[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Wg-apnic-fees] Counterproposal of new membership fee structure for APNIC
Dear Philip,
Thank you very much for your prompt response, too.
I have commented in line.
Philip Smith wrote
on 2006/09/04 21:05;
Dear Hosaka-san, everyone,
So NIRs pay less and ordinary members pay more under the JPNIC counter
proposal?
For some reason, I don't see that one being too popular with many members.
Note that NIRs are not the only organisations who support and sponsor
APNIC meetings. Can those other organisations get preferential treatment
for their fees too please?
As I responded to Tsurumaki-san's comments, you are very right.
Thanks for your comment and sorry again for the other organizations who
contributed as a sponsor. So please let me withdraw that part.
Seriously though, both proposal and counter proposal link fee size with
address space, implying a payment for address space received. And that
disturbs me if the current model is meant to be one of APNIC being the
custodian of Internet Resources. Shouldn't members be paying fees for
allocation services supplied by APNIC? As with the Internet Routing
table, it's not the size of the prefix that matters, it's the number,
and what is done with them.
So how about simply setting the fees according to the number of /21s
handed out (which happens once per /21), plus an allocation maintenance
fee (which is annual, ongoing, and charged per allocation and not on the
size).
That could be an option. I'm interesting in how much each member pays
according to this idea.
Furthermore, I've seen no discussion whatsoever about balancing fees
according to the host economy's GDP. The AP region is diverse, ranging
from developing Internet to technological leaders, with GDPs to match.
That may be fair on one hand, but it may lead to "membership-fee haven"
(something like "tax-haven") as well.
I think any revised APNIC fee structure has to recognise that some parts
of the APNIC region can easily afford the fees as they are today, and as
are proposed through either proposal, yet many other parts simply cannot
even though they require the address space (and result in the severe
brokeness of using NAT and double NAT to attempt to provide connection
services to their customers).
I'm sure we can revisit all this on Thursday! ;-)
Your comment implies we definitely need much more discussion before
final decision! I myself do not stick to my proposal and want to hear
what the other think. That's what I would like to do.
Thanks again for your comments.
Besr regards,
Toshi
--
Toshiyuki Hosaka
JPNIC
philip
--
Toshiyuki Hosaka said the following on 4/9/06 19:58:
Dear WG members,
I have created a counterproposal of APNIC new membership fee structure
and attached in this email. I hope this helps to facilitate a discussion
on this issue.
Your comments would be highly appreciated.
thanks and best regards,
Toshi
--
Toshiyuki Hosaka
Japan Network Information Center (JPNIC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Wg-apnic-fees mailing list
Wg-apnic-fees@apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/wg-apnic-fees
