[sig-policy] Re: APNIC EC Endorses Proposal from APNIC 56
Dear EC. Since you will be meeting soon in person with the members, I want to raise this topic again as an APNIC member and also a member of the APNIC community . While I understand the EC's authority in determining fee structures without mandatory community input, the community support for a reduction in IPv6-only assignment fees in response to prop-155 should have been given some weight while making such decisions. The choice to limit the concession period to a single year appears to diverge significantly from the community's preference for a more extended (read forever) fee reduction. This anticipated measure aimed not only to boost the broader adoption of IPv6 but also to reflect APNIC’s dedication to supporting this transition in a way that resonates with the community's needs and expectations. Additionally, I am keen to understand the financial modeling that resulted in the EC's decision, particularly concerning the perceived impact on APNIC’s revenue. The general consensus within the community was that a fee reduction for IPv6 assignments would have a minimal effect on the organization's overall financial health because it was not expected that 000s of members would opt for this option anyway but those who would will be incentivised, while on the other hand APNIC fee is going to increase significantly for its member with both address family resources, giving a boost to the revenue. This belief prompts me to request detailed insights into the analysis that predicted a revenue-hurting outcome from extending the concession period. Understanding the specific impacts foreseen on annual revenue against the benefits of increased IPv6 adoption, (which remains one of APNIC’s core missions) would be invaluable. Getting clarity on these points would greatly contribute to a more informed and constructive discussion during the upcoming Annual General Meeting (AGM). I sincerely request that this information be shared with the community and members specifically ahead of the AGM to facilitate a productive dialogue. It is important for the members to understand the rationale behind decisions that are contradicting their consensus based opinion, when such decisions could influence the pace of IPv6 adoption across our region. Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 at 11:28, Aftab Siddiqui wrote: > I urge the EC to revisit the decision on the fee waiver. The policy's > intent was to promote the uptake of PI IPv6 by balancing incentivization > with the recovery of costs for services provided to resource holders. A > 12-month fee waiver, unfortunately fails horribly to meet this purpose and > contradicts APNIC's fundamental goal of accelerating IPv6 adoption. To > truly drive the shift towards IPv6, we must stop valuing it as if it were > IPv4 - "a costly asset" - and instead, support its adoption through more > favorable policies. The policy which the community overwhelmingly supported > but EC didn't get the essence of it. > > Regards, > > Aftab A. Siddiqui > > > On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 at 10:29, Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi > wrote: > >> Dear colleagues >> >> The APNIC Executive Council endorsed the proposal, prop-155: IPv6 PI >> Assignment for Associate Members, at its meeting on 26-28 November 2023. >> >> https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-155/ >> >> The EC has also decided to waive the fees on IPv6 PI assignments under >> this policy for a period of 12 months from the date of delegation. After >> the 12 month period expires, the resources will become chargeable. >> >> Next steps >> -- >> The Secretariat will begin the implementation process and inform the >> community as soon as it is completed. >> >> Regards, >> Sunny >> >> ___ >> >> Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him) >> Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development >> >> Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 >> PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199 >> 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD | http://www.apnic.net >> ___ >> >> NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended >> recipient(s) >> and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized >> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the >> intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy >> all >> copies of the original message. >> >> ___ >> SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net >> > ___ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net
[sig-policy] Re: APNIC EC Endorses Proposal from APNIC 56
Thanks Chris, appreciate your replies. I won't give it comment line-by-line though it gives me far more insight. Take what the SIG feels has value from what I've sent, disregard the rest! Many thanks, Luke On 14/12/2023 10:13 am, Christopher Hawker wrote: Hi Luke, See comments in-line. I am not adequately versed in the nuances of what makes the EC's last-minute decision something permissible, yet don't feel like what's taken place this week re: prop-155 demonstrates a properly functional process. prop-155 reached consensus and was endorsed, so the 'work is done' there if not then amended by APNIC EC as they have done I wouldn't consider their decision on fees as a last-minute decision, as it's within their powers. The determination of fees charged is beyond the scope of the Policy SIG, which was acknowledged by Aftab and Simon in the policy proposal that they had submitted. As