM slide, there are so many patterns and calcutations for charges that it could be an easy source of confusion and dispute amonng NIRs and its members.
file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/izumi/Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Int ernet%20Files/Content.IE5/4TCDUP4X/268,14,Example of IPv6 per address fee based on EC decision
There are also other issues such as fairness. For example, for a /21 allocation, NIRs/NIR members must pay per address fee of US$95,360 in addition to the annual membership fee, and US$9,536 even after the 90% discount. On the other hand, directly APNIC members are charged no fee for their IPv6 allocations. This could disadvantage the NIR economies in IPv6 deployment compared to the other economies.
As you can see from this, the proposal basically intends to put NIR members(LIRs under NIRs) to be in the equal condition as direct APNIC members in IPv6 allocations, rather than giving them an extra advantage.
I suppose it really is a balance between the size of the problem and the impact on the whole membership. In this case, the financial impact on APNIC is 0.1%.
- How bad of a short-term problem is it for NIR operations compared to
the
other NIR activities? (rate 1-10 1-not really a problem 10-a very bad problem)
- How bad of a long-term problem is it for NIR operations compared to
other
NIR activities (rate 1-10 1-not really a problem 10-a very bad problem)?
I would skip the ratings as it would be quite subjective. The concern is more for the NIR members(about 500 organizations in total) rather than the NIRs themselves. The reasons are explained above.
- Apart from the proposed solutions are there any other solutions to this
problem?
My suggestions would be;
Perhaps set a gurantee that APNIC can charge back the per address fee, such as require the EC/members to revise every two years, if the concern is that the fee would be abolished for good and there will be a long-term financial impact on APNIC.
Setting a flat 90% discount of fee would solve the complexity problem, although it doesn't solve the issue of unfairness.
There has also been a suggestion to postpone this proposal until the fundamental revision of the NIR fee structure would be implemented. I would support this idea if the proposal has a big financial impact of the rest of APNIC membership, but as already explained, the impact on APNIC revenue is 0.1%.
Any other suggesions are welcome too.
- What is the best solution? Why you think it is the best one? What would
be the short-term and long-term impact for this solution?
I don't know if it's the best solution, but what has been proposed at AMM solves the problem without any impact on APNIC membership fee nor APNIC's finance.
I believe there is no short-term impact. The long term impact may be that it may cause some financial problem for APNIC when IPv6 would be the major source of income for APNIC. However, the proposal is intended to keep it abolished for a short-term and a possible solution to this is suggested in 4).
- Could the solution be altered to accommodate both short-term and long-
term impact before this 8weeks period ends?
Yes, if there are any other suggestions, I'm sure NIRs would be happy to consider it.
- What would be the impact of the altered solution (impact to APNIC,
impact
to the rest of the community, impact of growth on IPv6 allocations by NIR,
other impacts)?
Sorry, I didn't quite understand this. Would you clarify for me a little bit more?
Please let me know if there is anthing you would like to clarify, and thanks once again for your questions.
Regards, Izumi
I like the ipv6 initiatives, but again we are in a community.
Regards, -ram
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
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
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

