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

[Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>]

> I suppose you've already found that proposal itself doesn't
> have a very big impact.

if i understand your earlier comment, 

>>> If you point out the long-term NIR fee change, it is not a
>>> small amount and PAF no longer fits - for example a *single*
>>> /21 IPv6 allocation introduced us PAF of USD64K where JPNIC's
>>> total annual payment for APNIC was approx USD200K.  This is
>>> a huge difference either in case PAF would be born by the LIR 
>>> or by the NIR.  PAF used to be modest enough to be fit. but 
>>> it isn't any longer.

it does!  as the proposal would change this, it sure seems to
have what i would consider a large impact.

> The problem is the both for APNIC and NIRs the current PAF
> scheme is difficult to handle - to budget and to make a fee
> schedule for NIR's LIRs.

i did not hear apnic staff say this.  and i find it hard to
believe a simple step function is hard for anyone to deal with.

and my mind just does not comprehend this 'complexity' problem
no matter how many times i hear it.  i keep thinking, "it's
just a <bleep>ing step function.  the real problem is the
amount of money but no one wants to talk straight."

> You can see Paul Wilson's slides at NIR SIG about a possible 
> alternative NIR fee schedule.

actually, i saw that as two things,
  o trying to discuss a replacement BEFORE removing the current
  o paul trying to be more subtle in his methods of discussion
    than i am, having to hold up the 'bush' name :-)

> Currently PAF and membership fee from NIRs contribute around
> 10% of APNIC's annual revenue.

hmmm.  as the nirs seem to cover most of the biggest internet
economies, jp, kr, tw, ..., i would have expected a much higher
percentage.  am i missing ipv4 paf equivalent?  but don't
bother to explain; it's just one of my many knowledge gaps and
is not really important to the discussion.  if i really cared,
i assume all this is publicly available on the web site.

> Here the basic idea is just collecting the similar level of
> revenue from NIRs with more similar fee structure with
> ordinary membership fee with a step function.
> 
> Paul's idea is counting NIR's LIRs, first to calculate as 
> if they were all APNIC direct members, then to adjust it to 
> have a similar level of fee.  In his presentation 40% of 
> ordinary fee equals current NIR's annual and PA fees.
> 
> JPNIC proposed another before, that was just multiplying
> membership fee to the similar level.  JPNIC is an XL with
> USD40K annual, then x5 will equal to our current total
> annual payment.

these all seem good starts.  so why not finish and converge on
the new model before removing the old?  seems like normal good
business practice to me.

randy