Member Meeting

Friday 27 October 2000, Novotel Brisbane

Minutes

Meeting commenced: 9.30am

Introduction and welcome
Paul Wilson, APNIC Director-General

The agenda for the Member Meeting was reviewed.

Due to concerns expressed by some APNIC Members that the published agenda provides too little time for consideration of votes, a proposal was made to schedule voting preparations to a time prior to lunch. It was proposed to amend the agenda as follows:

Time	Item	Duration (mins)
09:15	Introduction/Welcome	5
	APNIC Secretariat Reports	55
	APNIC EC Report	15
10:30	Break	30
11:00	RIR Reports	60
	Voting (including EC Election) preparation	30
12:30	Lunch and voting	60
13:30	APNIC Policy Process	30
	SIG Reports and Discussion	75
	Voting Results	15
15:30	Break	30
16:00	SIG Reports and Discussion (cont.)	90
	Next Meeting	30
18:00	Meeting Close

Questions and Discussion

There were no objections to the amendment of the agenda and the revised agenda was, therefore, accepted.

APNIC Secretariat Status Report

1. Director General's Report, Paul Wilson

   The presentation outlined the status of APNIC's address resources, membership, services, human resources, policy development, infrastructure, and representation of the AP region in global forums.

   Additional notes:

   • APNIC has requested an additional address range from IANA.
   • The APNIC Certification (CA) project was introduced and it was noted that the Registration Authority (RA) is available during this meeting, for processing of APNIC Members' certificate requests.

   Questions and Discussion

   A representative of the Address Council expressed his thanks to APNIC for providing the secretariat service to the ASO over the past year.

2. Budget and Financial Report, Kyoko Day

   The presentation outlined the status of APNIC's budget and financial position.

   Questions and Discussion

   There was a question about the cash reserve, and a comment that since this reserve has been continuing to grow beyond what was required, it may, therefore, be time to review the level of membership fees. Kyoko Day explained that spending in the coming year will increase substantially due to a number of factors, including the cost of employing staff recruited during 2000, the cost of extra office space obtained in 2000, and the expiry of rent discount periods enjoyed during most of the past year.

   It was requested that this issue be reviewed in the context of the 2001 budget at the Kuala Lumpur meeting.

   There was a question about the level of the fee to ICANN, and a suggestion that there should be consideration of capping the level of the ICANN contribution.

Executive Council Report

Tommi Chen, Chair APNIC Executive Council

The presentation outlined the role of the APNIC EC, the election process, and the EC activities for 2000. Thanks were also expressed to the Secretariat for their work during the past six months.

Questions and Discussion

Takashi Arano explained why he resigned from the EC shortly after his election in March 2000 and apologised for being unable to serve as elected.

Break at 10:45am
Reconvened at 11:15 am

General reminders were given regarding wireless cards, evaluation forms, CA details, and unclaimed member kits and voting forms.

RIR Reports

1. ARIN update October 2000, Richard Jimmerson, ARIN

   This presentation outlined ARIN activities and resource status.

   Questions and Discussion

   There was a question from the floor about ARIN membership. It was explained that ARIN does have an open membership system - any organisation or individual can become a member and members then pay an annual "registration services fee" for access to resources. It was further explained that all ARIN members have equal voting rights.

2. RIPE NCC Status Report, Joao Damas, RIPE NCC

   This presentation outlined RIPE NCC's activities and resource status.

   Questions and Discussion

   There was a question about the difference between RIPE and RIPE NCC. It was explained that RIPE is simply a meeting forum which has no formal legal status or membership structure and which is open to anyone who is interested. RIPE NCC was set up to carry out the business and services developed within the RIPE community; it is the RIR organisation.

   There was a question about the migration of ccTLD data (reflected by a recent large reduction in whois objects carried in the RIPE database). It was explained that countries other than Germany will also be migrated as the ccTLDs become ready. It was explained that RIPE NCC does not wish to force any ccTLDs to migrate, nor to allow important data to be lost to the community.

   It was explained that RIPE NCC intends to continue supporting referrals to ccTLDs.

3. LACNIC Status Report, German Valdez, LACNIC

   This presentation outlined the progress and status of the emerging RIR for Latin America and the Caribbean. It was announced that Sao Paulo, Brazil has been selected as the base for the LACNIC secretariat.

