Re: [sig-nir] Re: [sig-policy] Final call for comments: [prop-028-v001]
Sorry that you should have misunderstood me. As I mentioned in my last
mail, what I was referring to is the long-term new membership fee proposal
to be developed. I was not referring to this particular proposal. In
fact, EC won't make decision/endorsement to this particular proposal until
after hearing all the comments made during the Final Call for Comments
period. So, I can't tell what the final decision will be.
Hope that it is clear now.
Thanks.
Che-Hoo
--- Stephan Millet <stephan at telstra dot net> wrote:
> Izumi,
>
> Thanks for your thoughtful response. I have already noted in response to
> a posting by Che-Hoo that the EC undertaking to pass this proposal for a
> formal vote on-site and online by the APNIC membership does address my
> major
> concern about this process, and I appreciate the EC's undertaking in this
>
> regard.
>
> In continuing the dialogue over the policy proposal, I agree with some of
> the points you are making, but find myself not in a position to agree
> with other parts.
>
> There is no doubt that NIR's have done great work in the Asia Pacific
> region
> to promote and develop Internet usage and sensible addressing policy,
> but
> equally individual ISPs and industry players have also been part of the
> same
> effort and have the same objectives here.
>
> The principal position here is that a "New NIR Fee Structure for IPv6
> allocations" is required. The inherent nature of this proposal is to
> abolish
> the existing per address fee whilst a new fee structure is discussed and
> adopted if at all.
>
> It seems unusual to me that we should eliminate the fee completely, and
> thereby reduce APNIC's income while we discuss a new fee structure. It
> would
> make more sense to develop this fee structure immediately without having
> a
> period where there are no NIR one-off fees for IPv6. Its common
> experience in
> any industry that its far easier to eliminate a fee than it is to
> re-introduce it later. I note that in looking through the documentation
> here
> that the IPv6 fee for NIRs has already been reduced by 90%. I believe
> this is
> an adequate concession whilst a new fee structure is proposed and worked
> on.
>
> Regards
>
> Stephan Millet
>
>
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:55, Izumi Okutani wrote:
> > Hi, I'm Izumi Okutani, and I was the one who made the presentation at
> > the Membership Meeting to explain the consensus decision of the NIR
> SIG.
> >
> > There are a few things I'd like to clarify.
> >
> > If you have an objection against this proposal, fair enough. What you
> > are doing right now is exactly working as a check to prevent a small
> > group of people trying to pass a proposal for their own interests, so I
> > don't really see a problem with the current policy process.
> >
> > In anycase, it wasn't the intention of the NIRs to pass the proposal
> > against the will of the rest of the membership and there are genuine
> > reasons for proposing this change.
> >
> > The concern for complication is not because it is difficult for NIRs to
> > understand, but it would be a source of misunderstanding when they
> > explain this to LIRs under our management. Since paying 10% or 100% fee
> > makes a huge difference, it can be a serious source of dispute between
> > NIRs and NIR members.
> >
> > If NIRs simply tried to bargain the address fee to their advantage and
> > ignore the implications on the rest of the membership, they would have
> > proposed to abolish the per address fee for IPv4, as the amount is much
> > higher than that of IPv6.Abolishing IPv6 per address fee has only
> impact
> > of 0.1% to APNIC's revenue(as 90% discount is implemted now).¡¡
> > Furthermore, this is a provisional solutution, not intended to keep it
> > abolished for good.
> >
> > Note that NIRs are paying the per address fee in addition to the annual
> > membership fee, and in many cases, they are forced to charge the per
> > address fees for their members as well.This can still be acceptable in
> > IPv4 where the commercial service is already spread, but the per
> address
> > fee for IPv6 could be a barrier in starting an experimental service in
> > some of the NIR economies. On the other hand, direct APNIC members
> won't
> > face this problem as they are not charged with per address fee.
> >
> > As you can see from this, the per address fee based fee structure has
> > quite a few issues to be addressed. We have started working at the
> last
> > NIR SIG on the possibe long term revision of the fee structure for NIRs
> > and is expected to move into the direction of creating a new annual
> > membership for NIRs.
> >
> > I'd like to emphasize that NIRs see the fee scheme based on "per
> address
> > fee" as the problem, not the amount of fee itself. I believe they are
> > happy to contribute the same amount of fee as right now, as long as it
> > is based on a clearly explained, stable fee model.
> >
> > I hope this clarifies the background of the proposal. I appreciate that
> > you have openly expressed your view on this, and further feedbacks are
> > welcome ofcourse.
> >
> > Stephan Millet wrote:
> > > I wish to voice my strong objection to this proposed policy.
> > >
> > > The basis of this objection is that it is not reflective of the
> position
> > > of the entire membership, but is a self-serving policy that merely
> serves
> > > the interests of a small number of National Registries, at the
> ultimate
> > > cost of the entire remainder of the membership. If the National
> > > Registries pay less then all the rest of the membership will pay
> more. I
> > > see no reason why these small number of privileged members whose
> total
> > > contribution to APNIC is less than 10% of the finances can dictate
> the
> > > direction of the entire membership organization. The rest of us can't
> > > afford to attend in person these meetings in exotic locations, and
> > > because we can't attend we can't vote against such unfair policy
> > > proposals that serve only the financial interests of national
> registries
> > > while the rest of us end up having to pay more.
> > >
> > > If I understand the transcript of the members' meeting on Friday the
> > > rational for this proposal is that the Japanese think that the
> existing
> > > IPv6 fees are "too complicated". This is complete nonsense! Are they
> that
> > > simple-minded that they cannot understand the fee schedule? Does this
> > > "too complicated" excuse set a precedent for the rest of us? If I
> think
> > > that the formulae for my organization's membership is "too
> complicated"
> > > can I also get my fees waived?
> > >
> > > In voicing a strong objection to this policy because it is unfair to
> the
> > > rest of the APNIC membership, I would like to propose a change to the
> > > APNIC policy process - namely that _all_ policy proposals be put to
> the
> > > entire membership of APNIC with a one member one online vote
> mechanism,
> > > and that final approval by the EC be conditional upon a majority of
> all
> > > the APNIC members voting in favour of the proposal.
> > >
> > > At least this policy proposal will prevent the current meeting
> stacking
> > > by NIRs, who then abuse the process by voting themselves fee waivers!
> > >
> > >
> > > Stephan Millet
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>
> > > * _______________________________________________
> > > sig-policy mailing list
> > > sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> > > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
> --
> Stephan Millet
> Telstra Internet Networking Development
> INOC-DBA 1221*247
> ph# +61 2 6208 1681
> mob# +61 408 058 018
>
> _______________________________________________
> sig-nir mailing list
> sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
>