[AusNOG] APNIC Slashes Costs for New Members
terry at terrym.net
Mon Mar 4 12:21:22 EST 2013
To expand a little for the readers.
On 01/03/2013, at 11:37 PM, James Spenceley wrote:
>> Why would you expect a response from them? Nobody at APNIC actually runs APNIC, they just do what their members tell them to do. What do you think they're supposed to say?
> To clarify Mark's statement a little.
> The APNIC EC runs the finances and business of APNIC and In general represent the members.
As a not-for-profit entity its financial goals were always stated as being that of a cost-recovery paradigm.
My guess (and it's only is a guess here, since I couldn't quickly find any defined rational on the APNIC website for the fee reduction) is that with more members joining APNIC it has sufficient funds to cover its expected operating costs, and therefore, so as not to unnecessarily tax the membership, it has reduced on part of its fee structure.
In "Registry" terms this is a good thing.
I tend to baulk at situations where the registry is overtly used for regulation through financial constructs in an industry that has gained, and continues to gain, based in predominantly deregulated playing surface. In fact to do so would be to adversely tax one part or another of some new-entrant stakeholder community.
> The community decide policy on resource allocation.
My personal opinion is that this part isn't quite delineated enough. I somewhat like the ARIN model of having an Advisory council for the policy side, but then I think that falls short in the concept of separation of powers.
I've often wondered what the governance structures would look like if APNIC was _only_ the community and the policy front, and the secretariat function was contracted out to some entity. (digress, sorry)
> The staff of APNIC implement and run what the above two decide.
> (Today elected to the APNIC EC for another term, thanks everyone for the support/votes)
Congrats, I still think you are a glutton for punishment :)
More information about the AusNOG