Re: NIR fee structure and procedure proposal (fwd)

["hostmaster" <hostmaster@nic.or.kr>]

Hi, all

I hope all of you will enjoy really great X-mas.

And regarding PI & IX fee structure, I agree with Paul's comments based on
NIR's existence within APNIC member boundary.
But, I am afraid that discussions in these days between NIR & APNIC seems to
orient business aspect.

Anyhow, let's make working group about this point with target date of next
APRIOCOT,
supposed all of you agree,,,,
If it is possible, I expect Maemura & Paul's decision.

Thank you in advance.

Yong Wan Ju

============================================================
Yong Wan Ju : Manager of Internet Address Management Team
                      in Korea Network Information Center
E-mail : ywju@nic.or.kr                  Homepage : www.nic.or.kr
============================================================
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@apnic.net>
To: "Izumi Okutani" <izumi@nic.ad.jp>
Cc: <john@apnic.net>; <nir-discuss@lists.apnic.net>; <oyang@twnic.net.tw>;
<trancy@twnic.net.tw>; <wschen@twnic.net.tw>
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 1:10 PM
Subject: RE: NIR fee structure and procedure proposal (fwd)


> Thanks Izumi.
>
> I should clarify here that the fee structure of APNIC services is not
> establ.ished nby the APNIC Secterariat, but rather by the APNIC community.
> Fees may also be established wioth a variety of considerations in mind,
not
> necessarily related to the operational cost of providing those services.
> This is especially true of the PI assignment service, and all price
> considerations must be clearly recognised in any proposal to adjust that
fee
> strtucture.
>
> I should also clarify that competition itself is not the issue, but rather
> the possibility of price competition compromising specific decisions of
the
> APNIC community.  Certainly if we agree that NIRs are part of APNIC rather
> than customers of APNIC, then this type of price competition does not make
> sense, when APNIC as a community has made consensus decisions regarding
> service fees.
>
> Paul.
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Izumi Okutani [mailto:izumi@nic.ad.jp]
> > Sent: Friday, 21 December 2001 10:14 PM
> > To: pwilson@apnic.net
> > Cc: john@apnic.net; nir-discuss@lists.apnic.net; oyang@twnic.net.tw;
> > trancy@twnic.net.tw; wschen@twnic.net.tw
> > Subject: RE: NIR fee structure and procedure proposal (fwd)
> >
> >
> > Hi Paul, Son and all,
> >
> >
> > Thank you for the proposal on PI and IX(IPv4) agent services.
> > We think it is a good idea to define the roles of APNIC and an agent.
> >
> > We basically agree with the current proposal but would like to raise
> > our concern about the fee scheme.
> >
> > If it is a 50-50 split, or must charge our members to make the fee to
> > be the same as APNIC's non-members' fee, we will not be able to
> > justify to our members as our operational cost.
> >
> > Our members will probably approve if NIRs pay 50%(or whatever
> > proportion is appropriate) of non-member's fee to APNIC, then NIRs
> > will add the approriate cost according to their situation, just like
> > we do for IPv6 agent service.
> >
> > Making the per address fees consistent is also something to be
> > considered, but when we look at the current practice, NIRs already
> > charge different fee to its members for IPv4 PA address and IPv6 agent
> > service.
> >
> > Since it is an issue which affects NIRs,APNIC, and NIR members, how
> > about allowing more time for the discussion together with the
> > definition of the roles of APNIC and an agent?
> >
> > We can discuss it as a seperate topic from the scheme for PI/IX agent
> > service, and after the definition is fixed, it can apply to all agent
> > services including IPv6, and not only for this agent service.
> >
> > This is only our opinon, so we are looking forward to your comments.
> >
> >
> > izumi
> > JPNIC
> >
> > From: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@apnic.net>
> > Subject: RE: NIR fee structure and procedure proposal (fwd)
> > Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 17:36:41 +1000
> >
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > > Here are some additional points I would like to make regarding the
roles
> > > of NIRs and APNIC in providing these services.  This is consistent
with
> > > what Son has said, but may help to answer some further questions.
> > >
> > > I hope that this is helpful.
> > >
> > > Paul Wilson
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Role of Agent
> > >
> > > As an "agent" for PI and IX assignment services, the NIR provides an
> > > "interface" between its customers and APNIC.  Generally, customers of
> > > the NIR should not need to contact APNIC directly, and APNIC should
not
> > > directly communicate with those customers (however APNIC may provide
> > > online services to the customers, such as database storage and
update).
> > >
> > > The NIR will provide the necessary forms to its customers, and take
full