members of the Policy SIG, we can only make recommendations as to how the EC should decide, it's on them to make the final decision regarding fees. which triggers a need/case for the endorsement to become somewhat null and void, and for discussions to recommence (ie. at least partially restart the process), in the hope a similar change is not again done at the 11th hour by the EC alone. This seems quite a failure of the policy development process. I agree that the decision to charge the fees they have with the exception of the discount renders this policy (in my view) redundant. In my view the policy doesn't need to come back to the list for further discussion as it sought consensus twice (at the OPM and then the AMM) which demonstrated support from the community, the EC need to make a decision regarding a permanent reduction in fees for IPv6 PI space. 1. Speaking of policy, in this case how does the EC's "The EC has also decided to waive..." fit in? I see no ground for it in Step 5[1]. Can this be done pre-/post-endorsement? It feels like going behind the backs of SIG-Policy members despite the intentions likely being positive within APNIC's EC. Fees for services provided and resources assigned/allocated is outside the scope of the Policy SIG, and in turn, not included as part of the PDP. 2. If there is technically no valid route to the amendment they've applied after the fact (in the way it's been done), how can that be handled except/in-addition-to returning it to the list for further discussions? They did not amend the policy. Again, fees are beyond the scope of the Policy SIG and PDP. Are there other cases where the EC has made a change like this at such a stage? To my knowledge, no. To that end, is there a trend? Again, no. Should there not be safety nets which means approved-prop=approved-prop? The policy was not amended, and endorsed as-is in line with what is in-scope of the Policy SIG and PDP. It seems very strange that a presumably-well-defined process can become unstuck in this way, as it undermines a lot of the time and effort invested by SIG members and the community more broadly. Again, the in-scope content of the policy was endorsed as written. While yes, the decision to only issue an initial fee-waiver for the first 12 months does make this policy redundant, it is within the scope of the policy process. 4. By-law reforms have been completed thanks to major community efforts - the instigator was told it would be impossible but alas no. Karl deserves to never have to pay for another drink again, due to his significant involvement in advocating to get this across the line :) One of the key provisions is to ensure that APNIC is a well-protected entity. Fee waiving does not seem to align with a NIC's goals. Why was it done here? To encourage IPv6? Who in particular agreed together within the EC/APNIC to make the 11th hour change, and based on what? I am of the view that the fee waiver is in-line with APNIC's Vision, Mission and Objectives (https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/organization/vision-mission-objectives/) in attempting to promote the active development and usage of IPv6 Address Space. This wasn't an 11th-hour change, rather it was made at the correct time of implementing a policy. 5. Do we have enough of a divide between the SIG/s and the EC, as implied by Aftab I don't see this in Aftab's response. to invite further direct discussions to this end, attempting to get the EC on the same page more generally? I do believe that some form of fee needs to be charged as APNIC do incur costs with providing services. Perhaps a solution would be to consult with the community regarding new fee implementation prior to making a decision? Shorter version: Should this example lead to procedural/policy changes to prevent a recurrence? Potentially this would require a rework of the PDP, in order for the EC to hold a discussion with the author so they can ensure they understand it as written. 6. With the APNIC EC members sworn into
[sig-policy] Re: APNIC EC Endorses Proposal from APNIC 56
Hi Luke, See comments in-line. > I am not adequately versed in the nuances of what makes the EC's last-minute > decision something permissible, yet don't feel like what's taken place this > week re: prop-155 demonstrates a properly functional process. > prop-155 reached consensus and was endorsed, so the 'work is done' there if > not then amended by APNIC EC as they have done I wouldn't consider their decision on fees as a last-minute decision, as it's within their powers. The determination of fees charged is beyond the scope of the Policy SIG, which was acknowledged by Aftab and Simon in the policy proposal that they had submitted. As members of the Policy SIG, we can only make recommendations as to how the EC should decide, it's on them to make the final decision regarding fees. > which triggers a need/case for the endorsement to become somewhat null and > void, and for discussions to recommence (ie. at least partially restart the > process), in the hope a similar change is not again done at the 11th hour by > the EC alone. This seems quite a failure of the policy development process. I agree that the decision to charge the fees they have with the exception of the discount renders this policy (in my view) redundant. In my view the policy doesn't need to come back to the list for further discussion as it sought consensus twice (at the OPM and then the AMM) which demonstrated support from the community, the EC need to make a decision regarding a permanent