Dear Geoff and Randy:
The current practice in Policy SIG is, normally fee or financial issue was
not addressed,
although the boundary of policy interests is not clearly defined. However,
it is worthy to
have input from the community to assess the appropriateness of having
proposal with
finanacial implication.
Best Regards
Kenny Huang
huangk at alum dot sinica dot edu
-----Original Message-----
From: sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net
[mailto:sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net] On Behalf Of Geoff Huston
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 11:51 AM
To: Randy Bush
Cc: sig-nir at apnic dot net; sig-policy at apnic dot net
Subject: Re: [sig-nir] Re: [sig-policy] Final call for
comments:[prop-031-v002] "Proposal to amend APNIC IPv6 assignment
andutilisation requirement policy"
I agree with Randy here, and as co-author of the original APNIC proposal,
here's some initial personal thoughts on this topic:
It would make sense to me that when this proposal returns to APNIC in
February that it has an associated proposal relating to membership fees. The
most direct way to do this is to attempt to preserve two components of the
current fee structure, namely that:
1. That the minimum IPv6 allocation would have the same membership fee
as it has at present
and
2. That for holding above the minimum allocation unit, that same number of
'useable' end hosts (i.e. application of the 0.94 HD ratio to the total
holding) attract
the same fee as the same number of useable end hosts would under the current
0.8 HD ratio
Does this appear to be a useful / fair / reasonable / rational starting
point for consideration?
regards,
Geoff
At 09:02 AM 29/09/2005, Randy Bush wrote:
Another interpretation is that nothing has changed in the APNIC
IPv6 fee structure, and that an explicit proposal would need to be
made to propose aligning the IPv6 fee structure with the IPv6
allocation policy in the event that APNIC formally adopts this
proposed IPv6 allocation policy
perhaps, analogous to some folk's suggestions in the nir paf
discussion, the on-going financial fix could be part of this proposal
before it is finalized?
[ american (and general english?) idiom time again: what's
good for the goose is good for the gander ]
randy
* 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
* 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