Hello,
I pick (b) if and only if there will be a proposal for the new fees structure soon :-)
(from the view point that NIR especially JPNIC contributes a lot to the v6 community and I think it'll continue to do so)
-ram
-----Original Message----- From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Izumi Okutani Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 3:55 PM To: sig-policy@apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Final call forcomments:[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6peraddress fee for NIRs"
The mailing list is very quiet now, but I'm interesed to hear opinions again on how people feel about this proposal after some discussions.
a) against the proposal b) support the proposal c) doesn't mind either way d) other opinion
If possible, it would also help if you could also explain the reason for your position. Thanks!
Izumi
Izumi Okutani wrote:
Thank you for your input. If the rest of the community feels more comfortable that way, well, why not.
All I wanted to do is to make sure people understand the situation properly, so I'll leave it upto the indivisual members of the community(including the NIRs) to comment on how they feel about it.
Izumi
ram@princess1.net wrote:
Dear Izumi,
Thank you for your answers. Don't worry about the last questions. I am getting a better picture now.
My suggestion is: -Follow the old structure for the time being.
-Make this case a special policy case where proposal about new fee structure can take place as an add-on to the existing proposal. (I believe in exception for IPv6 especially for the leading pioneers.)
-If possible conclusion can be reached make it a new policy, if can be implemented immediately then do it, else put for final voting in the next APNIC meeting What do you think? Is next APNIC meeting too long to wait?
I think it'll be difficult to come out with a conclusion that is both practically and politically correct. So if possible, keep more of the the practical side in mind.
-ram
-----Original Message----- From: Izumi Okutani [mailto:izumi@nic.ad.jp] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 4:27 PM To: ram@princess1.net Cc: sig-policy@apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Final call forcomments:[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6per address fee for NIRs"
Hi Ram,
Thanks for your questions and your efforts in trying to understand the issue.
ram@princess1.net wrote:
Hello,
I think both sides have different perspectives on the issue. I am not getting the full picture of the issue at the moment.
I understand the per-address-fee for ipv6 that is applied to NIRs (actually it is not a per-address-fee but a per block fee of the allocation to the end-user).
My questions are:
- Is the complexity really a problem? Problem in which aspect? Financial
projection?
Complexity is a problem because it causes confusion over how much they would be charged when LIRs under NIRs make an IPv6 allocation request.
As you can see from my AMM slide, there are so many patterns and calcutations for charges that it could be an easy source of confusion and dispute amonng NIRs and its members.
file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/izumi/Local%20Settings/Temporary%20I
nt
ernet%20Files/Content.IE5/4TCDUP4X/268,14,Example of IPv6 per address fee based on EC decision
There are also other issues such as fairness. For example, for a /21 allocation, NIRs/NIR members must pay per address fee of US$95,360 in addition to the annual membership fee, and US$9,536 even after the 90% discount. On the other hand, directly APNIC members are charged no fee for their IPv6 allocations. This could disadvantage the NIR economies in IPv6 deployment compared to the other economies.
As you can see from this, the proposal basically intends to put NIR members(LIRs under NIRs) to be in the equal condition as direct APNIC members in IPv6 allocations, rather than giving them an extra advantage.
I suppose it really is a balance between the size of the problem and the impact on the whole membership. In this case, the financial impact on APNIC is 0.1%.
- How bad of a short-term problem is it for NIR operations compared to
the
other NIR activities? (rate 1-10 1-not really a problem 10-a very bad problem)
- How bad of a long-term problem is it for NIR operations compared to
other
NIR activities (rate 1-10 1-not really a problem 10-a very bad problem)?
I would skip the ratings as it would be quite subjective. The concern is more for the NIR members(about 500 organizations in total) rather than the NIRs themselves. The reasons are explained above.
- Apart from the proposed solutions are there any other solutions to
this
problem?
My suggestions would be;
Perhaps set a gurantee that APNIC can charge back the per address fee, such as require the EC/members to revise every two years, if the concern is that the fee would be abolished for good and there will be a long-term financial impact on APNIC.
Setting a flat 90% discount of fee would solve the complexity problem, although it doesn't solve the issue of unfairness.
There has also been a suggestion to postpone this proposal until the fundamental revision of the NIR fee structure would be implemented. I would support this idea if the proposal has a big financial impact of the rest of APNIC membership, but as already explained, the impact on APNIC revenue is 0.1%.
Any other suggesions are welcome too.
- What is the best solution? Why you think it is the best one? What
would
be the short-term and long-term impact for this solution?
I don't know if it's the best solution, but what has been proposed at AMM solves the problem without any impact on APNIC membership fee nor APNIC's finance.
I believe there is no short-term impact. The long term impact may be that it may cause some financial problem for APNIC when IPv6 would be the major source of income for APNIC. However, the proposal is intended to keep it abolished for a short-term and a possible solution to this is suggested in 4).
- Could the solution be altered to accommodate both short-term and long-
term impact before this 8weeks period ends?
Yes, if there are any other suggestions, I'm sure NIRs would be happy to consider it.
- What would be the impact of the altered solution (impact to APNIC,
impact
to the rest of the community, impact of growth on IPv6 allocations by
NIR,
other impacts)?
Sorry, I didn't quite understand this. Would you clarify for me a little bit more?
Please let me know if there is anthing you would like to clarify, and thanks once again for your questions.
Regards, Izumi
I like the ipv6 initiatives, but again we are in a community.
Regards, -ram
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
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
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
* 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

i can not support the proposal unless it is accompanied by a replacement proposal. it just makes no business sense without that.
randy

Okutani-san,
I concur with Randy, and as I am sure you already know, I am against the proposal.
Stephan Millet
On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 06:07, Randy Bush wrote:
i can not support the proposal unless it is accompanied by a replacement proposal. it just makes no business sense without that.
randy
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

I concur with Randy, and as I am sure you already know, I am against the proposal.
:-) Thank you all for expressing your opinions.
I note that all of the non-NIR people who have expressed comments on the list believe we should postpone the proposal until we come up with an alternative fee structure.
If NIRs still feel that the proposal should be implemented *at this particular time*, could somebody from an NIR(or NIRs) can explain the reason for this?
Otherwise, the discussions will be parallel between NIRs/NIR members and the rest of APNIC memebers, so I think we should re-consider this proposal.
Izumi
Stephan Millet
On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 06:07, Randy Bush wrote:
i can not support the proposal unless it is accompanied by a replacement proposal. it just makes no business sense without that.
randy
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
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

