[sig-policy] Re: [Wg-apnic-fees] The fees and slowness of policy.
| > 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.
|
Okay I see your point.
I recall that we discussed about "90%/100% *discount* of
Per Address Fee for IPv6 address allocation" in 2005, and
"calculate the fee for NIRs as the sum up of membership fee
for all LIRs under that NIR with 50% *discount* rate applied"
this time.
The word *discount* seems to have drawn too much attention,
but I believe they were not for bargaining but for
calculation.
| > 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.
|
You are right.
| > 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.
|
I see your point, and I don't yet see a possible scheme of
the governance among APNIC and NIRs in that case.
| > 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.
|
I see your point.
I can admit that LIRs under NIR sometimes have very unique
idea for address policy which is really difficult to apply
globally.
It would be good for you to know that almost all NIRs are
running their own open policy meeting, and their main
function is cascading the policy discussion with APNIC one.
The consistency between the policies of APNIC's and NIRs'
are really respected
| > 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 don't know *membership organization* in general, but
I can see all other RIRs seem to have one-entity-one-vote
rule.
| 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.
|
I see your point. Still I have my own idea as written, but
I feel like having thoughts from other people.
| > 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.
|
No I didn't interpret that LIR need to disclose their
financials. I meant an NIR serves LIRs under it and the
in-country community, then only the community and LIRs
in that country would be concerned about NIR business
operations, and the cost of an NIR should be born by the
LIRs under that NIR
| > 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.
|
Our main presense would be online but still we have many
reasons to be in Tokyo - major portion of membership is
located in Tokyo, almost all board members are in Tokyo
business counterparts like ministries and other consortiums
are in Tokyo. At least in cases in JP, KR and TW, very
large portion of economy is consentrated in the capital city.
US and Australian cases are not so similar.
If we can set up JPNIC from scratch right now, we might
be able to try location independency, but that is not our
case and we already holds 30 employees here in Tokyo.
| > 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.
|
NIRs know we need to be reasonable enough to ordinary
members.
Thanks,
-----
MAEMURA Akinori Director, JPNIC IP Department
maem at maem dot org , maem at nic dot ad dot jp