Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j: Next unread messagek: Previous unread messagej a: Jump to all threadsj l: Jump to MailingList overview
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
i too have problems with this proposal, as i hinted at the meeting.
if the fee system is too complex, the nir system adds far more complexity to apnic process, as we can see by the process of this very proposal. if we are to abolish complexity, clearly the nir system is the first thing to go. :-)/2
but it is certainly amusing that a stepped fee with a minimum is too complex. shall we put in an hd ratio instead? :-)
more appropriately, i suggest that, at the perth meeting, the lirs have a meeting where they can abolish fees for lirs.
randy
I do agree NIR system might be more complex than not having that.
However it is really disappointing for me to hear you say like that multiple lauguage and culutural system is too complicated and it should be abolished. Thus it sounds as a joke no longer because NIRs have made a tremendous effort for years to include non-native in-country stakeholders into APNIC's policy process.
That was a small proposal to propose abolish remaining 10% of IPv6 per address fee, where IPv6 PAF contributes 1% of APNIC's revenue. NIRs said "to simplify" after they know the size of impact. Moreover it is for interim solution until we have more appropriate NIR fee structure - NIRs think current PAF structure will never fit for larger allocations.
Anyway, we would be really happy to have on-line discussion in order to have the same picture of this issue.
Keep on discussing.
Regards, ----- MAEMURA Akinori Director, JPNIC IP Department maem@maem.org , maem@nic.ad.jp
In message 17203.19267.260928.988929@roam.psg.com "Re: [sig-policy] Final call for comments: [prop-028-v001] "AbolishingIPv6 per address fee for NIRs"" "Randy Bush randy@psg.com" wrote:
| i too have problems with this proposal, as i hinted at the | meeting. | | if the fee system is too complex, the nir system adds far more | complexity to apnic process, as we can see by the process of | this very proposal. if we are to abolish complexity, clearly | the nir system is the first thing to go. :-)/2 | | but it is certainly amusing that a stepped fee with a minimum | is too complex. shall we put in an hd ratio instead? :-) | | more appropriately, i suggest that, at the perth meeting, the | lirs have a meeting where they can abolish fees for lirs. | | 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 |
However it is really disappointing for me to hear you say like that multiple lauguage and culutural system is too complicated and it should be abolished.
wow! i missed where i said that. please do not put silly words in my mouth/keyboard. i do that enough. :-)
with the burn rate of ipv4 space, especially by apnic and ripe, it will run out very soon. what is a small percent of apnic revenue today will be the majority of its revenue in five years.
randy
Randy,
In message 17207.21125.739090.657268@roam.psg.com "Re: [sig-policy] Final call for comments: [prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6 per address fee for NIRs"" "Randy Bush randy@psg.com" wrote:
| > However it is really disappointing for me to hear you say | > like that multiple lauguage and culutural system is too | > complicated and it should be abolished. | | wow! i missed where i said that. please do not put silly words in | my mouth/keyboard. i do that enough. :-) | :-) I admire you for understanding multi-cultural communication.
| with the burn rate of ipv4 space, especially by apnic and ripe, it | will run out very soon. what is a small percent of apnic revenue | today will be the majority of its revenue in five years. | That's another important agenda. Currently APNIC's membership fee is based on IPv4 address block size which is bigger than IPv6 one in almost all members.
The situation of IP address usage has been and will be changing and some day we will need fix. NIRs community thinks PAF scheme no longer fits to adjust the contribution
from NIRs. I admit that such topics are not of policy but
of business operations of APNIC, but SIGs are working for having open discussions.
Regards, Akinori
The situation of IP address usage has been and will be changing and some day we will need fix. NIRs community thinks PAF scheme no longer fits to adjust the contribution from NIRs. I admit that such topics are not of policy but of business operations of APNIC, but SIGs are working for having open discussions.
if it is such a small amount today, as you say, then why is it needed to deal with it today? certainly a scaled charge with a minimum is not so complex that it places an employee cost burden on the nirs to calculate it!
randy
Randy,
If you point out that proposal itself, my answer will be because "100% discount of PAF for all allocations" will be simpler than "90% discount of PAF only for IPv4 infrastructure based evaluation".
