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.
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.
The basis of this objection is that it is not reflective of the
position
of the entire membership, but is a self-serving policy that merely
serves
the interests of a small number of National Registries, at the
ultimate
cost of the entire remainder of the membership. If the National
Registries pay less then all the rest of the membership will pay
more. I
see no reason why these small number of privileged members whose
total
contribution to APNIC is less than 10% of the finances can dictate
the
direction of the entire membership organization. The rest of us can't
afford to attend in person these meetings in exotic locations, and
because we can't attend we can't vote against such unfair policy
proposals that serve only the financial interests of national
registries
while the rest of us end up having to pay more.
If I understand the transcript of the members' meeting on Friday the
rational for this proposal is that the Japanese think that the
existing
IPv6 fees are "too complicated". This is complete nonsense! Are they
that
simple-minded that they cannot understand the fee schedule? Does this
"too complicated" excuse set a precedent for the rest of us? If I
think
that the formulae for my organization's membership is "too
complicated"
can I also get my fees waived?
In voicing a strong objection to this policy because it is unfair to
the
rest of the APNIC membership, I would like to propose a change to the
APNIC policy process - namely that _all_ policy proposals be put to
the
entire membership of APNIC with a one member one online vote
mechanism,
and that final approval by the EC be conditional upon a majority of
all
the APNIC members voting in favour of the proposal.
At least this policy proposal will prevent the current meeting
stacking
by NIRs, who then abuse the process by voting themselves fee waivers!
Stephan Millet
* _______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
--
Stephan Millet
Telstra Internet Networking Development
INOC-DBA 1221*247
ph# +61 2 6208 1681
mob# +61 408 058 018
sig-nir mailing list
sig-nir@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
