Orbit

                        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

Orbit

Re: [sig-policy] Final call forcomments:[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6per address fee for NIRs"

Activity Summary

Participants (5)