[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [hm-staff] Re: [sig-nir] Proposal_Abolishing IPv6 per addressfeefor NIRs
Dear NIR Sig chair,
Thanks for leading discussion on the M/L.
We, NIDA had an internal discussion and reached a consensus to support the proposal
"Abolishing IPv6 per address fee for NIRs".
At this stage, it looks like most of NIRs reached a consensus on the proposal.
And also, as Anne pointed out, we need to post the proposal on the Policy SIG ML
to invite comments from non-NIR people.
Best regards
Billy
> Dear Anne,
>
>
> Thank you for the recommendation. It's a good suggestion to post the
> proposal on the Policy SIG ML as I believe that are not many non-NIR
> people subscribed to this list.
>
> May I clarify that this is to introduce and encourage people to join
> the discussions at NIR SIG and not to move the discussions to the
> Policy SIG? I understand that it requires approval at AMM after
> consensus at NIR SIG.
>
>
> Regards,
> Izumi
>
> From: Anne Lord <anne@apnic.net>
> Subject: Re: [hm-staff] Re: [sig-nir] Proposal_Abolishing IPv6 per address fee for NIRs
> Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 11:05:42 +1000
>
>>
>> Dear Billy,
>>
>> Thank you for your proposal. The Secretariat will take a look at the
>> proposal and will provide some feedback.
>>
>> Following on from Izumi's point there you may wish to consider posting this
>> proposal to the "sig-policy" mailing list. I would strongly recommend you
>> do this, so that you gather input from APNIC members and other
>> stakeholders, since this proposal will need to go through both the policy
>> process and be voted on by APNIC members at a members meeting.
>>
>> regards
>> Anne
>> --
>>
>>
>> At 04:59 PM 28/03/2005, Izumi Okutani wrote:
>> >Dear Billy,
>> >
>> >
>> >Thank you for submitting a proposal on a revision of the fee scheme
>> >for NIRs.
>> >
>> >This issue will concern APNIC membership as a whole, so comments are
>> >welcome from NIRs as well as from other APNIC members and the APNIC
>> >secretariat.
>> >
>> >
>> >Regards,
>> >Izumi
>> >NIR SIG Chair
>> >
>> >From: "MH Billy Cheon" <cmh@nic.or.kr>
>> >Subject: [sig-nir] Proposal_Abolishing IPv6 per address fee for NIRs
>> >Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 15:44:49 +0900
>> >
>> > > Dear All,
>> > >
>> > > Please ignore the previous mail. I think I made a mistake.
>> > > This is the final version.
>> > >
>> > > Sorry for causing confusion :-)
>> > >
>> > > Billy
>> > >
>> > >
>> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > Draft Proposal Draft Proposal Draft Proposal Draft
>> > Proposal Draft Proposal Draft Proposal
>> > >
>> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >
>> > > o Proposal : "Abolishing IPv6 per address fee for NIRs"
>> > >
>> > > This paper proposes that APNIC should not charge per address fee
>> > > for IPv6 allocations to NIRs until it is necessary.
>> > >
>> > > o Background
>> > >
>> > > The current APNIC fee scheme for NIRs consist of "Annual Membership
>> > Fee"
>> > > and "Per Address Fee".
>> > >
>> > > Annual Membership Fee:
>> > > Fee charged annually to all APNIC members based on the amount of
>> > > address space that member holds. The annual membership fee is
>> > > determined by the same method as that of standard APNIC members.
>> > >
>> > > Per Address Fee: (additionally charged to NIRs)
>> > > Fee charged to NIRs for every IPv4 and IPv6 allocations made to
>> > > NIRs/NIR members. It is calculated with a defined formula which
>> > > allocation size set as a variable. Refer to "Sec 3.4 Per-address
>> > > fee for confederation member" in APNIC Fee Schedule Document
>> > > for more details.
>> > >
>> > > e.g.)
>> > > A "very large" member(NIR) pays the following per fee for:
>> > >
>> > > /17 IPv4 allocation $983.04(32,768 x $0.03)
>> > > /30 IPv6 allocation $648.57(21,619 x $0.03)
>> > >
>> > > o Reasons
>> > >
>> > > 1. Fairness
>> > > Fee schedule for NIRs disadvantages NIRs/NIR members compared to
>> > > APNIC direct members. NIRs/NIR members are obliged to pay per
>> > > address fees for allocations received from APNIC, while APNIC direct
>> > > members are not required to pay such fees. It is not desirable to
>> > > have different fee conditions between NIRs/NIR member and APNIC
>> > direct
>> > > members for the same resource.
>> > >
>> > > 2. Amount of Fee
>> > > In addition to the issue of fairness, the current IPv6 per address
>> > > fee scheme leads NIRs/NIR members to pay unexpectedly large amount
>> > > of fees. For example, one of the NIRs has paid $63,574 to APNIC
>> > > for a /21 IPv6 allocation in year 2004, which is even larger in
>> > > amount than the annual membership fee of the NIR(US$40,000). Other
>> > > NIRs are also expected to face the same problem under the current
>> > > fee scheme, and this is clearly disproportionate not only for
>> > > NIRs, but also from APNIC's budget planning perspective.