reduction in fees for IPv6 PI space. > 1. Speaking of policy, in this case how does the EC's "The EC has also > decided to waive..." fit in? I see no ground for it in Step 5[1]. Can this be > done pre-/post-endorsement? It feels like going behind the backs of > SIG-Policy members despite the intentions likely being positive within > APNIC's EC. Fees for services provided and resources assigned/allocated is outside the scope of the Policy SIG, and in turn, not included as part of the PDP. > 2. If there is technically no valid route to the amendment they've applied > after the fact (in the way it's been done), how can that be handled > except/in-addition-to returning it to the list for further discussions? They did not amend the policy. Again, fees are beyond the scope of the Policy SIG and PDP. > Are there other cases where the EC has made a change like this at such a > stage? To my knowledge, no. > To that end, is there a trend? Again, no. > Should there not be safety nets which means approved-prop=approved-prop? The policy was not amended, and endorsed as-is in line with what is in-scope of the Policy SIG and PDP. > It seems very strange that a presumably-well-defined process can become > unstuck in this way, as it undermines a lot of the time and effort invested > by SIG members and the community more broadly. Again, the in-scope content of the policy was endorsed as written. While yes, the decision to only issue an initial fee-waiver for the first 12 months does make this policy redundant, it is within the scope of the policy process. > 4. By-law reforms have been completed thanks to major community efforts - the > instigator was told it would be impossible but alas no. Karl deserves to never have to pay for another drink again, due to his significant involvement in advocating to get this across the line :) > One of the key provisions is to ensure that APNIC is a well-protected entity. > Fee waiving does not seem to align with a NIC's goals. Why was it done here? > To encourage IPv6? Who in particular agreed together within the EC/APNIC to > make the 11th hour change, and based on what? I am of the view that the fee waiver is in-line with APNIC's Vision, Mission and Objectives (https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/organization/vision-mission-objectives/) in attempting to promote the active development and usage of IPv6 Address Space. This wasn't an 11th-hour change, rather it was made at the correct time of implementing a policy. > 5. Do we have enough of a divide between the SIG/s and the EC, as implied by > Aftab I don't see this in Aftab's response. > to invite further direct discussions to this end, attempting to get the EC on > the same page more generally? I do believe that some form of fee needs to be charged as APNIC do incur costs with providing services. Perhaps a solution would be to consult with the community regarding new fee implementation prior to making a decision? > Shorter version: Should this example lead to procedural/policy changes to > prevent a recurrence? Potentially this would require a rework of the PDP, in order for the EC to hold a discussion with the author so they can ensure they understand it as written. > 6. With the APNIC EC members sworn into confidentiality via formal NDA, not > permitted to record conversations[2], and unable to share any EC information > without express permission, it seems there is somewhat of a silo which should > be okay
[sig-policy] Re: APNIC EC Endorses Proposal from APNIC 56
Hi, This all seems quite disappointing, when it should have been quite positive. SIG-Policy was 'that close' it seems, and I'd like to dig into how such a change is possible. Being candid, I am not adequately versed in the nuances of what makes the EC's last-minute decision something permissible, yet don't feel like what's taken place this week re: prop-155 demonstrates a properly functional process. My understanding of what's happened up to here: /prop-155 reached consensus and was endorsed, so the 'work is done' there if not then amended by APNIC EC as they have done - which triggers a need/case for the endorsement to become somewhat null and void, and for discussions to recommence (ie. at least partially restart the process), in the hope a similar change is not again done at the 11th hour by the EC alone. This seems quite a failure of the policy development process./ Some multi-pronged queries/perspectives around this: 1. Speaking of policy, in this case how does the EC's /"The EC has also decided to waive..."/ fit in? I see no ground for it in Step 5[1]. Can this be done pre-/post-endorsement? It feels like going behind the backs of SIG-Policy members despite the intentions likely being positive within APNIC's EC. 2. If there is technically no valid route to the amendment they've applied after the fact (in the way it's been done), how can that be handled except/in-addition-to returning it to the list for further discussions? 3. Are there other cases where the EC has made a change like this at such a stage? To that end, is there a trend? Should there not be safety nets which means approved-prop=approved-prop? It seems very strange that a presumably-well-defined process can become unstuck in this way, as it undermines a lot of the time and effort invested by SIG members and the community more broadly. 