If you point out the long-term NIR fee change, it is not a small amount and PAF no longer fits - for example a *single* /21 IPv6 allocation introduced us PAF of USD64K where JPNIC's total annual payment for APNIC was approx USD200K. This is a huge difference either in case PAF would be born by the LIR or by the NIR. PAF used to be modest enough to be fit. but it isn't any longer.
Am I answering?
Akinori
In message 17207.49360.66829.531011@roam.psg.com "Re: [sig-policy] Final call for comments:[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6 per address fee for NIRs"" "Randy Bush randy@psg.com" wrote:
| > The situation of IP address usage has been and will be | > changing and some day we will need fix. NIRs community | > thinks PAF scheme no longer fits to adjust the contribution | > from NIRs. I admit that such topics are not of policy but | > of business operations of APNIC, but SIGs are working for | > having open discussions. | | if it is such a small amount today, as you say, then why is it | needed to deal with it today? certainly a scaled charge with | a minimum is not so complex that it places an employee cost | burden on the nirs to calculate it! | | 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 |
If you point out that proposal itself, my answer will be because "100% discount of PAF for all allocations" will be simpler than "90% discount of PAF only for IPv4 infrastructure based evaluation".
If you point out the long-term NIR fee change, it is not a small amount and PAF no longer fits - for example a *single* /21 IPv6 allocation introduced us PAF of USD64K where JPNIC's total annual payment for APNIC was approx USD200K. This is a huge difference either in case PAF would be born by the LIR or by the NIR. PAF used to be modest enough to be fit. but it isn't any longer.
Am I answering?
yes, at last! so the 'complexity' is really the size of the number, not that the rirs can not calculate a simple step function.
while i suspect i could sympathize with the costs when looked at as absolute bhat/dollar/dong/yen amounts, US$64k ain't bad for more address space than all of ipv4. especially as i suspect an ipv4 /16 will be going for upwards of US$1m in a few years.
but now that we're down to the money, what do you think a reasonable curve, or step function, would be? it sounds as if stephan (and others from whom i have email) are concerned about how it goes forward. so discussing a replacement proposal may help alleviate some of the disagreement. then again, it may not; some of us are just disagreeable :-).
randy
In message 17208.61848.368889.929835@roam.psg.com "Re: [sig-policy] Final call forcomments:[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6 per address fee for NIRs"" "Randy Bush randy@psg.com" wrote:
| > If you point out that proposal itself, my answer will be | > because "100% discount of PAF for all allocations" will be | > simpler than "90% discount of PAF only for IPv4 infrastructure | > based evaluation". | > | > If you point out the long-term NIR fee change, it is not a | > small amount and PAF no longer fits - for example a *single* | > /21 IPv6 allocation introduced us PAF of USD64K where JPNIC's | > total annual payment for APNIC was approx USD200K. This is | > a huge difference either in case PAF would be born by the LIR | > or by the NIR. PAF used to be modest enough to be fit. but | > it isn't any longer. | > | > Am I answering? | | yes, at last!
Happy to hear :-) .
| so the 'complexity' is really the size of the | number, not that the rirs can not calculate a simple step | function. | Please see my FIRST answer - complexiety is just that of formula. But I think you are looking at the second one, which is more fundamental and long-term.
I suppose you've already found that proposal itself doesn't have a very big impact.
| while i suspect i could sympathize with the costs when looked | at as absolute bhat/dollar/dong/yen amounts, US$64k ain't bad | for more address space than all of ipv4. especially as i | suspect an ipv4 /16 will be going for upwards of US$1m in a | few years. | | but now that we're down to the money, what do you think a | reasonable curve, or step function, would be? it sounds as | if stephan (and others from whom i have email) are concerned | about how it goes forward. so discussing a replacement | proposal may help alleviate some of the disagreement. then | again, it may not; some of us are just disagreeable :-). |
The problem is the both for APNIC and NIRs the current PAF scheme is difficult to handle - to budget and to make a fee schedule for NIR's LIRs. It varies time to time.
You can see Paul Wilson's slides at NIR SIG about a possible alternative NIR fee schedule.
