[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [sig-policy] Final call forcomments:[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6per address fee for NIRs"
Hi, this is Izumi again.
I realised the link I sent yeserday was a local path. The correct link
to AMM slides is:
http://www.apnic.net/meetings/20/docs/amm/amm-pres-izumui-nir-report.ppt
Sorry about the confusion.
Izumi Okutani wrote:
> Hi Ram,
>
>
> Thanks for your questions and your efforts in trying to understand the
> issue.
>
> ram@princess1.net wrote:
>
>>Hello,
>>
>>I think both sides have different perspectives on the issue. I am
>>not getting the full picture of the issue at the moment.
>>
>>I understand the per-address-fee for ipv6 that is applied to NIRs
>>(actually it is not a per-address-fee but a per block fee of the
>>allocation to the end-user).
>>
>>My questions are:
>>
>>1) Is the complexity really a problem? Problem in which aspect? Financial
>>projection?
>
> Complexity is a problem because it causes confusion over how much they
> would be charged when LIRs under NIRs make an IPv6 allocation request.
>
> As you can see from my AMM slide, there are so many patterns and
> calcutations for charges that it could be an easy source of confusion
> and dispute amonng NIRs and its members.
>
> file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/izumi/Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.IE5/4TCDUP4X/268,14,Example
> of IPv6 per address fee based on EC decision
>
> There are also other issues such as fairness. For example, for a /21
> allocation, NIRs/NIR members must pay per address fee of US$95,360 in
> addition to the annual membership fee, and US$9,536 even after the 90%
> discount. On the other hand, directly APNIC members are charged no fee
> for their IPv6 allocations. This could disadvantage the NIR economies in
> IPv6 deployment compared to the other economies.
>
> As you can see from this, the proposal basically intends to put NIR
> members(LIRs under NIRs) to be in the equal condition as direct APNIC
> members in IPv6 allocations, rather than giving them an extra advantage.
>
> I suppose it really is a balance between the size of the problem and the
> impact on the whole membership. In this case, the financial impact on
> APNIC is 0.1%.
>
>
>>2) How bad of a short-term problem is it for NIR operations compared to the
>>other NIR activities? (rate 1-10 1-not really a problem 10-a very bad
>>problem)
>>
>>3) How bad of a long-term problem is it for NIR operations compared to other
>>
>>NIR activities (rate 1-10 1-not really a problem 10-a very bad problem)?
>
> I would skip the ratings as it would be quite subjective.
> The concern is more for the NIR members(about 500 organizations in
> total) rather than the NIRs themselves. The reasons are explained above.
>
>
>>4) Apart from the proposed solutions are there any other solutions to this
>>problem?
>
> My suggestions would be;
>
> Perhaps set a gurantee that APNIC can charge back the per address fee,
> such as require the EC/members to revise every two years, if the concern
> is that the fee would be abolished for good and there will be a
> long-term financial impact on APNIC.
>
> Setting a flat 90% discount of fee would solve the complexity problem,
> although it doesn't solve the issue of unfairness.
>
> There has also been a suggestion to postpone this proposal until the
> fundamental revision of the NIR fee structure would be implemented. I
> would support this idea if the proposal has a big financial impact of
> the rest of APNIC membership, but as already explained, the impact on
> APNIC revenue is 0.1%.
>
> Any other suggesions are welcome too.
>
>
>>5) What is the best solution? Why you think it is the best one? What would
>>be the short-term and long-term impact for this solution?
>
> I don't know if it's the best solution, but what has been proposed at
> AMM solves the problem without any impact on APNIC membership fee nor
> APNIC's finance.
>
> I believe there is no short-term impact. The long term impact may be
> that it may cause some financial problem for APNIC when IPv6 would be
> the major source of income for APNIC. However, the proposal is intended
> to keep it abolished for a short-term and a possible solution to this is
> suggested in 4).
>
>
>>6) Could the solution be altered to accommodate both short-term and long-
>>term impact before this 8weeks period ends?
>
> Yes, if there are any other suggestions, I'm sure NIRs would be happy to
> consider it.
>
>
>>7) What would be the impact of the altered solution (impact to APNIC, impact
>>to the rest of the community, impact of growth on IPv6 allocations by NIR,
>>other impacts)?
>
> Sorry, I didn't quite understand this. Would you clarify for me a little
> bit more?
>
> Please let me know if there is anthing you would like to clarify, and
> thanks once again for your questions.
>
>
> Regards,
> Izumi
>
>
>>I like the ipv6 initiatives, but again we are in a community.
>>
>>Regards,
>>-ram
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
>>_______________________________________________
>>sig-policy mailing list
>>sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>>http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>>
>
>
>
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
