[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re: [sig-policy] Final call forcomments:[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6per
I am Tao Chen from CNNIC.
I support the proposal.Hope it can assist NIR member to apply big IPv6 block without extra financial burden and I believe it will help IPv6 network deployment in China.
Tao Chen
CNNIC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Izumi Okutani" <izumi@nic.ad.jp>
To: <sig-policy@apnic.net>
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 4:54 PM
Subject: (????睫?-???????????????????)Re: [sig-policy] Final call forcomments:[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6per address fee for NIRs"
> The mailing list is very quiet now, but I'm interesed to hear opinions
> again on how people feel about this proposal after some discussions.
>
> a) against the proposal
> b) support the proposal
> c) doesn't mind either way
> d) other opinion
>
> If possible, it would also help if you could also explain the reason for
> your position. Thanks!
>
> Izumi
>
> Izumi Okutani wrote:
>> Thank you for your input. If the rest of the community feels more
>> comfortable that way, well, why not.
>>
>> All I wanted to do is to make sure people understand the situation
>> properly, so I'll leave it upto the indivisual members of the
>> community(including the NIRs) to comment on how they feel about it.
>>
>>
>> Izumi
>>
>> ram@princess1.net wrote:
>>
>>>Dear Izumi,
>>>
>>>Thank you for your answers. Don't worry about the last questions.
>>>I am getting a better picture now.
>>>
>>>My suggestion is:
>>>-Follow the old structure for the time being.
>>>
>>>-Make this case a special policy case where proposal about
>>>new fee structure can take place as an add-on to the existing proposal.
>>>(I believe in exception for IPv6 especially for the leading pioneers.)
>>>
>>>-If possible conclusion can be reached make it a new policy, if can be
>>>implemented immediately then do it, else put for final voting in the next
>>>APNIC meeting What do you think? Is next APNIC meeting too long to wait?
>>>
>>>I think it'll be difficult to come out with a conclusion that is both
>>>practically and politically correct. So if possible, keep more of the
>>>the practical side in mind.
>>>
>>>-ram
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Izumi Okutani [mailto:izumi@nic.ad.jp]
>>>Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 4:27 PM
>>>To: ram@princess1.net
>>>Cc: sig-policy@apnic.net
>>>Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Final call
>>>forcomments:[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6per address fee for NIRs"
>>>
>>>Hi Ram,
>>>
>>>
>>>Thanks for your questions and your efforts in trying to understand the
>>>issue.
>>>
>>>ram@princess1.net wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hello,
>>>>
>>>>I think both sides have different perspectives on the issue. I am
>>>>not getting the full picture of the issue at the moment.
>>>>
>>>>I understand the per-address-fee for ipv6 that is applied to NIRs
>>>>(actually it is not a per-address-fee but a per block fee of the
>>>>allocation to the end-user).
>>>>
>>>>My questions are:
>>>>
>>>>1) Is the complexity really a problem? Problem in which aspect? Financial
>>>>projection?
>>>
>>>Complexity is a problem because it causes confusion over how much they
>>>would be charged when LIRs under NIRs make an IPv6 allocation request.
>>>
>>>As you can see from my AMM slide, there are so many patterns and
>>>calcutations for charges that it could be an easy source of confusion
>>>and dispute amonng NIRs and its members.
>>>
>>>file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/izumi/Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Int
>>>ernet%20Files/Content.IE5/4TCDUP4X/268,14,Example
>>>of IPv6 per address fee based on EC decision
>>>
>>>There are also other issues such as fairness. For example, for a /21
>>>allocation, NIRs/NIR members must pay per address fee of US$95,360 in
>>>addition to the annual membership fee, and US$9,536 even after the 90%
>>>discount. On the other hand, directly APNIC members are charged no fee
>>>for their IPv6 allocations. This could disadvantage the NIR economies in
>>>IPv6 deployment compared to the other economies.
>>>
>>>As you can see from this, the proposal basically intends to put NIR
>>>members(LIRs under NIRs) to be in the equal condition as direct APNIC
>>>members in IPv6 allocations, rather than giving them an extra advantage.
>>>
>>>I suppose it really is a balance between the size of the problem and the
>>>impact on the whole membership. In this case, the financial impact on
>>>APNIC is 0.1%.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>2) How bad of a short-term problem is it for NIR operations compared to
>>>
>>>the
>>>
>>>
>>>>other NIR activities? (rate 1-10 1-not really a problem 10-a very bad
>>>>problem)
>>>>
>>>>3) How bad of a long-term problem is it for NIR operations compared to
>>>
>>>other
>>>
>>>
>>>>NIR activities (rate 1-10 1-not really a problem 10-a very bad problem)?
>>>
>>>I would skip the ratings as it would be quite subjective.
>>>The concern is more for the NIR members(about 500 organizations in
>>>total) rather than the NIRs themselves. The reasons are explained above.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>4) Apart from the proposed solutions are there any other solutions to this
>>>
>>>
>>>>problem?
>>>
>>>My suggestions would be;
>>>
>>>Perhaps set a gurantee that APNIC can charge back the per address fee,
>>>such as require the EC/members to revise every two years, if the concern
>>>is that the fee would be abolished for good and there will be a
>>>long-term financial impact on APNIC.
>>>
>>>Setting a flat 90% discount of fee would solve the complexity problem,
>>>although it doesn't solve the issue of unfairness.
>>>
>>>There has also been a suggestion to postpone this proposal until the
>>>fundamental revision of the NIR fee structure would be implemented. I
>>>would support this idea if the proposal has a big financial impact of
>>>the rest of APNIC membership, but as already explained, the impact on
>>>APNIC revenue is 0.1%.
>>>
>>>Any other suggesions are welcome too.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>5) What is the best solution? Why you think it is the best one? What would
>>>
>>>
>>>>be the short-term and long-term impact for this solution?
>>>
>>>I don't know if it's the best solution, but what has been proposed at
>>>AMM solves the problem without any impact on APNIC membership fee nor
>>>APNIC's finance.
>>>
>>>I believe there is no short-term impact. The long term impact may be
>>>that it may cause some financial problem for APNIC when IPv6 would be
>>>the major source of income for APNIC. However, the proposal is intended
>>>to keep it abolished for a short-term and a possible solution to this is
>>>suggested in 4).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>6) Could the solution be altered to accommodate both short-term and long-
>>>>term impact before this 8weeks period ends?
>>>
>>>Yes, if there are any other suggestions, I'm sure NIRs would be happy to
>>>consider it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>7) What would be the impact of the altered solution (impact to APNIC,
>>>
>>>impact
>>>
>>>
>>>>to the rest of the community, impact of growth on IPv6 allocations by NIR,
>>>
>>>
>>>>other impacts)?
>>>
>>>Sorry, I didn't quite understand this. Would you clarify for me a little
>>>bit more?
>>>
>>>Please let me know if there is anthing you would like to clarify, and
>>>thanks once again for your questions.
>>>
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Izumi
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I like the ipv6 initiatives, but again we are in a community.
>>>>
>>>>Regards,
>>>>-ram
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>>>
>>>*
>>>
>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>sig-policy mailing list
>>>>sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>>>>http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>sig-policy mailing list
>>>sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>>>http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
>> _______________________________________________
>> sig-policy mailing list
>> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>>
>
>
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