Hi Izumi,
Izumi Okutani said the following on 7/10/05 18:54:
The mailing list is very quiet now, but I'm interesed to hear opinions again on how people feel about this proposal after some discussions.
a) against the proposal b) support the proposal
I'm very sorry, but I cannot support the proposal as it stands.
If the proposal included details on how the financial impact on APNIC would be neutralised, then I'd support it. As it stands, it has an impact on APNIC's operational budget, and simply brushing this off as a "oh, it's only 1%" is neither responsible nor setting a good example.
philip --
c) doesn't mind either way d) other opinion
If possible, it would also help if you could also explain the reason for your position. Thanks!
Izumi
Izumi Okutani wrote:
Thank you for your input. If the rest of the community feels more comfortable that way, well, why not.
All I wanted to do is to make sure people understand the situation properly, so I'll leave it upto the indivisual members of the community(including the NIRs) to comment on how they feel about it.
Izumi
ram@princess1.net wrote:
Dear Izumi,
Thank you for your answers. Don't worry about the last questions. I am getting a better picture now.
My suggestion is: -Follow the old structure for the time being.
-Make this case a special policy case where proposal about new fee structure can take place as an add-on to the existing proposal. (I believe in exception for IPv6 especially for the leading pioneers.)
-If possible conclusion can be reached make it a new policy, if can be implemented immediately then do it, else put for final voting in the next APNIC meeting What do you think? Is next APNIC meeting too long to wait?
I think it'll be difficult to come out with a conclusion that is both practically and politically correct. So if possible, keep more of the the practical side in mind.
-ram
-----Original Message----- From: Izumi Okutani [mailto:izumi@nic.ad.jp] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 4:27 PM To: ram@princess1.net Cc: sig-policy@apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Final call forcomments:[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6per address fee for NIRs"
Hi Ram,
Thanks for your questions and your efforts in trying to understand the issue.
ram@princess1.net wrote:
Hello,
I think both sides have different perspectives on the issue. I am not getting the full picture of the issue at the moment.
I understand the per-address-fee for ipv6 that is applied to NIRs (actually it is not a per-address-fee but a per block fee of the allocation to the end-user).
My questions are:
- Is the complexity really a problem? Problem in which aspect? Financial
projection?
Complexity is a problem because it causes confusion over how much they would be charged when LIRs under NIRs make an IPv6 allocation request.
As you can see from my AMM slide, there are so many patterns and calcutations for charges that it could be an easy source of confusion and dispute amonng NIRs and its members.
file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/izumi/Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Int ernet%20Files/Content.IE5/4TCDUP4X/268,14,Example of IPv6 per address fee based on EC decision
There are also other issues such as fairness. For example, for a /21 allocation, NIRs/NIR members must pay per address fee of US$95,360 in addition to the annual membership fee, and US$9,536 even after the 90% discount. On the other hand, directly APNIC members are charged no fee for their IPv6 allocations. This could disadvantage the NIR economies in IPv6 deployment compared to the other economies.
As you can see from this, the proposal basically intends to put NIR members(LIRs under NIRs) to be in the equal condition as direct APNIC members in IPv6 allocations, rather than giving them an extra advantage.
I suppose it really is a balance between the size of the problem and the impact on the whole membership. In this case, the financial impact on APNIC is 0.1%.
- How bad of a short-term problem is it for NIR operations compared to
the
other NIR activities? (rate 1-10 1-not really a problem 10-a very bad problem)
- How bad of a long-term problem is it for NIR operations compared to
other
NIR activities (rate 1-10 1-not really a problem 10-a very bad problem)?
I would skip the ratings as it would be quite subjective. The concern is more for the NIR members(about 500 organizations in total) rather than the NIRs themselves. The reasons are explained above.
- Apart from the proposed solutions are there any other solutions to this
problem?
My suggestions would be;
Perhaps set a gurantee that APNIC can charge back the per address fee, such as require the EC/members to revise every two years, if the concern is that the fee would be abolished for good and there will be a long-term financial impact on APNIC.
Setting a flat 90% discount of fee would solve the complexity problem, although it doesn't solve the issue of unfairness.
There has also been a suggestion to postpone this proposal until the fundamental revision of the NIR fee structure would be implemented. I would support this idea if the proposal has a big financial impact of the rest of APNIC membership, but as already explained, the impact on APNIC revenue is 0.1%.
Any other suggesions are welcome too.
- What is the best solution? Why you think it is the best one? What would
be the short-term and long-term impact for this solution?
I don't know if it's the best solution, but what has been proposed at AMM solves the problem without any impact on APNIC membership fee nor APNIC's finance.
I believe there is no short-term impact. The long term impact may be that it may cause some financial problem for APNIC when IPv6 would be the major source of income for APNIC. However, the proposal is intended to keep it abolished for a short-term and a possible solution to this is suggested in 4).
- Could the solution be altered to accommodate both short-term and long-
term impact before this 8weeks period ends?
Yes, if there are any other suggestions, I'm sure NIRs would be happy to consider it.
- What would be the impact of the altered solution (impact to APNIC,
impact
to the rest of the community, impact of growth on IPv6 allocations by NIR,
other impacts)?
Sorry, I didn't quite understand this. Would you clarify for me a little bit more?
Please let me know if there is anthing you would like to clarify, and thanks once again for your questions.
Regards, Izumi
I like the ipv6 initiatives, but again we are in a community.
Regards, -ram
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
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
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
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
Activity Summary
- 6382 days inactive
- 6382 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 5 participants
- 7 comments