Re: [sig-nir] Re: VNNIC's Position about IPv6 Fee Abolishing Proposal
Any comments or questions on this?
Izumi
Paul Wilson wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Firstly, let's be clear that the discount applies to fees for the
> allocation of IPv6 address space to existing IPv4 infrastructure. It
> does not apply to allocations of IPv6 space to new networks, nor to
> subsequent allocations of IPv6 space to networks that have already
> transitioned to IPv6. I hope that this is clear in all documentation
> related to this policy, including the revised fee structure that was
> recently published.
>
> The rationale for this discount is that the allocation of IPv6 to
> existing IPv4 infrastructure is intended to be a lightweight process,
> relying on the fact that the network infrastructure has already been
> assessed and IPv4 address space allocated. In other words the "work"
> has been done already in the previous IPv4 application, and it is not
> justified to charge the same fees for an allocation of (IPv6) addresses
> to that same infrastructure.
>
> The APNIC EC did initially discuss a 100% fee discount for these cases,
> but felt on consideration that since some administrative activities are
> involved in making these allocations, some fee payment is justified.
>
> I hope that this explanation helps, but please let me know if any other
> issues are not clear.
>
> Best regards, and I look forward to seeing you all in Hanoi,
>
> Paul.
>
> --On Wednesday, 20 July 2005 2:13 PM +0900 Izumi Okutani
> <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp> wrote:
>
>> Thanks to NIRs for expressing your comments. I think we should keep this
>> proposal("prop-028-v001:Abolishing IPv6 per address fee for NIRs")
>> active as most NIRs wish to continue discussions on this issue.
>>
>> Now that APNIC has implemented the 90% discount on the per address fee,
>> I believe the situation has changed since it was initially proposed.
>> Just to start off the discussions, I would like to ask some questions to
>> both NIRs and APNIC.
>>
>> It seems that 90% is almost as good as free, so would someone from the
>> NIRs share with us why you wish the per address fee to be totally
>> abolished instead of the discount?
>>
>> I'd also like to ask the reverse question to APNIC. Was there any reason
>> why APNIC has made the decision to provide the discount instead of
>> totally abolishing the fee as proposed by the NIRs? It would also be
>> helpful if APNIC could explain the logic behind the fee change so that
>> we can compare it with what has been proposed by the NIRs.
>>
>> Any other imputs from non-NIRs/APNIC are also very welcome. Any thoughts
>> on the APNIC fee change or NIR proposal?
>>
>>
>> Izumi
>>
>> Phan Thi Nhung wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Billy,
>>> I'm sorry for the delay answer. After talking within VNNIC Hostmaster
>>> Team, we agree to keep this proposal active and discuss at the NIR SIG
>>> at the APNIC 20. See you all in Ha Noi.
>>> Regards.
>>> Nhung.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sig-nir mailing list
>> sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net
>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg at apnic dot net>
> http://www.apnic.net ph/fx +61 7 3858 3100/99
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> See you at APNIC 20! Hanoi, Vietnam, 6-9 Sep 2005
> http://www.apnic.net/meetings
>
>