Currently PAF and membership fee from NIRs contribute around 10% of APNIC's annual revenue. - Here the basic idea is just collecting the similar level of revenue from NIRs with more similar fee structure with ordinary membership fee with a step function.
Paul's idea is counting NIR's LIRs, first to calcurate as if they were all APNIC direct members, then to adjust it to have a similar level of fee. In his presentation 40% of ordinary fee equals current NIR's annual and PA fees.
JPNIC proposed another before, that was just multiplying membership fee to the similar level. JPNIC is an XL with USD40K annual, then x5 will equal to our current total annual payment.
Just in case please note NIRs are not just discounting - they have their own business - APNIC fee is just several percents of annual budget in case of JPNIC IP Department.
These two are just primitive proposals (especially JPNIC's) which may need refinement, but it is still a good start for the fundamental discussion.
Thank you for reading this long. :-p
Regards, Akinori
I suppose you've already found that proposal itself doesn't have a very big impact.
if i understand your earlier comment,
If you point out the long-term NIR fee change, it is not a small amount and PAF no longer fits - for example a *single* /21 IPv6 allocation introduced us PAF of USD64K where JPNIC's total annual payment for APNIC was approx USD200K. This is a huge difference either in case PAF would be born by the LIR or by the NIR. PAF used to be modest enough to be fit. but it isn't any longer.
it does! as the proposal would change this, it sure seems to have what i would consider a large impact.
The problem is the both for APNIC and NIRs the current PAF scheme is difficult to handle - to budget and to make a fee schedule for NIR's LIRs.
i did not hear apnic staff say this. and i find it hard to believe a simple step function is hard for anyone to deal with.
and my mind just does not comprehend this 'complexity' problem no matter how many times i hear it. i keep thinking, "it's just a <bleep>ing step function. the real problem is the amount of money but no one wants to talk straight."
You can see Paul Wilson's slides at NIR SIG about a possible alternative NIR fee schedule.
actually, i saw that as two things, o trying to discuss a replacement BEFORE removing the current o paul trying to be more subtle in his methods of discussion than i am, having to hold up the 'bush' name :-)
Currently PAF and membership fee from NIRs contribute around 10% of APNIC's annual revenue.
hmmm. as the nirs seem to cover most of the biggest internet economies, jp, kr, tw, ..., i would have expected a much higher percentage. am i missing ipv4 paf equivalent? but don't bother to explain; it's just one of my many knowledge gaps and is not really important to the discussion. if i really cared, i assume all this is publicly available on the web site.
Here the basic idea is just collecting the similar level of revenue from NIRs with more similar fee structure with ordinary membership fee with a step function.
Paul's idea is counting NIR's LIRs, first to calculate as if they were all APNIC direct members, then to adjust it to have a similar level of fee. In his presentation 40% of ordinary fee equals current NIR's annual and PA fees.
JPNIC proposed another before, that was just multiplying membership fee to the similar level. JPNIC is an XL with USD40K annual, then x5 will equal to our current total annual payment.
these all seem good starts. so why not finish and converge on the new model before removing the old? seems like normal good business practice to me.
randy
On 27 sep 2005, at 09.15, Randy Bush wrote:
so discussing a replacement proposal may help alleviate some of the disagreement. then again, it may not; some of us are just disagreeable :-).
Thank you for your response, however I do not believe that you have addressed the major points of the objection I've raised.
The IPv6 fee for NIRs is proposed to be abolished because it is "too complicated" . This does not strike me as a sensible reason to remove the fee.
You call it an "interim solution". When does the new fee schedule arrive? 2006? 2016? 2026? It seems to me that once the NIRs get this IPv6 fee waived they have no interest to bring in any new fees in the future. With the current policy process then all they need to do is to keep sending their people to APNIC meetings and they will block any new fee proposal indefinitely.
I have proposed that to stop this form of meeting stacking by the NIRs that all policy proposals be passed to an online vote by the entire APNIC membership, and that the EC approval of the policy proposal is only possible if a majority of the members are in favour.
Regards
Stephan Millet
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:41, MAEMURA Akinori wrote:
I do agree NIR system might be more complex than not having that.
