Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j: Next unread messagek: Previous unread messagej a: Jump to all threadsj l: Jump to MailingList overview
Hi Thu Thuy and Nhung,
Thank you for expressing your position for this proposal.
The situation at the moment is that there is a split in opinions between NIRs/NIR members and some of the other APNIC members.
I acknowledge NIRs/NIR members' needs, but I really don't think we can move on unless the other APNIC members are more comfortable with it.
Judging from the comments received so far, the concern here is that abolishing(actually, "waiver" is a more accurate word) should take place with more concrete planning and should make sense business-wise.
Suggestions from these members had been: + Present more concrete plan for the long term fee revision at the same time + come up with a plan which absorbs the 1% impact on APNIC's budget(zero impact on APNIC budget)
I recommend NIRs to address this area in your proposal so that it would be more agreeable to other APNIC members.
Izumi
Phan Thi Nhung wrote:
Dear all, VNNIC support this proposal. Actually, to promote our member to deploy IPV6, VNNIC do not charge IPV6 per address fee. In our opinion, what LIRs does't have to pay if they are APNIC member they will not have to pay when becoming VNNIC member. Nhung. ----- Original Message ----- From: Thu Thuy To: sig-policy@apnic.net Cc: Izumi Okutani ; wei chenguang Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 8:58 AM Subject: Re: Re:[sig-policy] Final call forcomments:[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6peraddressfee forNIRs"
Hi, all
I personnally support this proposal because it takes a role in promotion ipv6 utilisation in the early period of the new Internet Protocol.
Thu Thuy. ----- Original Message ----- From: wei chenguang To: Izumi Okutani ; sig-policy@apnic.net Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 2:26 PM Subject: Re: Re:[sig-policy] Final call forcomments:[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6peraddressfee for NIRs"
I support the proposal. I think it's fair for all people who want to apply IP address. ======== 2005-10-07 16:54:42 ======== 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
Dear All,
This is a reminder that the final comment period for the proposal;
[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6peraddressfee forNIRs" http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/proposals/prop-028-v001.html
will close in a week from today.
Past discussions can be followed by refering to "sig-nir" and "sig-policy" mailing list archives since September this year.
http://www.apnic.net/community/lists/index.html
If there is anyone who would like to express their opinion about this proposal, please voice your opinion on the "sig-nir" mailing list by 16th Nov. Thanks.
Best Regards,
Izumi Okutani NIR SIG Chair
Izumi Okutani wrote:
Hi Thu Thuy and Nhung,
Thank you for expressing your position for this proposal.
The situation at the moment is that there is a split in opinions between NIRs/NIR members and some of the other APNIC members.
I acknowledge NIRs/NIR members' needs, but I really don't think we can move on unless the other APNIC members are more comfortable with it.
Judging from the comments received so far, the concern here is that abolishing(actually, "waiver" is a more accurate word) should take place with more concrete planning and should make sense business-wise.
Suggestions from these members had been:
- Present more concrete plan for the long term fee revision at the same time
- come up with a plan which absorbs the 1% impact on APNIC's budget(zero impact on APNIC budget)
I recommend NIRs to address this area in your proposal so that it would be more agreeable to other APNIC members.
Izumi
Phan Thi Nhung wrote:
Dear all, VNNIC support this proposal. Actually, to promote our member to deploy IPV6, VNNIC do not charge IPV6 per address fee. In our opinion, what LIRs does't have to pay if they are APNIC member they will not have to pay when becoming VNNIC member. Nhung. ----- Original Message ----- From: Thu Thuy To: sig-policy@apnic.net Cc: Izumi Okutani ; wei chenguang Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 8:58 AM Subject: Re: Re:[sig-policy] Final call forcomments:[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6peraddressfee forNIRs"
Hi, all
I personnally support this proposal because it takes a role in promotion ipv6 utilisation in the early period of the new Internet Protocol.
Thu Thuy. ----- Original Message ----- From: wei chenguang To: Izumi Okutani ; sig-policy@apnic.net Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 2:26 PM Subject: Re: Re:[sig-policy] Final call forcomments:[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6peraddressfee for NIRs"
I support the proposal. I think it's fair for all people who want to apply IP address.
======== 2005-10-07 16:54:42 ========
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
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
Dear All,
Regarding [prop-028-v001]"Abolishing IPv6 per address fee for NIRs", I would like to conclude that although strong support was expressed from a few members of the community, there is no clear general consensus for the proposal.
Thank you all for participating in the discussions.
Observations: ------------- There were comments from 9 persons on the mailing list on this proposal.
4 persons were against the proposal.(non-NIR APNIC members) 4 persons supported the proposal.(NIRs/NIR members) 1 person supported the proposal conditionally.(non-NIR APNIC members)
Major comments: ---------------- + It is not fair for the rest of the membership to abolish the fee just for NIRs + NIRs are proposing to abolish the fee because the current fee structure is not fair for the NIRs + Questions were raised over why it needs to be dealt with immediately rather than waiting until the new fee structure takes place + It does not make sense as business practice to abolish the existing fee structure without a replacement plan. The proposal cannnot be supported unless there is a replacement on the fee structure, or substitute the financial loss
Conclusion: ----------- There is no clear general consensus for the proposal.
Reasons: -------- + Points which have not been addressed at the meeting was raised on the mailing list which implies no enough discussions took place at the meeting
+ Those who have expressed support for the proposal are the proposers, or those who benefit from the proposal.
+ Only unsupportive comments were expressed from those who do not benefit from this proposal. One support was expressed conditionally, but this condition was not met.
+ Proposer has not responded to suggestions expressed by those who were opposed to the proposal. (the proposer does not need to take in the suggestions but should be able to explain why their proposal is better than the suggestions, or suggestions would not solve the issue they face)
Side Note: ---------- The needs of the proposer can be acknowledged, but the proposal needs to be more agreeable to the rest of the APNIC community.
Best Regards,
Izumi Okutani and David Chen
Activity Summary
- 6585 days inactive
- 6585 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 1 participants
- 2 comments