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

["Chanki Park" <ckp@nic.or.kr>]

> 
> 
> 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.

Dear Stephan,

Please, read the proposed document first.
http://apnic.net/docs/policy/discussions/prop-028-v001.txt

"too complicated" may be one of the reasons...

Regards,

Chanki Park

> 
> 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
>