[sig-policy] Introduction of Proposal at NIR SIG: "Abolishing IPv6per ad
I would like to introduce a proposal at NIR SIG which proposes a
change in the APNIC fee scheme for NIRs.
"Proposal : "Abolishing IPv6 per address fee for NIRs" "
http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-nir/archive/2005/03/msg00002.html
Since its impact on APNIC budget must be considered by APNIC
membership as a whole, comments are very much welcome from non-NIRs
members of the community as well as NIRs.
Please join us in the discussions at "sig-nir-chair at apnic dot net".
You will be able to subscribe or view archives from:
http://www.apnic.net/community/lists/index.html
Best Regards,
Izumi Okutani
NIR SIG Chair
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Draft Proposal Draft Proposal Draft Proposal Draft Proposal Draft Proposal Draft Proposal
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
o Proposal : "Abolishing IPv6 per address fee for NIRs"
This paper proposes that APNIC should not charge per address fee
for IPv6 allocations to NIRs until it is necessary.
o Background
The current APNIC fee scheme for NIRs consist of "Annual Membership Fee"
and "Per Address Fee".
Annual Membership Fee:
Fee charged annually to all APNIC members based on the amount of
address space that member holds. The annual membership fee is
determined by the same method as that of standard APNIC members.
Per Address Fee: (additionally charged to NIRs)
Fee charged to NIRs for every IPv4 and IPv6 allocations made to
NIRs/NIR members. It is calculated with a defined formula which
allocation size set as a variable. Refer to "Sec 3.4 Per-address
fee for confederation member" in APNIC Fee Schedule Document
for more details.
e.g.)
A "very large" member(NIR) pays the following per fee for:
/17 IPv4 allocation $983.04(32,768 x $0.03)
/30 IPv6 allocation $648.57(21,619 x $0.03)
o Reasons
1. Fairness
Fee schedule for NIRs disadvantages NIRs/NIR members compared to
APNIC direct members. NIRs/NIR members are obliged to pay per
address fees for allocations received from APNIC, while APNIC direct
members are not required to pay such fees. It is not desirable to
have different fee conditions between NIRs/NIR member and APNIC direct
members for the same resource.
2. Amount of Fee
In addition to the issue of fairness, the current IPv6 per address
fee scheme leads NIRs/NIR members to pay unexpectedly large amount
of fees. For example, one of the NIRs has paid $63,574 to APNIC
for a /21 IPv6 allocation in year 2004, which is even larger in
amount than the annual membership fee of the NIR(US$40,000). Other
NIRs are also expected to face the same problem under the current
fee scheme, and this is clearly disproportionate not only for
NIRs, but also from APNIC's budget planning perspective.
Therefore, a new reasonable NIR fee scheme should be set up.
3. Deployment of IPv6
Considering the current status of IPv6 address deployment in the
AP region, it will take some time before it will be fully deployed
and commercialized. Most of ISPs in the AP region are not
providing connectivity service with IPv6 addresses at this
stage. Charging per address fee in IPv6 may hinder the deployment
of IPv6 in the region.
4. Situation in other RIRs.
Other RIRs, do not charge IPv6 per address fee. For example,
ARIN's fee schedule for IPv6 is as follows:
"Organizations that are General Members in good standing
prior to requesting an initial IPv6 allocation are not charged
IPv6 registration fees. Annual renewal fees for IPv6 allocations
are also waived for General Members in good standing.
ARIN will continue to waive these fees as long as
the organization remains a General Member in good standing
at the time of renewal, up until Dec. 31, 2006."
LACNIC IPv6 Fee Schedule:
"Currently, and until new LACNIC board decision, organizations
qualifying to receive IPv6 will have the first two years fees
waived. This means, the initial fee and the first annual renewal fee."
o Effect on APNIC
It is speculated that abolishing per address for IPv6 allocations
will not affect APNIC's budget. This is based on studying the past
trend of APNIC budget as below:
Year 2001 % 2002 % 2003 % 2004 %
------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
Member fees 2,472,532 72% 2,871,724 75% 3,409,078 76% 3,510,392 72%
Per Addr v4 523,023 15% 414,301 11% 410,471 9% 569,459 12%
Per Addr v6 4,543 0% 8,232 0% 7,803 0% 65,721 1%
Non-mem fees 37,037 1% 66,105 2% 80,994 2% 27,686 1%
Applic fees 152,401 4% 293,459 8% 351,845 8% 351,188 7%
Other income 245,945 7% 160,667 4% 227,269 5% 363,811 7%
------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
Tota 3,435,482 3,814,488 4,487,461 4,888,257
------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
* APNIC has been running its budget with hardly any revenues from
IPv6 per address fees(approximately 0%) until year 2003. In year
2004, it merely covered approximately 1%(US$65,721) of APNIC's
total budget. This implies that the revenue portion from IPv6 per
address fee is minimal.
o Benefits
- Abolishing per address fee for IPv6 allocations solves
"unfairness" between NIRs and other APNIC members.
- Abolishing per address fee for IPv6 allocations saves NIRs/NIR
members from the burden of paying large amount fees beyond
a reasonable level.
- Abolishing per address fee for IPv6 may prevent APNIC fee scheme
being the barrier of IPv6 deployment in the AP region.
o Disadvantage
- None
* References *
[ARIN IPv6 Fee Schdule]
http://www.arin.net/registration/fee_schedule.html#ipv6_alloc
[LACNIC IPv6 Fee Schdule]
http://lacnic.net/en/registro/table.html
[APNIC Fee Schedule]
http://www.apnic.net/docs/corpdocs/member-fee-schedule.doc
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Draft Proposal Draft Proposal Draft Proposal Draft Proposal Draft Proposal Draft Proposal
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------