[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: NIR fee structure and procedure proposal (fwd)
Colleages,
We have to move forward. If you don't have any other idea
I feel like establish a WG to discuss and compile a draft,
first specifically for PI/IX assignment agent-like model and
then(but it can be run at the same time) genericly for NIR-
APNIC scheme. Is nir-wg appropriate for this WG or any other?
I'm happy that TWNIC and others can take tentative fee plan.
Thanks Son! ;-)
Regards,
-----
MAEMURA Akinori JPNIC IP Address Working Group
In message <200112272005.EBG27235.NNBF@maem.org>
"Re: NIR fee structure and procedure proposal (fwd)"
"MAEMURA Akinori <maem@maem.org>" wrote:
| 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
| :|> > > >
| :|> > > >
| :|> > > >
| :|> > > >
| :|> > > >
| :|> > > >
| :|> > >
| :|> > >
| :|> >
| :|>
| :|
| :|
