I listened into the APNIC web/audio casts (nice btw!) of the fee discussions and even though my feelings are not aligned to those of the company I work for, as an individual, I would like to raise concerns that are shared by myself and some IT/networking colleagues.
I'm posting this to both the fees list and the policy list as it has, I think, content for both. Apologies for duplicates.
* This fees process has been going on for five years! You have got to be kidding! There must be something wrong with the policy structure for this to take so long at the risk of causing the governance bodies in the region hardship (ie RIR + NIRs). I've heard and read statements about complexity and complex math to work out costs.. It can't be that hard. simplify it with favour to the member, not the NIR or APNIC!
* I see that the NIRs do a service to their country, and are well suited to dealing with local issues, but while the NIRs ask questions
about the financial needs of APNIC, they don't seem to be offering their budgets up for comment by the whole AP community.
I see the cost associated with maintaining appropriate governance and custodianship of the ip space as the combined costs from each entity in the AP region doing the job.. so the total costs are those from APNIC + JPNIC + KRNIC + APJII(?) + CNNIC + TWNIC + etc.. once you have that figure you can then really work out what is the TRUE cost of managing the IP/IPv6/AS resource for the Asia Pacific. At that point you can then start to consider how to fairly distribute the costs of management to all members equally regardless of the country they operate in.
* Redefining what is a member. Entities involved in the governance administration should not be members, sorry NIRS, you are custodians like APNIC, your votes don't count, nor should you be a proxy,. but your members' do and can. The voting power should be with the member. APNIC
membership should be given directly to the NIR member as a direct result of having resources, making them APNIC members. Naturally a cost is involved, and should be accounted for.
* all members should have equal votes. honestly.. in my opinion 1 member = 1 vote. The idea that just because telstra or optus has a bigger network than I do they are entitled to stronger voting powers by numbers is absurd! A company is just a single legal entity, SINGLE!. The fact that they have a bigger network and more IP addresses just means thy have a bigger network and more ip addresses. nothing else. The cost of servicing those IPs is a cost of business, not an entitlement to create a voting juggernaut. The current system suggests a shareholding approach, not one where everyone are equal stakeholders.
* Once the total figure for IP management by the *IRs has taken place, then divide the total cost by the allocated number of resources ( by some prefix length if you have
to) and then that constitutes the base line for the current costs to be recouped and assigned to each members' resource holding. (yes this means that the NIRs have to front up with the allocation stats on the "NIR-pool", isn't that well overdue anyway?) The fees charged to members is then a indexed value to economic growth and overall costs associated with operating all *IRs in the AP region. This also means that all members pay the same regardless of country they reside in.
Division of these costs to NIRs and APNIC then depends on the _actual_ efforts of the *IRs to manage resources, provide member services, support internet development, and meet SLAs. Yes SLAs - it is well overdue that the NIRs and APNIC provide SLAs and meet or beat them? Earlier in the week, one of the APNIC people did a thing on improving dns service by what I calculate as 600%!! 2hrs to 2 mins.. I also notice that that policy was rejected. See my earlier comments about the effectiveness of
the policy mechanism.
All *IRs need to front up with what their future operational plans are for oversight by the community for their portion of the "pie".. Maybe in addition to the RIR reports there should be NIR financial reports and planning! So really the APNIC Member Meeting becomes an APNIC Stakeholder Meeting.
When it all boils down, every resource holder should be a direct member of APNIC regardless of being serviced through an NIR or not. Thus:
+ Everyone pays the same, regardless of being serviced by NIR or APNIC.
+ Each single member has one equal vote.
+ Each member pays an equal annual membership fee (no tiers!)
+ Each member pays the annual service fees depending on how many resources they use/have.
Will costs increase for members.. certainly. But it will be fair. Fair voting, and fair fees, and it will represent the current economic climate and future climate, if indexed.
If
discounts to least developed countries must exist, then so be it. But only for the membership fee. Everyone needs to pay the same for resources to support the governance process. This is a cost of business and a cost of the internet.
The free netblocks, historical stuff, should be charged! the free ride is over, the holders of these blocks should do the right thing! Contribute to the actual real costs...
I think all the NIRS need to exist, in addition to APNIC, seeing the recent thing in America about the law suit against ARIN, the *IRS should establish a combined legal fund to ensure that any legal action against any *IRs is funded for the survival of the bodies.
Keep in mind "survive", I don't think the AP *IRs need to prosper exactly.. If an NIR is experiencing hardship then a "bailout" package should be created by the other NIRs+APNIC. IF an NIR is in a situation that requires this bailout package then the NIR's operation and costs need to
be investigated.. ie Why housed in an expensive location in the middle of Tokyo? Or having a huge in house data center instead of using tele housed centers? or even having excess telehoused centers! Why does APNIC have one in the USA? and can they share with the NIRs to reduce the OVERALL costs of the *IR service delivery.
This email has been long enough, and I expect it will upset the incumbents with their position of power, but these concerns are valid, and shared. I don't know how widespread the sharing is - but I can only hope more than just in my little part of the region.