APNIC Home APNIC Open Policy Meeting 11
  APNIC Meeting Menu  Register
  APNIC Meeting Menu  Sponsors
  APNIC Meeting Menu  SIGs
  APNIC Meeting Menu  BOFs
  APNIC Meeting Menu  EC Election
  APNIC Meeting Menu  Program
  APNIC Meeting Menu  AMM
  APNIC Meeting Menu  HM Consultation
  APNIC Meeting Menu  Social Event
  APNIC Meeting Menu  Evaluation
  APNIC Meeting Menu  APRICOT 2001
  APNIC Meeting Menu  Archive
  APNIC Meeting Menu  Meeting Home
  APNIC Meeting Menu  APNIC Home

APNIC Open Policy Meeting

APNIC Annual Member Meeting - Friday 2, March

Draft minutes

Meeting commenced: 09:30

Chair: Tommi Chen / Paul Wilson
  1. Opening remarks
  2. APNIC Annual Report (Paul Wilson, Director General)
  3. APNIC Executive Council Report (Tommi Chen, Chair)
  4. New Technical Services Manager Introduced
  5. APNIC Financial Report (Kyoko Day, Business Manager)
  6. Coffee break
  7. Questions and discussion about APNIC Reports
  8. EC Election preparations, Candidate speeches
  9. Lunch
  10. SIG, BOF, and WG reports
  11. Election results
  12. NIR BOF report
  13. General discussion
  14. Coffee break
  15. Address Council report
  16. Other RIR reports
  17. Next meetings, closing remarks
  18. Close
Opening remarks

Paul Wilson

The agenda was outlined and the conduct of the meeting was explained.


APNIC Annual Report

Paul Wilson, Director General

The presentation outlined the activities, staffing, membership growth, and resource status of APNIC during 2000. The presentation also outlined the planned activities for 2001. During this presentation, the next APNIC meeting was announced, to be hosted by TWNIC in Taipei, August 2001.


APNIC Executive Council Report

Tommi Chen, Chair

The current EC members were introduced and the EC report for 2000 was presented, detailing EC responsibilities, meetings, decisions, and other activities. The chair also acknowledged and thanked the sponsors and SIG chairs.

Questions and discussion

In response to a question regarding whether observers should be permitted into meetings, it was clarified that the APNIC Member Meeting is in fact open to all, but that EC meetings have traditionally been closed. It was noted that there had never been a previous request for EC meetings to opened. It was noted that all EC minutes are published on the web site.


New Technical Services Manager introduced

George Michaelson

The new APNIC Technical Services Manager presented a brief overview of his background and career history.

[break 10:45 – 11:20]


APNIC Financial Report

Kyoko Day, Business Manager

The presentation provided an overview and breakdown of APNIC’s financial activities for 2000 and projected budget for 2001. The presenter also noted that more detailed information is available for those who wish to receive further explanation.

Questions and discussion

It was explained that the low value of the Australian dollar during 2000 was of benefit to APNIC because it receives most of its revenue in US dollars but the majority of its expenses are in AU dollars.

The presenter sought membership feedback as to the appropriate level of detail to be included in future financial reports. No comments were received from the floor. The presenter invited comments to be made personally at any time.


Questions and discussion about APNIC Reports

It was explained that in previous meetings there have been requests for more time to be set aside for questions and discussion.

There were no questions from the floor.


EC Election preparations, candidate speeches

The election process was explained, the EC members whose terms ending were noted, and the nominees were invited to address the Membership Meeting.

Byung-Kyu Kim

Director, KRNIC

The nominee introduced himself to the meeting.

Harishankar Gupta

Director, BSNL

The nominee introduced himself to the meeting.

Kuo-Wei Wu

Senior VP, Yam Digital Technology Co. Ltd.

The nominee introduced himself to the meeting.

Kusumba Sridhar

Senior Manager, Technical, Online Media Solutions Limited

The nominee was not present. There was a call for anyone who wished to speak on his behalf, but there was no one present able to do so.

Qian Hualin

Computer Network Information Center, Chinese Academy of Science

The nominee introduced himself to the meeting.