> > > responsibility for the request process to the point of rejecting or
> > > accepting requests, in accordance with APNIC policies.  The NIR may
> > > provide APNIC forms translated into local languages, and those forms
> > > need not be identical to original APNIC forms, however they must be
> > > consistent in order that APNIC receives the necessary information.
> > >
> > > In general, the NIR would collect all fees from its customers,
including
> > > assignment fees and ongoing maintenance fees.  However APNIC may take
> > > responsibility for charging of some fees if required.
> > >
> > > In general, NIRs should charge fees in accordance with the APNIC price
> > > structure, so that there is no perception of competition between NIRs,
> > > or between NIRs and APNIC.  Fees should not be adjusted by the NIR
> > > except by explicit agreement between the NIR and APNIC (or in
accordance
> > > with overall changes to the APNIC fee structure, as approved by APNIC
> > > members).
> > >
> > >
> > > Role of APNIC
> > >
> > > APNIC will fulfil requests receive from NIRs in accordance with agreed
> > > procedures.
> > >
> > > While APNIC wishes to fulfil requests as quickly and efficiently as
> > > possible, it must retain the ability to re-evaluate requests in
defined
> > > cases.  A "level of trust" mechanism will need to be established for
PI
> > > and IX assignment services, and this should be discussed (an
Assignment
> > > Window may be appropriate, however for PI assignments, another
mechanism
> > > may be more appropriate).
> > >
> > > While the fees charged by the NIR should be established according to
the
> > > APNIC fee structure, APNIC and the NIR may have a private agreement
> > > concerning the division of fees between the 2 organisations. This
> > > division should depend on the amount of work and responsibility that
the
> > > NIR is able to undertake, which itself should correspond to the
> > > experience level of the NIR.
> > >
> > > On fulfilling a NIR request, APNIC will invoice the NIR for the
> > > appropriate amount, in accordance with the agreed division of fees
with
> > > the NIR.  The NIR is responsible for charging its customers, however
the
> > > APNIC fee structure should be followed in all cases except as agreed.
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-nir-discuss@lists.apnic.net
> > > > [mailto:owner-nir-discuss@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of John Tran
> > > > Sent: Friday, 21 December 2001 14:28
> > > > To: nir-discuss@lists.apnic.net
> > > > Cc: oyang@twnic.net.tw; trancy@twnic.net.tw; wschen@twnic.net.tw
> > > > Subject: NIR fee structure and procedure proposal (fwd)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > Please find below is a first version of the proposal for the fee
> > > > structure and procedure for NIRs to obatin PI and IX assignments on
> > > > behalf of their members and non-members. All feedback and comments
are
> > > > welcome.
> > > >
> > > > As APNIC cannot change the current non-member fee structure
> > > > as this will
> > > > require members consensus. Therefore we propose the following fee
> > > > structure and procedure based on the current non-member APNIC's fee.
> > > >
> > > > *NIR can translate the current multi-homing form and IX form
> > > > into their
> > > > own language and make them available for organisations within their
> > > > countries.
> > > > * If an organisation wish to obtain PI or IX block then NIR
> > > > will evaluate
> > > > the request, summarise it and send it to APNIC for an
> > > > assignment. We also
> > > > need some information from NIR to uniquely identify the
> > > > organisation for
> > > > billing and future references.
> > > > * APNIC will make the appropriate assignment from a free pools that
> > > > especially reserve for PI and IX assignments, if the evaluation is
> > > > consistent with APNIC hostmaster evaluation.
> > > > * APNIC will send the invoice to NIR as normal with reference to
> > > > appropriate assignments and allocations details.
> > > > * APNIC will send annual maintenance fee charge to NIRs for all the
> > > > assignments based on the references we received when we make the
> > > > assignment.
> > > > * The current NON-MEMBER fee should be applied to all organisations
> > > > irrespective of the country they are in to ensure consistency
> > > > across the
> > > > region. This means that even if an NIR can find an
> > > > alternative way to fund
> > > > for the fee that APNIC charge them to reduce the cost for these
> > > > assignments. They should charge the same fee as APNIC would charge
if
> > > > these organisations approach APNIC or other NIRs.
> > > > * APNIC will apply the Assignment Window on all NIRs to
> > > > ensure that the
> > > > evaluation is consistent across the region.
> > > > * To simplify the charging process we propose 50-50 split, for both
> > > > the initial and maintenance fees, between APNIC and NIRs.
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > > Son
> > > > APNIC
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>