   Questions and Discussion

   In response to a question about the official language of LACNIC, it was explained that English would be the official language and the meetings are likely to have simultaneous translations.

4. AfriNIC Status Report, Mouhamet Diop, AfriNIC

   This presentation outlined the progress and status of the emerging RIR for the African region. At the ICANN meeting in Cape Town it was established that there was regional support for the formation of the registry. AfriNIC is progressing in compliance with the MoU provisions on emerging registries. Initially, AfriNIC will be hosted by RIPE NCC.

   Questions and Discussion

   No questions.

Paul Wilson expressed thanks to the RIRs and the emerging RIRs for their participation at this meeting.

Voting (including EC election) preparation

Paul Wilson gave a brief presentation explaining the APNIC EC Election process and voting procedure.

EC candidates were invited to address the meeting:

J. Vijay

• The candidate was not present.

Akinori Maemura

• The candidate outlined his background: he has five years experience in the Internet industries in Japan. He is a member of JPNIC IP Working Group and he believes this has helped him understand what is required to contribute to APNIC.

Radha Krishna Koppula

• The candidate was not present.

Vinh Ngo

• The candidate outlined his background in research projects, including ARPANET. He has been involved in the management and technical sides of the industry in Australia and New Zealand. He believes APNIC has a lot to contribute to the global community.

Liu Xiaoyi

• The candidate outlined his background with China Telecom including his role in development of ChinaNet. His main areas of work now include the development of large networks. He believes he can work well with the APNIC membership.

A call was made for anyone to speak on behalf of the nominees not present. There was no further discussion of these candidates.

The voting procedure was again described, and a call was made for any final questions. No questions were raised.

A call was made by Paul Wilson, on behalf of the APNIC EC, for volunteers to act as "tellers" and oversee the election process and ballot counting. The volunteers to oversee the election were John Earls, Matthias Koerber, and David Conrad. In addition, the volunteers to count the votes were Ray Plzak and Richard Jimmerson of ARIN, and Nurani Nimpuno and Mirjam Kuehne of RIPE NCC.

Break at 12:45pm
Reconvened at 2:20pm

APNIC Policy Process, Paul Wilson

The presentation discussed the development of APNIC's policy making processes and compared them to the processes in other RIRs. It was noted that within the new meeting structure at APNIC, a number of different Special Interest Groups would consider policy questions and arrive at consensus decisions, some of which may affect APNIC members. Given the length of the meeting, and the possibility for parallel SIG sessions, APNIC members may not be able to attend or participate in all SIGs. Yet, realistically, it would not be possible for all SIG discussions to be repeated in detail within the Member Meeting Plenary. A possible new model for the process was, therefore, suggested as an item for future discussion.

Questions and Discussion

There was a comment in support of allowing any show of hands to include non-members. It was suggested that this should be the case in general, unless APNIC moves towards a "non-resource" membership model in which case APNIC membership would be able to encompass a wider range of interested parties.

The RIPE process was described, whereby the working groups are considered the main forum for discussing and developing policy and the working group chairs take the recommendations to the plenary to get further input. It was explained that there have been only very rare occasions where the recommendations of working groups have not been accepted by the plenary. It was explained that the working groups may ask RIPE NCC staff to take action to implement a recommendation, unless the recommendation raises important membership issues or requires expenditure that falls outside the budget for the current activity plan. If such issues are involved, then the recommendation will be taken to the General Assembly for discussion and approval.

The difference between the RIPE model and this proposal was explained as follows: the "default" in the RIPE model is that recommendations are accepted unless there is an objection; the "default" suggested for APNIC is that consensus is required to adopt a proposal.

There was a comment that whatever procedure is adopted must comply with the legal requirements of APNIC's structure.

JPNIC was invited to comment on their working group structure. A JPNIC representative explained that the working group structure is good in that it allows experts to be brought into the process. He commented that the SIG process is an improvement on APNIC's ability to invite participation. He also clarified that working group members are not representatives of the membership, but are appointed by the JPNIC Board as experts in their fields. Working groups are not open, but may sometimes invite public comment by email or in an open meeting like a SIG.

There was a comment that SIGs determinations need to be presented to the APNIC Member Meeting as recommendations. It was also suggested that SIG membership and work needs to be more continuous as there is currently little follow-up on the presentations made at the meeting.

