Re: [sig-nir] Re: [sig-policy] Final call for comments: [prop-031-v002]
I agree with Randy here, and as co-author of the original APNIC proposal,
here's some initial personal thoughts on this topic:
It would make sense to me that when this proposal returns to APNIC in February
that it has an associated proposal relating to membership fees. The most direct
way to do this is to attempt to preserve two components of the current fee
structure, namely that:
1. That the minimum IPv6 allocation would have the same membership fee
as it has at present
and
2. That for holding above the minimum allocation unit, that same number of
'useable' end hosts (i.e. application of the 0.94 HD ratio to the total
holding) attract
the same fee as the same number of useable end hosts would under the
current 0.8 HD ratio
Does this appear to be a useful / fair / reasonable / rational starting point
for consideration?
regards,
Geoff
At 09:02 AM 29/09/2005, Randy Bush wrote:
> Another interpretation is that nothing has changed in the APNIC
> IPv6 fee structure, and that an explicit proposal would need to
> be made to propose aligning the IPv6 fee structure with the IPv6
> allocation policy in the event that APNIC formally adopts this
> proposed IPv6 allocation policy
perhaps, analogous to some folk's suggestions in the nir paf
discussion, the on-going financial fix could be part of this
proposal before it is finalized?
[ american (and general english?) idiom time again: what's
good for the goose is good for the gander ]
randy