Orbit

                        I can't support this proposal with no alternative fee structure in
place.
Tim.
...
-----Original Message-----
From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-
bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Izumi Okutani
Sent: Friday, 7 October 2005 6:55 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
%2
...
0Int
...
...
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

Orbit

RE: [sig-policy] Final call forcomments:[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6peraddress fee for NIRs"

Activity Summary

Participants (1)