RE: [sig-policy] Final call forcomments:[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6pe
place.
Tim.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net [mailto:sig-policy-
> bounces at lists dot apnic dot net] On Behalf Of Izumi Okutani
> Sent: Friday, 7 October 2005 6:55 PM
> To: sig-policy at apnic dot 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 at princess1 dot 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 at nic dot ad dot jp]
> >>Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 4:27 PM
> >>To: ram at princess1 dot net
> >>Cc: sig-policy at apnic dot 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 at princess1 dot 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:
> >>>
> >>>1) 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%.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>2) 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)
> >>>
> >>>3) 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.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>4) 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.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>5) 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).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>6) 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.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>7) 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 at lists dot apnic dot net
> >>>http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>* 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
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > * 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
> >
>
>
> * 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