[sig-policy] Re: [Wg-apnic-fees] The fees and slowness of policy.
> Hi Jas,
>
> I am impressed with your comprehensive comment.
Thanks, and I certainly appreciate the calm
response. I actually expected something far from
that.
> 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.
o.k. accepted, the original discussion has evolved.
Obviously I wasn't following the governance issues
then and a little history is helpful.
> I do think and I think NIRs share this thought that
> NIR
> should make proper finantial contribution.
I can see that. but a lot of focus appears to be about
the "NIR discount". This to me represents that the NIR
considers the relationship as a reseller trying to
make a profit - and not as a vessel to represent a
bottom up process. You can certainly ague to the
contrary, but until the NIRs change their wording
about what they want in return for their participation
then a many may see it in the same light as I have
described.
> Thank you for pointing this out.
> Sometimes cost for NIRs are invisible in the
> discussion
>
They are a real cost to the community, and in that the
APNIC community appears to be unique. I can't find
reference to NIR arrangements in ARIN or RIPE.
> 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.
>
I think under my suggestion the NIR can still be
representative of policy, and can raise issues but the
voting rights should shift from you (JPNIC), to the
resource holder. Taking a role like this also
validates your own role in internet governance.
> 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.
And there you have described the failings of the
structure. the member, who uses the resource is only
concerned with the NIR business practice and policy -
sure that is nice for APNIC as they get to dodge many
bullets. But when the member is only focused
nationally instead of regionally or internationally
they may be blind-sided by policies originated by
other national bodies that are then passed back on
them as the NIRs policy has to be consistent with
APNIC's.
The member should be focused at the APNIC level.
Making the nir-member a direct APNIC member will do
that.
>
> Having larger IP address space means having more
> Internet
> users on their network. More votes for larger space
> make
> sense in this way.
Are you selling a product? or involved in governance?
Selling a product, means if I "buy" more I get a
better price and more say in the way the product is
delivered.
When I go to a polling both at election, I expect that
my vote is equal to the next man's vote.
If the case is that APNIC sees this as a product, then
stop trying to say IP space can't be owned and go from
there. If, however, APNIC still wants to tow the line
about being internet governance and all stakeholders
have a fair/equal say then reflect that in the voting
structure and loose the preferential votes.
APNIC has to be the first membership based
organisation that values some members above others
based on an amount of resource usage.
I did a quick search of the APNIC site - and the Extra
large members get 64 votes. Which includes 3 of the
NIRs. So how many votes are actually cast at
elections? and what are the organisations who vote? if
all of the Extra Large members are in the room voting,
why would a small member even bother to vote? The
weighing doesn't seem to be inclusive of smaller
organisations. Hardly a fair and equitable system.
> 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.
Sorry, I think I have confused people by using "*IRs".
by the "*IRs" I mean APNIC+NIRS. I have little
interest in seeing the financial figures of the LIR.
But I think to add weight to the NIRs argument in
justifying what you do to/for the community, you
should present you financials and future plans to all
in the efforts of transparency.
> I personally totally agree in this point. The cost
> of IP
> resource administration should be shared by all
> holders.
nice to hear.
> 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.
>
I'm no expert in law, so I will take your word for
that.
> 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.
Here I tend to ask the question, Why not Osaka or
Kyoto or somewhere else? your main presence is online
yes? I think I would ask the same questions of APNIC
if their office in QLD became too expensive - in that
case move. It could be just a few suburbs (or they
could come to sunny Victoria!) - but far/close enough
to be financially responsible with the members' funds.
>
>
> Again, NIRs don't say "we have financial crisis,
> please
> give me discount" but "will pay the proper
> contribution".
>
That didn't come across to me in the discussion.
Maybe it is a language issue.
I think the NIRs should be focusing on "How to make
the fees the same in Austrlain and Korea and Japan and
the rest and for APNIC and the NIRs to survive and
keep doing what they are doing".
I don't see the existing discussion as doing that.
>
> 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.
>
-Jas
--
Jas Webb
____________________________________________________
On Yahoo!7
Check out the new Great Outdoors site with video highlights and more
http://au.travel.yahoo.com/great-outdoors/index.html