>> > > Therefore, a new reasonable NIR fee scheme should be set up.
>> > >
>> > > 3. Deployment of IPv6
>> > > Considering the current status of IPv6 address deployment in the
>> > > AP region, it will take some time before it will be fully deployed
>> > > and commercialized. Most of ISPs in the AP region are not
>> > > providing connectivity service with IPv6 addresses at this
>> > > stage. Charging per address fee in IPv6 may hinder the deployment
>> > > of IPv6 in the region.
>> > >
>> > > 4. Situation in other RIRs.
>> > > Other RIRs, do not charge IPv6 per address fee. For example,
>> > >
>> > > ARIN's fee schedule for IPv6 is as follows:
>> > >
>> > > "Organizations that are General Members in good standing
>> > > prior to requesting an initial IPv6 allocation are not charged
>> > > IPv6 registration fees. Annual renewal fees for IPv6 allocations
>> > > are also waived for General Members in good standing.
>> > > ARIN will continue to waive these fees as long as
>> > > the organization remains a General Member in good standing
>> > > at the time of renewal, up until Dec. 31, 2006."
>> > >
>> > > LACNIC IPv6 Fee Schedule:
>> > >
>> > > "Currently, and until new LACNIC board decision, organizations
>> > > qualifying to receive IPv6 will have the first two years fees
>> > > waived. This means, the initial fee and the first annual renewal
>> > fee."
>> > >
>> > > o Effect on APNIC
>> > >
>> > > It is speculated that abolishing per address for IPv6 allocations
>> > > will not affect APNIC's budget. This is based on studying the past
>> > > trend of APNIC budget as below:
>> > >
>> > > Year 2001 % 2002 %
>> > 2003 % 2004 %
>> > > ------------- --------------
>> > -------------- --------------
>> > > Member fees 2,472,532 72% 2,871,724 75% 3,409,078
>> > 76% 3,510,392 72%
>> > > Per Addr v4 523,023 15% 414,301
>> > 11% 410,471 9% 569,459 12%
>> > > Per Addr
>> > v6 4,543 0% 8,232 0% 7,803 0%
>> > 65,721 1%
>> > > Non-mem
>> > fees 37,037 1% 66,105 2% 80,994 2%
>> > 27,686 1%
>> > > Applic
>> > fees 152,401 4% 293,459 8% 351,845 8%
>> > 351,188 7%
>> > > Other
>> > income 245,945 7% 160,667 4% 227,269 5%
>> > 363,811 7%
>> > > ------------- --------------
>> > -------------- --------------
>> > > Tota 3,435,482 3,814,488
>> > 4,487,461 4,888,257
>> > > ------------- --------------
>> > -------------- --------------
>> > >
>> > > * APNIC has been running its budget with hardly any revenues from
>> > > IPv6 per address fees(approximately 0%) until year 2003. In year
>> > > 2004, it merely covered approximately 1%(US$65,721) of APNIC's
>> > > total budget. This implies that the revenue portion from IPv6 per
>> > > address fee is minimal.
>> > >
>> > > o Benefits
>> > >
>> > > - Abolishing per address fee for IPv6 allocations solves
>> > > "unfairness" between NIRs and other APNIC members.
>> > >
>> > > - Abolishing per address fee for IPv6 allocations saves NIRs/NIR
>> > > members from the burden of paying large amount fees beyond
>> > > a reasonable level.
>> > >
>> > > - Abolishing per address fee for IPv6 may prevent APNIC fee scheme
>> > > being the barrier of IPv6 deployment in the AP region.
>> > >
>> > > o Disadvantage
>> > >
>> > > - None
>> > >
>> > > * References *
>> > >
>> > > [ARIN IPv6 Fee Schdule]
>> > > http://www.arin.net/registration/fee_schedule.html#ipv6_alloc
>> > >
>> > > [LACNIC IPv6 Fee Schdule]
>> > > http://lacnic.net/en/registro/table.html
>> > >
>> > > [APNIC Fee Schedule]
>> > > http://www.apnic.net/docs/corpdocs/member-fee-schedule.doc
>> > >
>> > >
>> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > Draft Proposal Draft Proposal Draft Proposal Draft
>> > Proposal Draft Proposal Draft Proposal
>> > >
>> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >sig-nir mailing list
>> >sig-nir@lists.apnic.net
>> >http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >Hostmaster-staff mailing list
>> >Hostmaster-staff@apnic.net
>> >http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/hostmaster-staff
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sig-nir mailing list
>> sig-nir@lists.apnic.net
>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sig-nir mailing list
> sig-nir@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