4. By-law reforms have been completed thanks to major community efforts - the instigator was told it would be impossible but alas no. One of the key provisions is to ensure that APNIC is a well-protected entity. Fee waiving does not seem to align with a NIC's goals. Why was it done here? To encourage IPv6? Who in particular agreed together within the EC/APNIC to make the 11th hour change, and based on what? 5. Do we have enough of a divide between the SIG/s and the EC, as implied by Aftab, to invite further direct discussions to this end, attempting to get the EC on the same page more generally? Shorter version: Should this example lead to procedural/policy changes to prevent a recurrence? 6. With the APNIC EC members sworn into confidentiality via formal NDA, not permitted to record conversations[2], and unable to share any EC information without express permission, it seems there is somewhat of a silo which /should/ be okay if processes are strongly & clearly defined. Are members of this SIG comfortable with the existing structure, communication and transparency? If not, what would you change and why? 7. Reviewing at high-level the Policy Development Process (APNIC-111-v003), it seems there is insufficient clarity and explanation within, most notably while there appears to be no provision for the last-minute EC-authored changes, there is similarly no specific restriction otherwise either. Does the SIG view this as an opportunity to separately move to strengthen this document, to eliminate any gaps which could be mis-used? Is the SIG comfortable this is a once-off? The EC is obviously comfortable enough with their last-minute amendments per their wording below which implies that prop-155 as-amended will steam ahead. SIG-Policy has said no to that, however at a glance this entire case seems improper and not explicitly OK. However, I lack sufficient knowledge and history in this space to make concrete statements, hence my broad requests for clarity, and long-winded email which attempts to decipher what appears to be the elephant in the room. /"The EC has also decided to waive the fees on IPv6 PI assignments under this policy..."/ /"The Secretariat will begin the implementation process and inform the community as soon as it is completed."/ Which seems to reinforce the need for more oversight/policy in these edge cases, as otherwise it seems the processes for APNIC SIGs may be undermined in cases where the EC deems it appropriate, even where the clearly-defined process has not led to the same determinations. Just like with the by-law reforms, it seems this eventuality has highlighted some potentially glaring issues that should be tightened up to avoid a repeat? At the moment, it seems there are 8 people[3] on the Executive Council, and I'd imagine a change like this requires majority. So hopefully more insights can be shared not just into the questions posed, but also more generally into how the SIGs can expect the EC to interact with them into the future - with a view towards more transparency & accountability, and sharing any
[sig-policy] Re: APNIC EC Endorses Proposal from APNIC 56
I too, agree with Aftab, and strongly urge that the EC reconsiders the fees for IPv6 PI space. The idea to this policy was to increase and incentivise the uptake of IPv6. By charging the same costs as other delegations, it effectively renders this entire policy proposal redundant as there is no benefit for providers to apply for a PI assignment under this policy other than that of a $680.00 one-time discount. Putting aside the financial aspect (as much as possible), we need to support and encourage the uptake of IPv6. This decision does not encourage, promote or incentivise its adoption. Regards, Christopher Hawker ___ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net
[sig-policy] Re: APNIC EC Endorses Proposal from APNIC 56
I echo Aftab's position. As the endorsement is with a rider which is different from the consensus arrived at OPM/AGM, then as per the APNIC 111 (APNIC Policy Development Process), Section 4, Step 5, EC can refer the proposal back to Policy SIG for discussions. Regards Anupam Agrawal On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 5:59 AM Aftab Siddiqui wrote: > I urge the EC to revisit the decision on the fee waiver. The policy's > intent was to promote the uptake of PI IPv6 by balancing incentivization > with the recovery of costs for services provided to resource holders. A > 12-month fee waiver, unfortunately fails horribly to meet this purpose and > contradicts APNIC's fundamental goal of accelerating IPv6 adoption. To > truly drive the shift towards IPv6, we must stop valuing it as if it were > IPv4 - "a costly asset" - and instead, support its adoption through more > favorable policies. The policy which the community overwhelmingly supported > but EC didn't get the essence of it. > > Regards, > > Aftab A. Siddiqui > > > On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 at 10:29, Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi > wrote: > >> Dear colleagues >> >> The APNIC Executive Council endorsed the proposal, prop-155: IPv6 PI >> Assignment for Associate Members, at its meeting on 26-28 November 2023. >> >> https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-155/ >> >> The EC has also decided to waive the fees on IPv6 PI assignments under >> this policy for a period of 12 months from the date of delegation. After >> the 12 month period expires, the resources will become chargeable. >> >> Next steps >> -- >> The Secretariat will begin the implementation process and inform the >> community as soon as it is completed. >> >> Regards, >> Sunny >> >> ___ >> >> Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him) >> Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development >> >> Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 >> PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199 >> 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD | http://www.apnic.net >> ___ >> >> NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended >> recipient(s) >> and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized >> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the >> intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy >> all >> copies of the original message. >> >> ___ >> SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net >> > ___ > SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ > To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net ___ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net
