- 10 participants
- 15 discussions
Re: [sig-policy] The fees and slowness of policy.
by Randy Bush 15 Sep '06
by Randy Bush 15 Sep '06
15 Sep '06
> So when the votes are distributed as they are now - > the final result is not going to be one of the > community/membership, but a result of the largest > network operators. possibly we should worry less about black helicopters and concentrate our energies on things such as o what are the goals and attributes of a desired fee structure o how do the current structures stack up against those goals and attributes o what could be changed to better meet them o is there a safe change plan with which the membership feels comfortable imiho, a significant reason for lack of change has been that we feel in our little black hearts that the current world works, but could be fragile. so we fear change without confidence in its impact. so we keep walking around the problem poking at it. darn shame there is not a mailing list to discuss this and we have to use this general policy list. </sarcasm> randy
RE: [sig-policy] The fees and slowness of policy.
by Tim Jones 15 Sep '06
by Tim Jones 15 Sep '06
15 Sep '06
>-----Original Message----- >From: sig-policy-bounces(a)lists.apnic.net on behalf of Jas Webb >Sent: Wed 9/13/2006 8:38 PM >To: Kenny Huang >Cc: sig-policy(a)apnic.net; wg-apnic-fees(a)apnic.net >Subject: RE: [sig-policy] The fees and slowness of policy. > > >Kenny, > >I read this message as "to change the game, play the >game" and that is fair, and I guess I had that coming. > >While I accept that the ideal of a bottom up process >is of value, I am sceptical that any real change will >happen as the overriding voting mechanisms are biased >to large operators. Hi Jas, Great discussion you have started, possibly one that is long overdue. In regards to voting though, I am pretty certain (can't find the info on APNIC website to confirm) that the extra votes for Large, Extra Large members etc. only come into play for things like elections of EC members. When it comes to voting on policy changes, every member gets one vote, so you can definitely make a change. A helpful APNIC staff member may want to confirm/deny this though:) Cheers, Tim.
The fees and slowness of policy.
by Jas Webb 13 Sep '06
by Jas Webb 13 Sep '06
13 Sep '06
Hi, I listened into the APNIC web/audio casts (nice btw!) of the fee discussions and even though my feelings are not aligned to those of the company I work for, as an individual, I would like to raise concerns that are shared by myself and some IT/networking colleagues. I'm posting this to both the fees list and the policy list as it has, I think, content for both. Apologies for duplicates. * This fees process has been going on for five years! You have got to be kidding! There must be something wrong with the policy structure for this to take so long at the risk of causing the governance bodies in the region hardship (ie RIR + NIRs). I've heard and read statements about complexity and complex math to work out costs.. It can't be that hard. simplify it with favour to the member, not the NIR or APNIC! * I see that the NIRs do a service to their country, and are well suited to dealing with local issues, but while the NIRs ask questions about the financial needs of APNIC, they don't seem to be offering their budgets up for comment by the whole AP community. I see the cost associated with maintaining appropriate governance and custodianship of the ip space as the combined costs from each entity in the AP region doing the job.. so the total costs are those from APNIC + JPNIC + KRNIC + APJII(?) + CNNIC + TWNIC + etc.. once you have that figure you can then really work out what is the TRUE cost of managing the IP/IPv6/AS resource for the Asia Pacific. At that point you can then start to consider how to fairly distribute the costs of management to all members equally regardless of the country they operate in. * Redefining what is a member. Entities involved in the governance administration should not be members, sorry NIRS, you are custodians like APNIC, your votes don't count, nor should you be a proxy,. but your members' do and can. The voting power should be with the member. APNIC membership should be given directly to the NIR member as a direct result of having resources, making them APNIC members. Naturally a cost is involved, and should be accounted for. * all members should have equal votes. honestly.. in my opinion 1 member = 1 vote. The idea that just because telstra or optus has a bigger network than I do they are entitled to stronger voting powers by numbers is absurd! A company is just a single legal entity, SINGLE!. The fact that they have a bigger network and more IP addresses just means thy have a bigger network and more ip addresses. nothing else. The cost of servicing those IPs is a cost of business, not an