However it is really disappointing for me to hear you say like that multiple lauguage and culutural system is too complicated and it should be abolished. Thus it sounds as a joke no longer because NIRs have made a tremendous effort for years to include non-native in-country stakeholders into APNIC's policy process.
That was a small proposal to propose abolish remaining 10% of IPv6 per address fee, where IPv6 PAF contributes 1% of APNIC's revenue. NIRs said "to simplify" after they know the size of impact. Moreover it is for interim solution until we have more appropriate NIR fee structure - NIRs think current PAF structure will never fit for larger allocations.
Anyway, we would be really happy to have on-line discussion in order to have the same picture of this issue.
Keep on discussing.
Regards,
MAEMURA Akinori Director, JPNIC IP Department maem@maem.org , maem@nic.ad.jp
Stephan,
Out of 2006, 2016 and 2026 the most realistic target should be 2006 and this is a major assumption to take this interim solution.
We might have some unexpected delay, but in my mind, a detailed proposal to be raised for discussion at APNIC21, Perth Feb 2006, and to seek the membership concensus in the next, APNIC22.
I am sad to see that you like to regard us NIR people doing something badly political or playing a selfish process just for our short-term benefit. We need to keep on convincing you that we are reasonable enough.
With the EC hat on from now on,
For the process, APNIC Secretariat is aware that concensus in the on-site meeting is not enough to implement it into the operation, while APNIC want more and more people come to on-site meeting. That is why you have the room for objection on the mailing list.
Right now one or two strong objection are seen on the list against on-site concensus, they may cease or we have some more objections. Such situation will be reported and reviewed by the EC for its endorsement.
That's our process which is already in effect. IMHO membership vote for all policy proposals would be unreasonably heavy, but I'd like to have opinion from everyone.
Kind Regards, Akinori
In message 200509271111.55014.stephan@telstra.net "Re: [sig-policy] Final call for comments: [prop-028-v001] "AbolishingIPv6 per address fee for NIRs"" "Stephan Millet stephan@telstra.net" wrote:
| Thank you for your response, however I do not believe that | you have addressed the major points of the objection I've raised. | | The IPv6 fee for NIRs is proposed to be abolished because | it is "too complicated" . This does not strike me as a sensible | reason to remove the fee. | | You call it an "interim solution". When does the new fee schedule | arrive? 2006? 2016? 2026? It seems to me that once the NIRs get | this IPv6 fee waived they have no interest to bring in any new fees | in the future. With the current policy process then all they need | to do is to keep sending their people to APNIC meetings and they | will block any new fee proposal indefinitely. | | I have proposed that to stop this form of meeting stacking by the | NIRs that all policy proposals be passed to an online vote by the | entire APNIC membership, and that the EC approval of the policy | proposal is only possible if a majority of the members are in favour. | | Regards | | Stephan Millet | | On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:41, MAEMURA Akinori wrote: | > I do agree NIR system might be more complex than not having | > that. | > | > However it is really disappointing for me to hear you say | > like that multiple lauguage and culutural system is too | > complicated and it should be abolished. Thus it sounds | > as a joke no longer because NIRs have made a tremendous | > effort for years to include non-native in-country stakeholders | > into APNIC's policy process. | > | > | > That was a small proposal to propose abolish remaining 10% | > of IPv6 per address fee, where IPv6 PAF contributes 1% of | > APNIC's revenue. NIRs said "to simplify" after they know | > the size of impact. Moreover it is for interim solution | > until we have more appropriate NIR fee structure - NIRs think | > current PAF structure will never fit for larger allocations. | > | > | > | > Anyway, we would be really happy to have on-line discussion | > in order to have the same picture of this issue. | > | > Keep on discussing. | > | > | > Regards, | > ----- | > MAEMURA Akinori Director, JPNIC IP Department | > maem@maem.org , maem@nic.ad.jp | |
That's our process which is already in effect. IMHO membership vote for all policy proposals would be unreasonably heavy, but I'd like to have opinion from everyone.
who is a member? as i work for iij which, as far as i can tell, is not a member of apnic, i.e. i don't have a member-id when i register for meeetings, ... so used to skip fridays, as i did not feel it my prerogative to show up for the vote-stuffing party.
randy
[With my APNIC EC hat on]
The new membership fee proposal for NIRs will be put up (by APNIC Secretariat/EC after enough discussion and consultation) for formal voting by all the members on-site or through online voting on MyAPNIC. I don't think it can be blocked by the people going to APNIC meetings. So, don't worry too much on this part. :)
Che-Hoo
--- MAEMURA Akinori maem@maem.org wrote:
Stephan,
Out of 2006, 2016 and 2026 the most realistic target should be 2006 and this is a major assumption to take this interim solution.