[sig-policy] Re: APNIC EC Endorses Proposal from APNIC 56
I seconded the Aftab's opinion. Regards, Gaurav On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 at 05:59, Aftab Siddiqui wrote: > I urge the EC to revisit the decision on the fee waiver. The policy's > intent was to promote the uptake of PI IPv6 by balancing incentivization > with the recovery of costs for services provided to resource holders. A > 12-month fee waiver, unfortunately fails horribly to meet this purpose and > contradicts APNIC's fundamental goal of accelerating IPv6 adoption. To > truly drive the shift towards IPv6, we must stop valuing it as if it were > IPv4 - "a costly asset" - and instead, support its adoption through more > favorable policies. The policy which the community overwhelmingly supported > but EC didn't get the essence of it. > > Regards, > > Aftab A. Siddiqui > > > On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 at 10:29, Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi > wrote: > >> Dear colleagues >> >> The APNIC Executive Council endorsed the proposal, prop-155: IPv6 PI >> Assignment for Associate Members, at its meeting on 26-28 November 2023. >> >> https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-155/ >> >> The EC has also decided to waive the fees on IPv6 PI assignments under >> this policy for a period of 12 months from the date of delegation. After >> the 12 month period expires, the resources will become chargeable. >> >> Next steps >> -- >> The Secretariat will begin the implementation process and inform the >> community as soon as it is completed. >> >> Regards, >> Sunny >> >> ___ >> >> Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him) >> Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development >> >> Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 >> PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199 >> 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD | http://www.apnic.net >> ___ >> >> NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended >> recipient(s) >> and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized >> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the >> intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy >> all >> copies of the original message. >> >> ___ >> SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net >> > ___ > SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ > To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net ___ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net
[sig-policy] Re: APNIC EC Endorses Proposal from APNIC 56
I urge the EC to revisit the decision on the fee waiver. The policy's intent was to promote the uptake of PI IPv6 by balancing incentivization with the recovery of costs for services provided to resource holders. A 12-month fee waiver, unfortunately fails horribly to meet this purpose and contradicts APNIC's fundamental goal of accelerating IPv6 adoption. To truly drive the shift towards IPv6, we must stop valuing it as if it were IPv4 - "a costly asset" - and instead, support its adoption through more favorable policies. The policy which the community overwhelmingly supported but EC didn't get the essence of it. Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 at 10:29, Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi wrote: > Dear colleagues > > The APNIC Executive Council endorsed the proposal, prop-155: IPv6 PI > Assignment for Associate Members, at its meeting on 26-28 November 2023. > > https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-155/ > > The EC has also decided to waive the fees on IPv6 PI assignments under > this policy for a period of 12 months from the date of delegation. After > the 12 month period expires, the resources will become chargeable. > > Next steps > -- > The Secretariat will begin the implementation process and inform the > community as soon as it is completed. > > Regards, > Sunny > > ___ > > Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him) > Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development > > Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 > PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199 > 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD | http://www.apnic.net > ___ > > NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) > and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized > review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the > intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy > all > copies of the original message. > > ___ > SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ > To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net > ___ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net
