Re: [sig-policy] Final call for comments: [prop-028-v001] "AbolishingIPv
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 at maem dot org , maem at nic dot ad dot jp
In message <17203.19267.260928.988929 at roam dot psg dot com>
"Re: [sig-policy] Final call for comments: [prop-028-v001] "AbolishingIPv6 per address fee for NIRs""
"Randy Bush <randy at psg dot 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 at lists dot apnic dot net
| http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
|