I didn't say the EC would not put this proposal for membership voting and I
didn't say "EC believes that this particular policy proposal has no fee
implication". I can't tell you what the decision will be simply because
the EC has not formally discussed it yet. You were not at the NIR SIG
meeting so you didn't know there was heated discussion on this topic and
some EC members did voice out serious concerns then. But I guess you
understand that it is totally inappropriate for EC to stop this kind of
proposal to go through the process. Anyway, I can assure you that the EC
is very very concerned about the overall financials of APNIC and your
comments will be seriously considered when the EC makes decision on it.
Hope that it is clear.
Thanks a lot.
Che-Hoo
Thank you for this clarification, however I am deeply disappointed with
your response. I had thought that it was established practice for the
EC to refer all policy proposals with membership fee implications
to a formal membership vote, and I wonder how the EC believes
that this particular policy proposal has no fee implication, when its
entirely all about membership fees.
In this case I do not see that it is reasonable for the EC to make a
decision on behalf of the entire APNIC member community when it
has obvious financial implications for all APNIC members. Accordingly,
I would like to request that the EC pass this proposed policy to
a formal membership vote, using the online My-APNIC voting
mechanism as well as an on-site vote at the next APNIC members'
meeting. That way all the members of APNIC can express their
preferences on this proposal.
Do other members of APNIC share this perspective of passing this
proposal to a membership vote?
Regards
Stephan Millet
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 19:13, Che-Hoo CHENG wrote:
Dear Stephen,
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@telstra.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.