There was a comment that the RIPE model works well, as does the JPNIC process, and that their form of participation could be very useful to APNIC.

In summary, it was suggested that this issue needs to be determined after more thought and development.

SIG reports and discussion

Paul Wilson requested that the discussion of the SIG recommendations should be limited to clarifying questions, so as not to repeat all that had been discussed in the SIG.

1. Address policy SIG, Takashi Arano
   • Seven topics out of the nine topics originally scheduled were discussed.
   • More than 100 people attended.

   "Separate Assignment Policies for End Users and ISPs"

   • presented by Izumi Okutani
   • No consensus was reached on this topic and more work is required.
   • The presenter of this topic provided clarification to the member meeting as to the nature of the proposal. She explained that this was not a proposal to make assignments for a fixed period. Rather, the proposal is to make assignments based on a network's actual usage, not on the basis of one year estimates.

   "Criteria for PA allocations"

   • presented by Anne Lord
   • The original proposal presented to the meeting was discussed and amended in response to various suggestions. However, no consensus was reached on the modified proposal. It was recommended that more work is required.

   "Recommendations on IPv6 address allocations"

   • presented by Alain Durand
   • Rough consensus was received in favour of the proposal to conform to a standard /48 end-site assignment under IPv6.
   • There was opposition to the proposal expressed from the floor of the Member Meeting on the basis that the proposal is difficult to comply with.

   "On Addressing Requirements for GPRS infrastructure"

   • presented by Linh Duong
   • Rough consensus was reached for this proposal.
   • It was explained this was accepted at the SIG as an operational issue for APNIC. However, it was also explained that there was a feeling that the meeting did not fully understand the nature of the proposal; therefore, there was a call to the Member Meeting for an additional show of hands for support to treat the paper as an operational issue. There was a small measure of support in favour of this; none against.
   • There was a call for objections to declaring a rough consensus on this issue. A discussion followed regarding the level of detail in the proposal and whether a simpler proposal should be prepared and re-presented to the next meeting.
   • It was explained that RIPE NCC has already adopted the proposal.
   • A comment was made that the statement in the proposal about private networks receiving allocations does in fact change policy. However it was then noted that APNIC policies do not explicitly prevent allocation of address space to private networks.
   • There was a request for clarification as to whether this was an allocation or an assignment issue. It was explained that this was discussed at the SIG as being potentially about both assignments and allocations.
   • Rough consensus was reached on accepting this proposal.

   "How to evaluate IP address for cable modem, xDSL and home LAN"

   • presented by Seung-Min Lee
   • There was consensus in the SIG that a task force should be formed to examine these issues.

   "IP Address requirements for mobile phones"

   • presented by Linh Duong
   • In the SIG it was explained that there is a move within the GSM Association to formalise the recommendations of this paper and adopt them as guidelines for operators.
   • It was expressed that this proposal fits with existing policy.
   • No further comments were received.

   "Service guidelines for common evaluation principles"

   • presented by Ruri Hiromi
   • It was explained that the guidelines are intended to be more of a "manual" than a specific policy document.
   • There was consensus in the SIG that a working group be established.
   • It was explained that the conclusions were not for a defined approach but rather that the issues should be discussed further on the mailing list.
   • There was a comment that a deadline is required for establishing action on these matters. It was suggested that the proponent of the topic should call for comments on how to set a deadline and what form of development should follow.
   • It was noted that in such cases in general, proponents should be expected to carry such activities forward, until consensus is reached. Neither the chair nor the APNIC secretariat should take specific action, except to facilitate the process as requested.

   It was explained that APNIC proposals on "Criteria for PI assignments" and the "Future of ISP Confederations" were withdrawn due to a shortage of time.

   Questions and Discussion

   Discussion followed on the process to be adopted for future action. It was suggested that it is necessary to prepare draft documents first, even if consensus has not yet been achieved, as a way of informing future discussions. Other comments followed about the need to ensure SIG work is ongoing and continuous. It was also suggested that there needs to be a more formal structure to the SIGs with fixed ongoing members doing the work and drawing on interested parties in meetings and other public forums.

There was also a suggestion that APNIC make a call for SIG chairs to lead the work.

Voting - EC election

Tommi Chen announced the election result.

