wg-nir is ready !! ( was Re: NIR fee structure and procedure proposal (fwd) )

[MAEMURA Akinori <maem@maem.org>]

Ooops, I found it hasn't been announced.

wg-nir@lists.apnic.net is now ready for your subscription 
and discussion.  Please join it and get down.


Regards,
-----
MAEMURA Akinori                   JPNIC IP Address Committee



In message <200201221652.EBE17177.BFNN@maem.org>
   "Re: NIR fee structure and procedure proposal (fwd)"
   "MAEMURA Akinori <maem@maem.org>" wrote:

| APNIC Staffs,
| 
|   It's been a long time with no action.  I want to move it
| forward.  Would you proceed to establish a maiing list for
| nir-wg?  Thank you in advance.
| 
| Regards,
| -----
| MAEMURA Akinori               JPNIC IP Address Working Group
| 
| 
| In message <200201081523.DAI12797.BNNF@maem.org>
|    "Re: NIR fee structure and procedure proposal (fwd)"
|    "MAEMURA Akinori <maem@maem.org>" wrote:
| 
| | 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
| | | :|> > > >
| | | :|> > > >
| | | :|> > > >
| | | :|> > > >
| | | :|> > > >
| | | :|> > > >
| | | :|> > >
| | | :|> > >
| | | :|> >
| | | :|>
| | | :|
| | | :|