[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: New draft of NIR criteria document
Arano-san
Thank you for neat summary.
Yes. These are what I would like to point out.
Then, I just raise a question whether we need some sort of rules
to protect NIRs' business at the very beginning so that NIRs can
run their business in sounds and stable in AP region.
Giving NIRs operational exclusivity is just an idea.
Mandating "free-choice" by LIRs as sec.2.5 could lead the instablity
of NIRs membership income. This is the point I worry about.
Of course, if the current operational practice such as the first
suggestion by APNIC to LIRs to go NIR and/or the direct allocation
type of optional scheme are good enough to cover my worry, then
it is totally OK to me not to specify anything additionally with
this opportunity. But I personally think this is a good timing
to do if we do any action, since Anne's proposal is also on the
table at the same time.
Best regards,
Kosuke
"Arano, Takashi" wrote:
>
> Another thing from NIR standpoint is competition in a country.
>
> First, I would like to pose three assumptions here.
>
> 1) NIR operation is more costly than that of APNIC or tends to be so in nature
> because of language overhead and doubled examinations of requests
> (and possibly confederation fee unless they reflect APNIC operation costs).
> 2) NIR allocation process is slower than that of APNIC or tends to be so in
> nature
> because the same reasons as above.
> 3) NIR examinations are more strict than those of APNIC or tends to be so
> in nature
> because they are doubled, if both APNIC and NIR allocate numbers
> seriously and strictly.
>
> #note# Examinations are not always doubled but potentially so, ex. under
> some allocation window size
>
> If they are true, complete non-exclusivity which the current draft
> seem to support does not also make sense.
> It seems simply unfair.
>
> Is this what Kosuke-san want to say?
>
> Regards,
> Takashi Arano
>
> At 00:02 02/08/20, MAEMURA Akinori wrote:
> >Kosuke and Geoff,
> >
> > Thank you for your comments on this draft.
> >
> >
> >In message <3D60DB4B.CF80659D@bugest.net>
> > "Re: New draft of NIR criteria document"
> > "Kosuke Ito <kosuke@bugest.net>" wrote:
> >
> >| Hi, Geoff
> >|
> >| Thank you for taking care of my query, and very sorry for sending
> >| directly to your Director General in too casual manner.
> >|
> >| I understand from the beginning that there is no such a special
> >| intent in this proposal to substitute competition and free trade
> >| for due and proper administrative control over the Internet Numbering
> >| resource.
> >| However, with my personal feeling, if this section is left as is,
> >| it could lead the result of competition between NIRs and APNIC in
> >| natural.
> >
> >I can agree on your idea in terms that LIR's option between
> >APNIC and NIR may bring some competition kind of problem and
> >need adjustment to keep a good balance.
> >
> >
> >| All NIRs like to keep big multi-national ISPs as big clients to keep
> >| their business. But so do APNIC.
> >|
> >
> >Not only a commercial aspect, big ISPs have a good expertise
> >for IP address management to reduce NIRs burden per revenue
> >for Second Opinion Request kind of support.
> >
> >However, I'm not sure whether a regional/global ISP should be
> >member for a certain NIR. It's going to be a funny story
> >like End-user assignment request in Korea is translated in
> >English and forwarded to HQ in Japan, and then translated
> >into Japanese to be submitted to JPNIC. :-)
> >
> >
> >
> >| To keep the current operational scheme with APNIC-NIRs in stable
> >| and sound, I think there need to implement some sort of exclusivity
> >| at NIRs, which gives some level of respect to NIRs' contribution
> >| of taking a part of APNIC operation and to a whole AP regional
> >| operation.
> >|
> >| Regards,
> >|
> >| Kosuke
> >|
> >I recognize the intent of Section 2.5. This document should
> >cover not only countries who has an NIR now but other various
> >countries. Kosuke's point was at least in case of Japan or
> >countries with similar situation may have some troubles like
> >he and I mentioned.
> >
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Akinori
> >|
> >|
> >| Geoff Huston wrote:
> >| >
> >| > Kosuke Ito requested some information from the APNIC Director General on
> >| >
> >| > "Could you clarify more about your intention why you emphasize to give ISPs
> >| > the freedom to choose NIR or APNIC to receive the resources as in Sec.
> >2.5? "
> >| >
> >| > I would like to respond to this request, and in so doing also note that the
> >| > NIR policy document, and indeed all APNIC policy documents are an outcome
> >| > of peer review and the formulation of peer consensus within ourselves as a
> >| > group - its not a case of constantly bouncing a question and answer ball
> >| > between each APNIC Interest Group and the Director General, but instead it
> >| > is a case of attempting to work within ourselves together to understand
> >| > what the best answers may be. So oin that basis I'll offer my perspectives
> >| > on a response to this question.
> >| >
> >| > So here's my take on NIRs and APNIC: the definition of the role of National
> >| > Internet Registries within APNIC is an outcome of a number of issues
> >| > concerning the diversity of national positions with respect to the
> >| > administration of Internet Numbering Resources and, more broadly, Internet
> >| > Service Provider regulatory frameworks across the Asia Pacific region. NIRs
> >| > reflect the desire of some national domains to support a local
> >| > administrative function which operates within the framework of a national
> >| > language, national character set and a local timezone. On the other hand,
> >| > in some environments a national framework appears to offer no particular
> >| > benefit, and in such environments direct access to APNIC services is a
> >| > rational and sound outcome.
> >| >
> >| > This might lead to the view that some countries have NIRS as an exclusive
> >| > numbering resource administrator and some national regimes do not, but even
> >| > that is not sufficient for our region. Within some national environments
> >| > there is a significant level of diversity, where some local entities, and
> >| > some multi-national entities are comfortable in dealing with APNIC
> >| > directly, and prefer to so do, while other local entities see value in
> >| > having a locally operated administrative function.
> >| >
> >| > So, as far as I can tell, there is no intent in this NIR proposal to
> >| > substitute competition and free trade for due and proper administrative
> >| > control over the Internet Numbering resource. There is, however, the intent
> >| > to offer levels of choice to each entity that requires numbering resources
> >| > that accommodates the diversity of national regimes and the diversity of
> >| > the profile of entities and their preferences.
> >| >
> >| > kind regards,
> >| >
> >| > Geoff Huston
> >|
--
**********IPv6 Internet Wonderland!************
Kosuke Ito, Master Planning and Steering Group
IPv6 Promotion Council of Japan
Tel:+81-3-5209-4588 Fax:+81-3-3255-9955
Cell:+81-90-4605-4581
mailto: kosuke@v6pc.jp http://www.v6pc.jp/
Lifetime e-mail: kosuke@stanfordalumni.org
