[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: NIR fee structure and procedure proposal (fwd)
Colleages,
Please accept my apology for my absense of reply to this
issue for a week. I wish this reply weren't too late during
this vacation season.
I'm replying to YongWan's message but it will cover all
the contents of discussion on this thread.
a) YongWan's proposal to establish a WG on this specific
issue, I mean, PI and IX assignment by agent-like
model sounds very reasonable. Because it is specific
enough to have a convergence of discussion and also
the result is capable for extention to NIR scheme
discussion, even if these two are basically
independant. Timeframe till APRICOT is also adequate,
we have to solve it shortly to meet the demand from
NIR members.
If there isn't any significant objection on this I
feel like to launch a WG.
b) ChiahNan, you mentioned you would wait two more
requests from your members to request immediate start.
Will it happen before AMM decision and its
implememtation? If not we have to work on temporary
pricing and does any existing scenario work for you
as the temporary?
c) Paul or Son, is it possible to have temporary pricing
before official one? It seems to be a question which
is coming back to me later on behalf of EC. Any
solutions for immediate demand from members of NIRs?
d) IMHO, pricing itself is not derived from cost nor
unified among APNIC and NIRs. pricing at NIRs would
reflect cost of localization and PI space might be
priced higher than PA to discourage usage of PI.
Comments?
Regards,
-----
MAEMURA Akinori IP Address Working Group, JPNIC
In message <003e01c18c0f$4781c6d0$8ed0ffcb@ywchou>
"Re: NIR fee structure and procedure proposal (fwd)"
""hostmaster" <hostmaster@nic.or.kr>" wrote:
:|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
:|> > > >
:|> > > >
:|> > > >
:|> > > >
:|> > > >
:|> > > >
:|> > >
:|> > >
:|> >
:|>
:|
:|