entitlement to create a voting juggernaut. The current system suggests a shareholding approach, not one where everyone are equal stakeholders. * Once the total figure for IP management by the *IRs has taken place, then divide the total cost by the allocated number of resources ( by some prefix length if you have to) and then that constitutes the base line for the current costs to be recouped and assigned to each members' resource holding. (yes this means that the NIRs have to front up with the allocation stats on the "NIR-pool", isn't that well overdue anyway?) The fees charged to members is then a indexed value to economic growth and overall costs associated with operating all *IRs in the AP region. This also means that all members pay the same regardless of country they reside in. Division of these costs to NIRs and APNIC then depends on the _actual_ efforts of the *IRs to manage resources, provide member services, support internet development, and meet SLAs. Yes SLAs - it is well overdue that the NIRs and APNIC provide SLAs and meet or beat them? Earlier in the week, one of the APNIC people did a thing on improving dns service by what I calculate as 600%!! 2hrs to 2 mins.. I also notice that that policy was rejected. See my earlier comments about the effectiveness of the policy mechanism. All *IRs need to front up with what their future operational plans are for oversight by the community for their portion of the "pie".. Maybe in addition to the RIR reports there should be NIR financial reports and planning! So really the APNIC Member Meeting becomes an APNIC Stakeholder Meeting. When it all boils down, every resource holder should be a direct member of APNIC regardless of being serviced through an NIR or not. Thus: + Everyone pays the same, regardless of being serviced by NIR or APNIC. + Each single member has one equal vote. + Each member pays an equal annual membership fee (no tiers!) + Each member pays the annual service fees depending on how many resources they use/have. Will costs increase for members.. certainly. But it will be fair. Fair voting, and fair fees, and it will represent the current economic climate and future climate, if indexed. If discounts to least developed countries must exist, then so be it. But only for the membership fee. Everyone needs to pay the same for resources to support the governance process. This is a cost of business and a cost of the internet. The free netblocks, historical stuff, should be charged! the free ride is over, the holders of these blocks should do the right thing! Contribute to the actual real costs... I think all the NIRS need to exist, in addition to APNIC, seeing the recent thing in America about the law suit against ARIN, the *IRS should establish a combined legal fund to ensure that any legal action against any *IRs is funded for the survival of the bodies. Keep in mind "survive", I don't think the AP *IRs need to prosper exactly.. If an NIR is experiencing hardship then a "bailout" package should be created by the other NIRs+APNIC. IF an NIR is in a situation that requires this bailout package then the NIR's operation and costs need to be investigated.. ie Why housed in an expensive location in the middle of Tokyo? Or having a huge in house data center instead of using tele housed centers? or even having excess telehoused centers! Why does APNIC have one in the USA? and can they share with the NIRs to reduce the OVERALL costs of the *IR service delivery. This email has been long enough, and I expect it will upset the incumbents with their position of power, but these concerns are valid, and shared. I don't know how widespread the sharing is - but I can only hope more than just in my little part of the region. Thanks - Jas -- Jas Webb --------------------------------- On Yahoo!7 360°: Your blog, photos, interests, and what matters to you
APNIG 22 Policy SIG report
by Kenny Huang 12 Sep '06
by Kenny Huang 12 Sep '06
12 Sep '06
Dear SIG members, Here's the chair's summary report of the last Policy SIG held during APNIC 22 last week. The Policy SIG had three sessions with 90 people attending the SIG in room. The jabber chat had 17 participants online. Open action items from APNIC21 include: 1 pol-21-001 Chair to move the discussion of the HD-ratio for IPv4 networks proposal (prop-020-v001) to the mailing list for a further month to seek consensus and make a decision. 