[sig-policy] Re: [Wg-apnic-fees] The fees and slowness of policy.
I am impressed with your comprehensive comment.
In message <20060912032725.72764.qmail at web58613.mail.re3 dot yahoo dot com>
"[Wg-apnic-fees] The fees and slowness of policy."
"Jas Webb <jaswbb at yahoo dot com dot au>" wrote:
|
|
| Hi,
|
| 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!
|
Five years ago is just the beginning of revisiting the NIR
fees. You are right it is not yet resolved, but now we have
another aspect of discussion to fix overall fee structure.
The discussion is very different from former one.
| * 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 do think and I think NIRs share this thought that NIR
should make proper finantial contribution.
| 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.
|
Thank you for pointing this out.
Sometimes cost for NIRs are invisible in the discussion
| * 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.
|
I think it is a possible argument to regard NIRs as the
castordian. I will consider this some further to see
how this argument works for. But this is very different
>from current shape - Currently an NIR serves as a registry
to their LIRs and act as member LIRs or their representative
toward APNIC. I cannot yet imagine how things will going.
NIR's members receive the service not from APNIC but from
the NIR under the contract with it. Thus they are concerned
with NIR's policy and business but not with APNIC's, even
though NIR's policy is designed to be consistent with APNIC's
one.
| * 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.
|
I think this is also a possible argument which is totally
differnt from the current shape.
Having larger IP address space means having more Internet
users on their network. More votes for larger space make
sense in this way.
| * 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.
|
A problem would be that the cost of one NIR is dedicated for
the LIRs under that NIR. I think I can disclose JPNIC's
financial figures in a certain degree if you need, but
others than LIRs under JPNIC have nothing to do with that
figures.
| 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 personally totally agree in this point. The cost of IP
resource administration should be shared by all holders.
| 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.
|
I agree. Legal aspect will be more important for the
Internet since it is becoming a social infrastructure,
and legal things need an in-country/economy body.
| 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.
|
Interesting comment. :-) In my case, yes JPNIC is located
in the center of Tokyo, but not in the most expensive area.
Why we are in Tokyo is just the same as many other firms which
are located in Tokyo.
Again, NIRs don't say "we have financial crisis, please
give me discount" but "will pay the proper contribution".
| 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.
|
| Thanks
| - Jas
|
I am not upset :-)
I like the frank discussion, sharing the background and
constructing the finer discussion. I am also one of
those who explore the best design of IP resource
administration.
Regards,
-----
MAEMURA Akinori Director, JPNIC IP Department
maem at maem dot org , maem at nic dot ad dot jp