Transcript Open NIR Meeting Feb 2003 NIR Voting and Fee Structures Izumi Okutani IP Address Section Japan Network Information Center Copyright (c) 2003 Japan Network Information.

Open NIR Meeting Feb 2003
NIR Voting and Fee Structures
Izumi Okutani
IP Address Section
Japan Network Information Center
Copyright (c) 2003 Japan Network Information Center
2
Contents
•
•
•
•
•
•
Introduction
The current NIR fee and Voting Structure
The issues relating the current model
Introduction of models
Proposal
Schedule
Copyright (c) 2003 Japan Network Information Center
3
Introduction
• This presentation seeks to initiate
discussions about the fee and voting
structure for NIRs
• Not yet at the stage of proposing a specific
model, so simply introducing the possible
models we have come up so far
Copyright (c) 2003 Japan Network Information Center
4
The Current Fee Structure for NIRs
Annual Membership Fee
+
Per Address Fee
http://www.apnic.net/docs/corpdocs/member-fee-schedule.html
Copyright (c) 2003 Japan Network Information Center
5
The Current Voting Structure for NIRs
• Apply the voting structure of LIRs based on the annual fee
• No independent voting structure for NIRs
Copyright (c) 2003 Japan Network Information Center
6
The Case of JPNIC(Fee)
Annual Membership Fee
Membership tier
Associate
Very Small
Small
Medium
Large
Very Large
Extra Large
Fee
$625
$1,250
$2,500
$5,000
$10,000
$20,000
$40,000
Per Address Fee
Membership tier
Associate
Very Small
Small
Medium
Large
Very Large
Extra Large
Fee
n/a
n/a
$0.16
$0.11
$0.06
$0.03
$0.02
Copyright (c) 2003 Japan Network Information Center
7
Fee from Apr 2002 – Mar 2003
Annual Membership Fee : US$40,000
Per Address Fee
:US$42,350
Total
:US$82,350
Copyright (c) 2003 Japan Network Information Center
8
The Case of JPNIC(Voting)
64 voting rights as an Extra Large Member
Membership tier No. of votes
Associate
1
Very Small
2
Small
4
Medium
8
Large
16
Very Large
32
Extra Large
64
Copyright (c) 2003 Japan Network Information Center
9
Issues about the Current Model
• Per Address Fee takes a great proportion of
the fee, but the justification is unclear
• A different fee structure applies to
confederation members, but the voting
model is the same as LIRs
Is the current fee and voting structure really
reflecting the role of NIRs?
Copyright (c) 2003 Japan Network Information Center
10
Let’s Seek for an Appropriate Model
• The next few slides simply provide possible
models to start the discussion
• Each model has its pros and cons, so no
specific model to propose at the moment
Copyright (c) 2003 Japan Network Information Center
11
The Current Model
• Logics Assumed
– NIRs are considered to be APNIC members
but putting additional expenses to APNIC
compared to LIRs
• Fee
– Annual Membership Fee + Per Address Fee
• Voting
– Based on the Annual Membership Fee
Copyright (c) 2003 Japan Network Information Center
12
Pros and Cons
• Pros
– No major inconvenience to run the current NIR
operation
– Per Address Fee prevents address space bargaining
• Cons
– Does not consider the fact that NIRs share some work
with APNIC
– Voting structure inconsistent with the fee
– Address bargaining could be prevented by other models
Copyright (c) 2003 Japan Network Information Center
13
Model A
• Logics
– Considers NIRs to be an APNIC member/an agent of
potential APNIC members
• Fee
– Subtract NIR’s operational Cost from the total fee if
NIR Members were APNIC members
• Voting
– NIRs/NIR members will receive an equivalent number
of votes for the address space allocated to NIR
members, based on the existing category
Copyright (c) 2003 Japan Network Information Center
14
Fee in Model A
Actual Fee paid by NIRs
Operational expense of NIRs
Fee paid
The
total by
feeififNIR
NIRmembers
memberswere
wereAPNIC
APNIC members
members
Copyright (c) 2003 Japan Network Information Center
15
Voting in Model A
NIR members or NIRs will
obtain the number of votes if
NIR members were
APNIC members, based on
their allocation size
APNIC
NIR
NIR
Member
NIR
Member
NIR
Member
NIR
Member
Copyright (c) 2003 Japan Network Information Center
16
Pros and Cons of Model A
• Pros
– Fee and Voting structure will be closely related
with clear logics
• Cons
– May not be a realistic figure after the cost &
votes simulation
Copyright (c) 2003 Japan Network Information Center
17
Model B
• Logics
– Considers NIRs to be an organization assisting APNIC
operations, independent from membership
• Fee
– NIRs will pay the NIR related operational expenses for
APNIC
• Voting
– NIRs will not have any votes. NIRs will be represented
by for example, an NIR Committee instead
Copyright (c) 2003 Japan Network Information Center
18
Pros and Cons of Model B
• Pros
– Reflects the current roles of NIRs, sharing work
with APNIC
• Cons
– Difficult to assess an appropriate amount of fee
– Difficult to define the role and authority of an
NIR Committee
Copyright (c) 2003 Japan Network Information Center
19
Summary of Models
Model A
Mode l B
Fee
Annual Membership Fee+ Per
Address Fee
NIRs are APNIC members/an
agent of potential APNIC
members
Annual Membership Fee if NIR
Members were APNIC Members.
Subtract the expenses for NIRs
from this fee
NIRs share work with APNIC,
independent from membership
NIRs will pay the NIR related
operational expenses for
APNIC
Voting
Based on Annual Membership
Fee
Based on the Annual
Membership Fee
No votes for NIRs. Set up NIR
Committee instead
No major inconvenience
Fee and Voting structure will be
closely related
Reflects the current roles of
NIRs, sharing work with APNIC
Curret Model
NIRs are like LIRs with extra
Logics expenses for APNIC
Pros
Per Address Fee prevents
address space bargaining
Does not take NIR's role into
account
Cons
Voting structure inconsistent
with the fee
May not be a realistic figure after Difficult to assess an appropriate
the cost & votes simulation
amount of fee
Difficult to define the role and
authority of NIR Committee
Address bargaining could be
prevented by other models
Copyright (c) 2003 Japan Network Information Center
20
Proposal
Start discussions on nir-discuss ML to seek
for an appropriate model
– There may be other models other than
presented here
– The current model could also be an option, but
should not be implemented only for the
historical reasons
Copyright (c) 2003 Japan Network Information Center
21
Proposed Schedule
April 2003
Brain Storm models on ML
June 2003
Cost Simulation of Models
Aug 2003
Select an Appropriate Model
Summer2003 Propose at Open NIR Meeting
(If changes are necessary)
*If a consensus is reached, prepare documentation to propose at AMM in
APRICOT2004
Copyright (c) 2003 Japan Network Information Center
22
Q&A
Let’s Start the discussion
Copyright (c) 2003 Japan Network Information Center