Re: [sig-nir] Re: [sig-policy] Final call for comments: [prop-028-v001] "AbolishingIPv6 per address fee for NIRs"

[Che-Hoo CHENG <chcheng@ieee.org>]

[With my APNIC EC hat on]

The new membership fee proposal for NIRs will be put up (by APNIC
Secretariat/EC after enough discussion and consultation) for formal voting
by all the members on-site or through online voting on MyAPNIC.  I don't
think it can be blocked by the people going to APNIC meetings.  So, don't
worry too much on this part.  :)

Che-Hoo


--- MAEMURA Akinori <maem@maem.org> wrote:

> Stephan,
> 
> Out of 2006, 2016 and 2026 the most realistic target should 
> be 2006 and this is a major assumption to take this interim
> solution.
> 
> We might have some unexpected delay, but in my mind,  a 
> detailed proposal to be raised for discussion at APNIC21, 
> Perth Feb 2006, and to seek the membership concensus in the
> next, APNIC22.
> 
> 
> I am sad to see that you like to regard us NIR people doing 
> something badly political or playing a selfish process just 
> for our short-term benefit.  We need to keep on convincing
> you that we are reasonable enough.
> 
> 
> With the EC hat on from now on,
> 
> For the process, APNIC Secretariat is aware that concensus
> in the on-site meeting is not enough to implement it into
> the operation, while APNIC want more and more people come
> to on-site meeting.  That is why you have the room for
> objection on the mailing list.
> 
> Right now one or two strong objection are seen on the list
> against on-site concensus, they may cease or we have some 
> more objections.  Such situation will be reported and 
> reviewed by the EC for its endorsement.  
> 
> That's our process which is already in effect.  IMHO 
> membership vote for all policy proposals would be unreasonably 
> heavy, but I'd like to have opinion from everyone.
> 
> 
> Kind Regards,
> Akinori
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In message <200509271111.55014.stephan@telstra.net>
>    "Re: [sig-policy] Final call for comments: [prop-028-v001]
> "AbolishingIPv6 per address fee for NIRs""
>    "Stephan Millet <stephan@telstra.net>" wrote:
> 
> | Thank you for your response, however I do not believe that
> | you have addressed the major points of the objection I've raised.
> | 
> | The IPv6 fee for NIRs is proposed to be abolished because
> | it is "too complicated" . This does not strike me as a sensible
> | reason to remove the fee.
> | 
> | You call it an "interim solution". When does the new fee schedule
> | arrive? 2006? 2016? 2026? It seems to me that once the NIRs get
> | this IPv6 fee waived they have no interest to bring in any new fees
> | in the future. With the current policy process then all they need
> | to do is to keep sending their people to APNIC meetings and  they
> | will block any new fee proposal indefinitely.
> | 
> | I have proposed that to stop this form of meeting stacking by the
> | NIRs that all policy proposals be passed to an online vote by the
> | entire APNIC membership, and that the EC approval of the policy
> | proposal is only possible if a majority of the members are in favour.
> | 
> | Regards
> | 
> | Stephan Millet
> | 
> | On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:41, MAEMURA Akinori wrote:
> | > I do agree NIR system might be more complex than not having
> | > that.
> | >
> | > However it is really disappointing for me to hear you say
> | > like that multiple lauguage and culutural system is too
> | > complicated and it should be abolished.  Thus it sounds
> | > as a joke no longer because NIRs have made a tremendous
> | > effort for years to include non-native in-country stakeholders
> | > into APNIC's policy process.
> | >
> | >
> | > That was a small proposal to propose abolish remaining 10%
> | > of IPv6 per address fee, where IPv6 PAF contributes 1% of
> | > APNIC's revenue.  NIRs said "to simplify" after they know
> | > the size of impact.  Moreover it is for interim solution
> | > until we have more appropriate NIR fee structure - NIRs think
> | > current PAF structure will never fit for larger allocations.
> | >
> | >
> | >
> | > Anyway, we would be really happy to have on-line discussion
> | > in order to have the same picture of this issue.
> | >
> | > Keep on discussing.
> | >
> | >
> | > Regards,
> | > -----
> | > MAEMURA Akinori                Director, JPNIC IP Department
> | >                               maem@maem.org , maem@nic.ad.jp
> | 
> | 
> _______________________________________________
> sig-nir mailing list
> sig-nir@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir
>