Re: Revising APNIC member "sizes"
Hi,
>> a) additional incentives to choose large or medium over small -- would
>> need to come up with the incentives. I came up with are things like
>> i) allocating a larger than /19 initial block to medium and large
>> (currently fixed at /19 for everyoone)
>> ii) increasing the maximum allocation size from APNIC (currently
>> (fixed at /14 for everyone)
>> iii) increasing the maximum assignment window (currently fixed at
>> (/19 for everyone)
>The danger will be that people may be able to pay their way through
>inefficient allocations?
It would mean APNIC would need to be a bit more careful...
>> iv) lower fees for future APNIC services such as training
>This is OK.
As soon as APNIC hires training staff...
>> b) removing the tiers completely -- would make billing (marginally)
>> easier for APNIC, however would mean all members (regardless of
>> ability to pay) would be required to pay around US $5000.
>This is OK if it would leave people a choice by allowing them to
>form confederations.
Then the flat fee would have to be higher -- remember, the issue
here is spreading the fee over all members to reduce the cost to
each individual member. If organizations go to confederations,
it means fewer members to spread the costs over.
>> c) tie the "size" to the amount of resources the organization has
>> consumed -- is the approach taken by RIPE-NCC, however would imply a
>> need to figure out what to do with "historic" allocations and would
>> remove choice from the membership
>Tie the "size" perhaps to new allocations?
That is one option. Another is to only count the allocations APNIC
has made. I believe the latter is the approach RIPE took.
>Also, the idea is to
>figure out the size somehow from the ability to pay, which isn't
>really measurable through IP allocation, but rather through stuff
>like international bandwidth, internal infrastructure, etc.
To be honest, I've never really felt comfortable with "from each
according to ability..." in the face of the rather intense capitalism
evident in the Internet these days... :-).
>> d) use service level for the different tiers instead of size -- throw
>> out the use of "size" and instead differentiate on levels of
>> service, e.g., have "Gold", "Silver", and "Bronze", with each level
>> having its own request queue. Gold requests would be serviced
>> before Silver requests which would be serviced before Bronze.
>> Might also include an "urgent processing fee" to allow a bronze
>> or silver member to upgrade a request to the next higher queue.
>This seems reasonable too.
OK. If you had to vote now...?
Regards,
-drc
_________________________________________________________________________
| To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to apnic-talk-request at apnic dot net |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+