2 pol-21-002 Pending approval at each remaining stage of the policy proposal process, APNIC Secretariat to implement the proposal establishing a transition timeline for assigning 4-byte AS numbers (prop-032-v002) Eight policy proposals were discussed. The following proposals reached consensus and were subsequently approved at the APNIC Member Meeting. These proposals are now subject to a "last call" for comments: prop-033-v001: End site assignment policy for IPv6 prop-035-v002: IPv6 portable assignment for multihoming prop-038-v001: Modified lame DNS policy proposal prop-041-v001: IPv6 assignment size to critical infrastructure The following proposal reached partial consensus. Consensus elements of this proposal were approved at the APNIC Member Meeting and are now subject to a "last call" for comments. prop-039-v001: A proposal to improve reachability of new IANA blocks The following proposals did not reach consensus: prop-034-v001: IPv6 portable assignment for end user organisations prop-036-v001: Proposal to allow end sites to receive IPv6 allocations prop-037-v001: Deprecation of email updates for APNIC Registry and whois data - A working group will be created to further discuss the issues raised in prop-037-v001. Shin Yamasaki volunteered to chair the working group Four informational presentations were made, include Comment from JP on end site allocation policy for IPv6 prop-033-v-001 (Izumi Okutani) IP policy update - Comparative status in all RIR regions (Save Vocea ) Large Space IPv4 Trial Usage Program for Future IPv6 Deployment activities update vol.11 (Takashi Nakamura) Experimental assignment for four-byte AS Numbers (Akinori Maemura) For more information, please see: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals All presentation material "and transcripts" are available in http://www.apnic.net/meetings/22/program/sigs/policy.html Final minutes of this Policy SIG will be available soon. Best Regards Kenny Huang, Toshiyuki Hosaka, Eugene li Chair/Co-chair Policy SIG
Policy Proposal for End Site allocation policy for IPv6
by Geoff Huston 05 Sep '06
by Geoff Huston 05 Sep '06
05 Sep '06
Submitters Names: Randy Bush, IIJ, Geoff Huston, APNIC SIG: Policy Title: End Site Allocation policy for IPv6 Introduction: This policy proposal proposes to amend the APNIC IPv6 address allocation policies regarding the definition of the default size of End Site assignments, and specify the calculation of address utilization efficiency relating to subsequent allocation criteria. Rationale: The current IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy (APNIC-089) indicates that end sites should be allocated a /48 as a uniform allocation states unit. This proposal alters the existing policy regarding LIR and ISP assignments to End Sites to allow the unit of assignment to be an LIR or ISP decision. In assessing the address utilization efficiency for ISPs or LIRs, the definition of an End Site for the purposes of the calculation of ISP or LIR End Site allocation efficiency is to be made according to a /56 size. For the purpose of evaluating LIR and End Site IPv6 IP address allocation efficiency using the HD ratio, the starting bit position used in the calculation is to be bit position 56. This measure, if undertaken generally by all RIRs, and assuming that further measures are undertaken by the addressing community regarding the HD ratio to a larger value, would increase the anticipated useful lifetime of IPv6 to encompass a period in excess of 100 years during which period no further allocation policy changes would be anticipated to encompass a relatively encompassing diversity of future IPv6 deployment scenarios. A more detailed rationale is available in Geoff Huston's presentation on the subject, at RIPE 50, which can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-50/presentations/ripe50-plenary-wed-… Situation in other RIRs: A comparable policy proposal as been submitted to RIPE and ARIN Details: End User Allocations: End Users are assigned an End Site assignment from their LIR or ISP. The size of the assignment is a local decision for the LIR or ISP to make, using a minimum value of a /64 (only one subnet is anticipated for the End Site). ISPs and LIRs: ISPs and LIRs may chose whether to make changes to their procedures for assigning address blocks to End Sites. The threshold End Site allocation efficiency level is between 20% to 50% for most ISPs and LIRs when based on a 0.94 HD Ratio. APNIC: APNIC will amend its IPv6 allocation criteria to reflect the use of an HD ratio with the size calculation starting at bit position 56 as the unitary metric in the calculation of the ISP or LIR's end site allocation efficiency. Appendix - References This material is not formally part of the Policy Proposal. It is included here for informational purposes. 1. The IPv6 Address Plan - Geoff Huston http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2005-07/ipv6size.html 2. Internet Draft: Issues Related to the Management of IPv6 Address Space - Thomas Narten http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ipv6/draft-narten-iana-rir-ipv6-considerations-00.… 3. Internet Draft: IPv6 Address Allocation to End Sites - Thomas Narten, Geoff Huston & Lea Roberts http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-00…