I suppose you've already found that proposal itself doesn't
have a very big impact.
if i understand your earlier comment,
If you point out the long-term NIR fee change, it is not a
small amount and PAF no longer fits - for example a *single*
/21 IPv6 allocation introduced us PAF of USD64K where JPNIC's
total annual payment for APNIC was approx USD200K. This is
a huge difference either in case PAF would be born by the LIR
or by the NIR. PAF used to be modest enough to be fit. but
it isn't any longer.
it does! as the proposal would change this, it sure seems to
have what i would consider a large impact.
The problem is the both for APNIC and NIRs the current PAF
scheme is difficult to handle - to budget and to make a fee
schedule for NIR's LIRs.
i did not hear apnic staff say this. and i find it hard to
believe a simple step function is hard for anyone to deal with.
and my mind just does not comprehend this 'complexity' problem
no matter how many times i hear it. i keep thinking, "it's
just a <bleep>ing step function. the real problem is the
amount of money but no one wants to talk straight."
You can see Paul Wilson's slides at NIR SIG about a possible
alternative NIR fee schedule.
actually, i saw that as two things,
o trying to discuss a replacement BEFORE removing the current
o paul trying to be more subtle in his methods of discussion
than i am, having to hold up the 'bush' name :-)
Currently PAF and membership fee from NIRs contribute around
10% of APNIC's annual revenue.
hmmm. as the nirs seem to cover most of the biggest internet
economies, jp, kr, tw, ..., i would have expected a much higher
percentage. am i missing ipv4 paf equivalent? but don't
bother to explain; it's just one of my many knowledge gaps and
is not really important to the discussion. if i really cared,
i assume all this is publicly available on the web site.
Here the basic idea is just collecting the similar level of
revenue from NIRs with more similar fee structure with
ordinary membership fee with a step function.
Paul's idea is counting NIR's LIRs, first to calculate as
if they were all APNIC direct members, then to adjust it to
have a similar level of fee. In his presentation 40% of
ordinary fee equals current NIR's annual and PA fees.
JPNIC proposed another before, that was just multiplying
membership fee to the similar level. JPNIC is an XL with
USD40K annual, then x5 will equal to our current total
annual payment.
these all seem good starts. so why not finish and converge on
the new model before removing the old? seems like normal good
business practice to me.
randy