[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [hm-staff] Re: [sig-nir] Proposal_Abolishing IPv6 peraddressfee for NIRs
Thank you for the comment, Billy.
Okay, I've just introduced the discussion to the Policy SIG ML as Anne
suggested.
Regards,
Izumi
From: "MH Billy Cheon" <cmh@nic.or.kr>
Subject: Re: [hm-staff] Re: [sig-nir] Proposal_Abolishing IPv6 per addressfee for NIRs
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 13:17:54 +0900
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> sig-nir mailing list
> sig-nir@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
>
>
