Re: [sig-nir] Re: [sig-policy] Final call for comments:[prop-031-v002] "Proposal to amend APNIC IPv6 assignment andutilisation requirement policy"

[David Chen <david@twnic.net.tw>]

Dear Geoff and Randy,

Thank you very much for your reply.

I agree with Kenny. At this stage, we just focus on the HD ratio 
amendment. I think IPv6 fee schedule or financial issue could be 
postponed to next meeting or forum discussion.

Best Regards,

David Chen


Kenny Huang wrote:

> Dear Geoff and Randy:
>
> The current practice in Policy SIG is,  normally fee or financial issue was
> not addressed, 
> although the boundary of policy interests is not clearly defined. However,
> it is worthy to
> have input from the community to assess the appropriateness of having
> proposal with
> finanacial implication.
>
>
> Best Regards
>
>
> Kenny Huang
> huangk@alum.sinica.edu
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net
> [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Geoff Huston
> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 11:51 AM
> To: Randy Bush
> Cc: sig-nir@apnic.net; sig-policy@apnic.net
> Subject: Re: [sig-nir] Re: [sig-policy] Final call for
> comments:[prop-031-v002] "Proposal to amend APNIC IPv6 assignment
> andutilisation requirement policy"
>
> I agree with Randy here, and as co-author of the original APNIC proposal,
> here's some initial personal thoughts on this topic:
>
> It would make sense to me that when this proposal returns to APNIC in
> February that it has an associated proposal relating to membership fees. The
> most direct way to do this is to attempt to preserve two components of the
> current fee structure, namely that:
>
> 1. That the minimum IPv6 allocation would have the same membership fee
>     as it has at present
>
> and
>
> 2. That for holding above the minimum allocation unit, that same number of
> 'useable' end hosts (i.e. application of the 0.94 HD ratio to the total
> holding) attract
> the same fee as the same number of useable end hosts would under the current
> 0.8 HD ratio
>
> Does this appear to be a useful / fair / reasonable / rational starting
> point for consideration?
>
>
> regards,
>
>     Geoff
>
>
>
>
> At 09:02 AM 29/09/2005, Randy Bush wrote:
>  
>
> > > Another interpretation is that nothing has changed in the APNIC
> > > IPv6 fee structure, and that an explicit proposal would need to be 
> > > made to propose aligning the IPv6 fee structure with the IPv6 
> > > allocation policy in the event that APNIC formally adopts this 
> > > proposed IPv6 allocation policy
> > >      
> > perhaps, analogous to some folk's suggestions in the nir paf 
> > discussion, the on-going financial fix could be part of this proposal 
> > before it is finalized?
> >
> > [ american (and general english?) idiom time again: what's
> >  good for the goose is good for the gander ]
> >
> > randy
> >    
>
>
> *              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
>
>