Re: [sig-policy] Final call forcomments:[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6 p
> have a very big impact.
if i understand your earlier comment,
>>> If you point out the long-term NIR fee change, it is not a
>>> small amount and PAF no longer fits - for example a *single*
>>> /21 IPv6 allocation introduced us PAF of USD64K where JPNIC's
>>> total annual payment for APNIC was approx USD200K. This is
>>> a huge difference either in case PAF would be born by the LIR
>>> or by the NIR. PAF used to be modest enough to be fit. but
>>> it isn't any longer.
it does! as the proposal would change this, it sure seems to
have what i would consider a large impact.
> The problem is the both for APNIC and NIRs the current PAF
> scheme is difficult to handle - to budget and to make a fee
> schedule for NIR's LIRs.
i did not hear apnic staff say this. and i find it hard to
believe a simple step function is hard for anyone to deal with.
and my mind just does not comprehend this 'complexity' problem
no matter how many times i hear it. i keep thinking, "it's
just a <bleep>ing step function. the real problem is the
amount of money but no one wants to talk straight."
> You can see Paul Wilson's slides at NIR SIG about a possible
> alternative NIR fee schedule.
actually, i saw that as two things,
o trying to discuss a replacement BEFORE removing the current
o paul trying to be more subtle in his methods of discussion
than i am, having to hold up the 'bush' name :-)
> Currently PAF and membership fee from NIRs contribute around
> 10% of APNIC's annual revenue.
hmmm. as the nirs seem to cover most of the biggest internet
economies, jp, kr, tw, ..., i would have expected a much higher
percentage. am i missing ipv4 paf equivalent? but don't
bother to explain; it's just one of my many knowledge gaps and
is not really important to the discussion. if i really cared,
i assume all this is publicly available on the web site.
> Here the basic idea is just collecting the similar level of
> revenue from NIRs with more similar fee structure with
> ordinary membership fee with a step function.
>
> Paul's idea is counting NIR's LIRs, first to calculate as
> if they were all APNIC direct members, then to adjust it to
> have a similar level of fee. In his presentation 40% of
> ordinary fee equals current NIR's annual and PA fees.
>
> JPNIC proposed another before, that was just multiplying
> membership fee to the similar level. JPNIC is an XL with
> USD40K annual, then x5 will equal to our current total
> annual payment.
these all seem good starts. so why not finish and converge on
the new model before removing the old? seems like normal good
business practice to me.
randy