• Akinori Maemura was announced as the new EC member. He gave a brief statement of thanks and of his commitment to working as an APNIC EC member.

Break 3:35pm
Reconvened at 4:15pm

SIG reports and discussion (cont.)

1. Whois database SIG, Joao Damas

   "Private Information handling in APNIC database"

   • presented by Akinori Maemura
   • The SIG recommended an action item on APNIC to investigate the legal implications of the proposal and report back. It was explained that this is a legal issue at this stage rather than a policy issue.
   • No deadline was given for this stage. The chair will seek feedback to help frame the question.

   "APNIC's CA project report"

   • presented by Paul Gampe
   • All APNIC Members were encouraged to go through the process of applying for a certificate.

   No further questions or discussions.

2. IPv6 SIG
   • Akira Kato, SIG chair, was no longer present, so Takashi Arano reported on his behalf. The SIG was a collection of status reports including: Kame status, IPv6 activities in Japan, APNIC IPv6 Status, WIDE sTLA status.
   • There was also a discussion arising from an earlier question about APNIC's response to the IAB/IESG recommendations. It was explained the RIRs urged the IAB/IESG to give presentations at RIR meetings. The efforts of the IPv6 directorate in doing that were commended. The progress of the RIR policy draft and the further development of the IAB/IESG document through the RFC processes was outlined. It was explained that the RIRs would use feedback received at three regional policy meetings in redrafting the IPv6 policy document, while the IAB/IESG would proceed to publish their recommendations as an Informational RFC. It was noted that there is no need for a specific RIR response to the IAB/IESG at this stage.

3. Routing SIG, Philip Smith

   "Internet BGP Table Analysis"

   • presented by Geoff Huston
   • Various observations from the routing table were presented.

   "Towards millisecond IGP convergence"

   • presented by Cengiz Alaettinoglu
   • An analysis of ISIS convergence was presented.

   "Summary from RIPE routing WG - coordinated route flap dampening parameters"

   • presented by Philip Smith
   • It was explained that this was a summary of material presented to RIPE; it is expected that updates will be available in time for the next RIPE meeting.

   "Proposal for fixing relationship between IPv4 address allocations and globally visible routing announcements"

   • presented by James Spenceley
   • It was explained that there was some discussion of this proposal in the SIG but that there had been no real feeling of support for it.

   "IRR Scalability"

   • presented by Kuniaki Kondo
   • There was a call made in the SIG for APNIC to host an IRR.
   • It was then announced that this issue is in fact on APNIC's project list.

The SIG chair commented that this SIG was well attended and comprised high quality presentations, but that it really needs more time in the future.

Open discussion

Thanks were expressed to everyone for attending.

As the SIG reports finished earlier than planned, other questions and comments were invited about the SIGs, the reporting procedures, or the Open Policy Meeting in general.

There was a question about the technical operations of the terminal room. The terminal room set-up was detailed and the sponsors were thanked. An invitation was made for anyone who needed information about security and encryption to approach APNIC for advice.

Caution was urged for anyone using wireless cards to take adequate security precautions, including SSH tunnelling.

Thanks were expressed to Paul Gampe, the APNIC technical team, and to Philip Smith for the performance of the terminal room.

Next Meeting

There was brief discussion of the next meeting to be at APRICOT in Kuala Lumpur.

It was explained that location for the second APNIC meeting for 2001 still needs to be determined. A detailed call for proposals will be made in the near future.

There was a question about whether there were other conferences that APNIC meetings could coincide with. It was explained that the existence of other suitable conferences was included as a selection criteria in the last call and will be included again.

Thanks were expressed to sponsors:

Gold Sponsors

• KRNIC - APNIC Member Meeting
• COMindico - Day 1
• China Mobile - Day 2
• Asia OnLine - Boat Cruise and Internet Connection

There was further acknowledgement and thanks to Philip Smith for all the various forms of support he has provided to APNIC.

Silver Sponsors

• Telstra - Opening reception
• CNNIC - APNIC Training course

Other Sponsors

• Cisco Systems - Terminal room
• Newbase - Terminal room PCs

Thanks were expressed to all of the APNIC staff.

Thanks were expressed to all the members and the other participants and a further call was made for evaluation and feedback.

Meeting closed: 5:05pm

Minuted by: Gerard Ross

 Back to Minutes Index