----- Original Message ----- From: wei chenguang To: Izumi Okutani ; sig-policy at apnic dot 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 您在来信中写道： ======== 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%20Int > > 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 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 祝工作顺利！ wei chenguang weichenguang at chinamobile dot com 2005-10-08 * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *_______________________________________________sig-policy mailing listsig-policy at lists dot apnic dot nethttp://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
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%20Int > > 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
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
祝工作顺利！