[sig-nir] Re: [sig-policy] Final call for comments: [prop-028-v001] "Abo
you have addressed the major points of the objection I've raised.
The IPv6 fee for NIRs is proposed to be abolished because
it is "too complicated" . This does not strike me as a sensible
reason to remove the fee.
You call it an "interim solution". When does the new fee schedule
arrive? 2006? 2016? 2026? It seems to me that once the NIRs get
this IPv6 fee waived they have no interest to bring in any new fees
in the future. With the current policy process then all they need
to do is to keep sending their people to APNIC meetings and they
will block any new fee proposal indefinitely.
I have proposed that to stop this form of meeting stacking by the
NIRs that all policy proposals be passed to an online vote by the
entire APNIC membership, and that the EC approval of the policy
proposal is only possible if a majority of the members are in favour.
Regards
Stephan Millet
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:41, MAEMURA Akinori wrote:
> I do agree NIR system might be more complex than not having
> that.
>
> However it is really disappointing for me to hear you say
> like that multiple lauguage and culutural system is too
> complicated and it should be abolished. Thus it sounds
> as a joke no longer because NIRs have made a tremendous
> effort for years to include non-native in-country stakeholders
> into APNIC's policy process.
>
>
> That was a small proposal to propose abolish remaining 10%
> of IPv6 per address fee, where IPv6 PAF contributes 1% of
> APNIC's revenue. NIRs said "to simplify" after they know
> the size of impact. Moreover it is for interim solution
> until we have more appropriate NIR fee structure - NIRs think
> current PAF structure will never fit for larger allocations.
>
>
>
> Anyway, we would be really happy to have on-line discussion
> in order to have the same picture of this issue.
>
> Keep on discussing.
>
>
> Regards,
> -----
> MAEMURA Akinori Director, JPNIC IP Department
> maem at maem dot org , maem at nic dot ad dot jp