We might have some unexpected delay, but in my mind, a detailed proposal to be raised for discussion at APNIC21, Perth Feb 2006, and to seek the membership concensus in the next, APNIC22.
I am sad to see that you like to regard us NIR people doing something badly political or playing a selfish process just for our short-term benefit. We need to keep on convincing you that we are reasonable enough.
With the EC hat on from now on,
For the process, APNIC Secretariat is aware that concensus in the on-site meeting is not enough to implement it into the operation, while APNIC want more and more people come to on-site meeting. That is why you have the room for objection on the mailing list.
Right now one or two strong objection are seen on the list against on-site concensus, they may cease or we have some more objections. Such situation will be reported and reviewed by the EC for its endorsement.
That's our process which is already in effect. IMHO membership vote for all policy proposals would be unreasonably heavy, but I'd like to have opinion from everyone.
Kind Regards, Akinori
In message 200509271111.55014.stephan@telstra.net "Re: [sig-policy] Final call for comments: [prop-028-v001] "AbolishingIPv6 per address fee for NIRs"" "Stephan Millet stephan@telstra.net" wrote:
| Thank you for your response, however I do not believe that | you have addressed the major points of the objection I've raised. | | The IPv6 fee for NIRs is proposed to be abolished because | it is "too complicated" . This does not strike me as a sensible | reason to remove the fee. | | You call it an "interim solution". When does the new fee schedule | arrive? 2006? 2016? 2026? It seems to me that once the NIRs get | this IPv6 fee waived they have no interest to bring in any new fees | in the future. With the current policy process then all they need | to do is to keep sending their people to APNIC meetings and they | will block any new fee proposal indefinitely. | | I have proposed that to stop this form of meeting stacking by the | NIRs that all policy proposals be passed to an online vote by the | entire APNIC membership, and that the EC approval of the policy | proposal is only possible if a majority of the members are in favour. | | Regards | | Stephan Millet | | On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:41, MAEMURA Akinori wrote: | > I do agree NIR system might be more complex than not having | > that. | > | > However it is really disappointing for me to hear you say | > like that multiple lauguage and culutural system is too | > complicated and it should be abolished. Thus it sounds | > as a joke no longer because NIRs have made a tremendous | > effort for years to include non-native in-country stakeholders | > into APNIC's policy process. | > | > | > That was a small proposal to propose abolish remaining 10% | > of IPv6 per address fee, where IPv6 PAF contributes 1% of | > APNIC's revenue. NIRs said "to simplify" after they know | > the size of impact. Moreover it is for interim solution | > until we have more appropriate NIR fee structure - NIRs think | > current PAF structure will never fit for larger allocations. | > | > | > | > Anyway, we would be really happy to have on-line discussion | > in order to have the same picture of this issue. | > | > Keep on discussing. | > | > | > Regards, | > ----- | > MAEMURA Akinori Director, JPNIC IP Department | > maem@maem.org , maem@nic.ad.jp | | _______________________________________________ sig-nir mailing list sig-nir@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
Dear all,
Thank you for the many comments that have been received on the proposal to abolish the IPv6 per address fee for NIRs. This mail is simply intended to clarify some issues of the policy development process and how they may affect the progress of this discussion.
By the terms of the APNIC Policy Development Process, each policy proposal must pass five steps. The proposal currently under discussion [prop-028-v001] has now passed the first two steps:
1. Discussion before the Open Policy Meeting (OPM), and 2. Consensus at the OPM
It is now subject to the following three steps:
3. Discussion after the OPM - this current 8 week comment period 4. Confirming consensus - where the appropriate SIG Chair will need to determine whether the proposal has reached consensus, or whether substantial objections mean that consensus has not been confirmed, and 5. Endorsement from the Executive Council
In this process, the discussions on the mailing list are given the same degree of importance as the discussion in the physical meeting.
