[sig-nir] Re: [sig-policy] Final call for comments: [prop-028-v001] "Abo
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: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>