In the final stage of the process, the EC may adopt a proposal for implementation or refer a proposal back to the SIG for further discussion. The EC may also decide to refer the proposal to a formal vote of adoption by the APNIC members.
Finally, in the present discussion, there has been a suggestion of making changes to the policy development process. To be effective, these suggestions would need to be formally proposed and passed through the current process, as summarised above. The full details of the current Policy development Process are at:
http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/policy-development.html
More explanation of the process, including links to a policy proposal form are at:
http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/dev
regards, Save -- Savenaca Vocea, Policy Development Manager, save@apnic.net Asia Pacific Network Information Centre http://www.apnic.net ph/fx +61 7 3858 3100/99
On 27/09/2005, at 2:44 PM, Che-Hoo CHENG wrote:
[With my APNIC EC hat on]
The new membership fee proposal for NIRs will be put up (by APNIC Secretariat/EC after enough discussion and consultation) for formal voting by all the members on-site or through online voting on MyAPNIC. I don't think it can be blocked by the people going to APNIC meetings. So, don't worry too much on this part. :)
Che-Hoo
--- MAEMURA Akinori maem@maem.org wrote:
Stephan,
Out of 2006, 2016 and 2026 the most realistic target should be 2006 and this is a major assumption to take this interim solution.
We might have some unexpected delay, but in my mind, a detailed proposal to be raised for discussion at APNIC21, Perth Feb 2006, and to seek the membership concensus in the next, APNIC22.
I am sad to see that you like to regard us NIR people doing something badly political or playing a selfish process just for our short-term benefit. We need to keep on convincing you that we are reasonable enough.
With the EC hat on from now on,
For the process, APNIC Secretariat is aware that concensus in the on-site meeting is not enough to implement it into the operation, while APNIC want more and more people come to on-site meeting. That is why you have the room for objection on the mailing list.
Right now one or two strong objection are seen on the list against on-site concensus, they may cease or we have some more objections. Such situation will be reported and reviewed by the EC for its endorsement.
That's our process which is already in effect. IMHO membership vote for all policy proposals would be unreasonably heavy, but I'd like to have opinion from everyone.
Kind Regards, Akinori
In message 200509271111.55014.stephan@telstra.net "Re: [sig-policy] Final call for comments: [prop-028-v001] "AbolishingIPv6 per address fee for NIRs"" "Stephan Millet stephan@telstra.net" wrote:
| Thank you for your response, however I do not believe that | you have addressed the major points of the objection I've raised. | | The IPv6 fee for NIRs is proposed to be abolished because | it is "too complicated" . This does not strike me as a sensible | reason to remove the fee. | | You call it an "interim solution". When does the new fee schedule | arrive? 2006? 2016? 2026? It seems to me that once the NIRs get | this IPv6 fee waived they have no interest to bring in any new fees | in the future. With the current policy process then all they need | to do is to keep sending their people to APNIC meetings and they | will block any new fee proposal indefinitely. | | I have proposed that to stop this form of meeting stacking by the | NIRs that all policy proposals be passed to an online vote by the | entire APNIC membership, and that the EC approval of the policy | proposal is only possible if a majority of the members are in favour. | | Regards | | Stephan Millet | | On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:41, MAEMURA Akinori wrote: | > I do agree NIR system might be more complex than not having | > that. | > | > However it is really disappointing for me to hear you say | > like that multiple lauguage and culutural system is too | > complicated and it should be abolished. Thus it sounds | > as a joke no longer because NIRs have made a tremendous | > effort for years to include non-native in-country stakeholders | > into APNIC's policy process. | > | > | > That was a small proposal to propose abolish remaining 10% | > of IPv6 per address fee, where IPv6 PAF contributes 1% of | > APNIC's revenue. NIRs said "to simplify" after they know | > the size of impact. Moreover it is for interim solution | > until we have more appropriate NIR fee structure - NIRs think | > current PAF structure will never fit for larger allocations. | > | > | > | > Anyway, we would be really happy to have on-line discussion | > in order to have the same picture of this issue. | > | > Keep on discussing. | > | > | > Regards, | > ----- | > MAEMURA Akinori Director, JPNIC IP Department | > maem@maem.org , maem@nic.ad.jp | | _______________________________________________ sig-nir mailing list sig-nir@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
sig-nir mailing list sig-nir@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
Che-Hoo,
Thank you very much for this response. I was concerned that this proposal was on a track of adoption by APNIC without further consultation with the membership and I am very reassured by this undertaking that the EC will put this up for formal voting both on-site and online via MyAPNIC.
While I will respond with a few more observations to the discussion on the policy itself on the mailing list, I will note here that the major aspect of my objection to the policy is now addressed by this undertaking from the EC to pass this proposal to the membership for a formal vote.
Thank you, & regards,
Stephan Millet
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:44, Che-Hoo CHENG wrote:
[With my APNIC EC hat on]
The new membership fee proposal for NIRs will be put up (by APNIC Secretariat/EC after enough discussion and consultation) for formal voting by all the members on-site or through online voting on MyAPNIC. I don't think it can be blocked by the people going to APNIC meetings. So, don't worry too much on this part. :)
Che-Hoo
--- MAEMURA Akinori maem@maem.org wrote:
Stephan,
Out of 2006, 2016 and 2026 the most realistic target should be 2006 and this is a major assumption to take this interim solution.
We might have some unexpected delay, but in my mind, a detailed proposal to be raised for discussion at APNIC21, Perth Feb 2006, and to seek the membership concensus in the next, APNIC22.
I am sad to see that you like to regard us NIR people doing something badly political or playing a selfish process just for our short-term benefit. We need to keep on convincing you that we are reasonable enough.
With the EC hat on from now on,
For the process, APNIC Secretariat is aware that concensus in the on-site meeting is not enough to implement it into the operation, while APNIC want more and more people come to on-site meeting. That is why you have the room for objection on the mailing list.
Right now one or two strong objection are seen on the list against on-site concensus, they may cease or we have some more objections. Such situation will be reported and reviewed by the EC for its endorsement.
That's our process which is already in effect. IMHO membership vote for all policy proposals would be unreasonably heavy, but I'd like to have opinion from everyone.
Kind Regards, Akinori
In message 200509271111.55014.stephan@telstra.net "Re: [sig-policy] Final call for comments: [prop-028-v001] "AbolishingIPv6 per address fee for NIRs""
"Stephan Millet stephan@telstra.net" wrote: | Thank you for your response, however I do not believe that | you have addressed the major points of the objection I've raised. | | The IPv6 fee for NIRs is proposed to be abolished because | it is "too complicated" . This does not strike me as a sensible | reason to remove the fee. | | You call it an "interim solution". When does the new fee schedule | arrive? 2006? 2016? 2026? It seems to me that once the NIRs get | this IPv6 fee waived they have no interest to bring in any new fees | in the future. With the current policy process then all they need | to do is to keep sending their people to APNIC meetings and they | will block any new fee proposal indefinitely. | | I have proposed that to stop this form of meeting stacking by the | NIRs that all policy proposals be passed to an online vote by the | entire APNIC membership, and that the EC approval of the policy | proposal is only possible if a majority of the members are in favour. | | Regards | | Stephan Millet | | On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:41, MAEMURA Akinori wrote: | > I do agree NIR system might be more complex than not having | > that. | > | > However it is really disappointing for me to hear you say | > like that multiple lauguage and culutural system is too | > complicated and it should be abolished. Thus it sounds | > as a joke no longer because NIRs have made a tremendous | > effort for years to include non-native in-country stakeholders | > into APNIC's policy process. | > | > | > That was a small proposal to propose abolish remaining 10% | > of IPv6 per address fee, where IPv6 PAF contributes 1% of | > APNIC's revenue. NIRs said "to simplify" after they know | > the size of impact. Moreover it is for interim solution | > until we have more appropriate NIR fee structure - NIRs think | > current PAF structure will never fit for larger allocations. | > | > | > | > Anyway, we would be really happy to have on-line discussion | > in order to have the same picture of this issue. | > | > Keep on discussing. | > | > | > Regards, | > ----- | > MAEMURA Akinori Director, JPNIC IP Department | > maem@maem.org , maem@nic.ad.jp
sig-nir mailing list sig-nir@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
sig-nir mailing list sig-nir@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
I hope I was not misunderstood. I was referring to the long-term new membership fee proposal to be developed which is budget/business related, not policy related.
As for this particular proposal which is being put through the policy development process, the EC will make decision after hearing all the comments raised up during the Final Call for Comments period.
Hope that it's clear now.
Regards,
Che-Hoo
--- Che-Hoo CHENG chcheng@ieee.org wrote:
[With my APNIC EC hat on]
The new membership fee proposal for NIRs will be put up (by APNIC Secretariat/EC after enough discussion and consultation) for formal voting by all the members on-site or through online voting on MyAPNIC. I don't think it can be blocked by the people going to APNIC meetings. So, don't worry too much on this part. :)
Che-Hoo
--- MAEMURA Akinori maem@maem.org wrote:
Stephan,
Out of 2006, 2016 and 2026 the most realistic target should be 2006 and this is a major assumption to take this interim solution.
We might have some unexpected delay, but in my mind, a detailed proposal to be raised for discussion at APNIC21, Perth Feb 2006, and to seek the membership concensus in the next, APNIC22.
I am sad to see that you like to regard us NIR people doing something badly political or playing a selfish process just for our short-term benefit. We need to keep on convincing you that we are reasonable enough.
With the EC hat on from now on,
For the process, APNIC Secretariat is aware that concensus in the on-site meeting is not enough to implement it into the operation, while APNIC want more and more people come to on-site meeting. That is why you have the room for objection on the mailing list.
Right now one or two strong objection are seen on the list against on-site concensus, they may cease or we have some more objections. Such situation will be reported and reviewed by the EC for its endorsement.
That's our process which is already in effect. IMHO membership vote for all policy proposals would be unreasonably heavy, but I'd like to have opinion from everyone.
Kind Regards, Akinori
In message 200509271111.55014.stephan@telstra.net "Re: [sig-policy] Final call for comments: [prop-028-v001] "AbolishingIPv6 per address fee for NIRs"" "Stephan Millet stephan@telstra.net" wrote:
| Thank you for your response, however I do not believe that | you have addressed the major points of the objection I've raised. | | The IPv6 fee for NIRs is proposed to be abolished because | it is "too complicated" . This does not strike me as a sensible | reason to remove the fee. | | You call it an "interim solution". When does the new fee schedule | arrive? 2006? 2016? 2026? It seems to me that once the NIRs get | this IPv6 fee waived they have no interest to bring in any new fees | in the future. With the current policy process then all they need | to do is to keep sending their people to APNIC meetings and they | will block any new fee proposal indefinitely. | | I have proposed that to stop this form of meeting stacking by the | NIRs that all policy proposals be passed to an online vote by the | entire APNIC membership, and that the EC approval of the policy | proposal is only possible if a majority of the members are in favour. | | Regards | | Stephan Millet | | On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:41, MAEMURA Akinori wrote: | > I do agree NIR system might be more complex than not having | > that. | > | > However it is really disappointing for me to hear you say | > like that multiple lauguage and culutural system is too | > complicated and it should be abolished. Thus it sounds | > as a joke no longer because NIRs have made a tremendous | > effort for years to include non-native in-country stakeholders | > into APNIC's policy process. | > | > | > That was a small proposal to propose abolish remaining 10% | > of IPv6 per address fee, where IPv6 PAF contributes 1% of | > APNIC's revenue. NIRs said "to simplify" after they know | > the size of impact. Moreover it is for interim solution | > until we have more appropriate NIR fee structure - NIRs think | > current PAF structure will never fit for larger allocations. | > | > | > | > Anyway, we would be really happy to have on-line discussion | > in order to have the same picture of this issue. | > | > Keep on discussing. | > | > | > Regards, | > ----- | > MAEMURA Akinori Director, JPNIC IP Department | > maem@maem.org , maem@nic.ad.jp | | _______________________________________________ sig-nir mailing list sig-nir@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
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
- 6578 days inactive
- 6578 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 7 participants
- 17 comments