Xing Li

Chief Architect, China Education and Research Network

The nominee introduced himself to the meeting.

Questions and discussion

The outgoing EC chair urged all nominees to consider the needs of the region as a whole, not simply the needs of their own country.

The voting procedures and ballot forms were explained in detail. It was explained that voting should take place during the lunch break and ballots must be lodged in the ballot box by 2pm.

The Executive Council called for tellers to scrutinise the election and count the votes. The following volunteers were accepted as tellers:

Matthias Koerber

John Crain

Richard Jimmerson

Mirjam Kuhne

Joanna Tso


It was explained that all ballots had been stamped to certify validity, but that all ballot markings were identical.

[Lunch 12:30 – 14:05]


SIG, BOF, and WG reports

SIG: Database (DB)

Chair: Xing Li

The SIG chair reported on the topics, attendance, and discussions from this SIG. He noted the call for more consistent global whois output. He noted that the new version of the RIPE DB has some IPv6 support but still needs work to support IPv6 route objects.

A general overview of the privacy requirements was provided.

The chair expressed the hope that attendance would be stronger for this SIG in future.

It was noted that there are two further DB issues arising. One is the transition to RIPE DBv3. The other is the growing demand for a globally consistent whois output.

No questions or discussion.


Chair: Paul Gampe

The SIG chair was not present. There was a call for a report from an attendee.

Bruce Campbell reported on the presentations and discussions from this SIG. He noted that there was a call for more documentation and training in the correct management of reverse DNS.

No questions or discussion.


Chair: Jun Murai

The SIG chair was not present. There was a call for a report from an attendee.

It was noted that one of the presentations from this SIG will be reported in the Address policy SIG report.

No questions or discussion.

SIG: Routing

Chair: Philip Smith

The SIG chair reported on the topics, attendance, and discussions from this SIG. It was noted that the SIG was split into two days, with some presentations being given during the Address policy (New Technology) SIG.

The chair outlined the presentations and noted that the observations made in the “Measuring BGP” and “AS Number Growth” topics provide very useful and important information on potential problems in Internet routing.

The chair noted that it would be useful for APNIC to be involved in the RIPE NCC developments in this area.

No questions or discussion.

SIG: Address policy (New Technology)

Chair: Geoff Huston

The SIG chair was not present.

Paul Wilson provided an overview of this session, and noted that there was only a small amount of content for this session. Some of the time allocated for this session was used to present material that had flowed over from other sessions.

No questions or discussion.

SIG: Address policy (Procedures)

Chair: Seung-Min Lee / Takashi Arano

Takashi Arano outlined the history of the Address policy SIG. He also noted the need to examine the consistency of policies with current Internet practices. He noted the topics which were presented.

He noted that there had been a general consensus on the issues discussed relating to proposed criteria for PA allocations and PI assignments. However, he noted that due to the relatively low attendance in this session, it would be necessary to raise these issues again to a wider range of the membership.

The proposal to make trial time-limited, simplified IPv4 allocations from a block of legacy space held by JPNIC was discussed. It was noted that the one purpose of this trial is to aid in the transition to IPv6.

Paul Wilson summarised the presentation he gave at the SIG, emphasising the need for clearer, more consistent, and more objectively defined criteria for both first allocation of PA address space and assignments of PI address space. He reported that there was a general consensus that APNIC should seek to make clearer policies, but the details of those criteria still require much consideration.

It was noted that some of the assumptions underlying Address policy may be at odds with the assumptions of contemporary Internet industry. Therefore, it is necessary to carefully consider the impacts of any criteria that are suggested.

It was noted that the SIG did not produce a clear statement on the value of continuing the minimum allocation policy, but that there was strong desire that the criteria be consistent.

It was also noted that the consensus was that it may be acceptable to develop a policy that allows RIRs to make judgements on criteria other than network size, such as the developmental needs of a country.

It was reported that there was no consensus as to whether RIRs are responsible for protecting routing.

Basic proposals for PI assignments and initial PA allocations were outlined. However, it was explained that many issues still require discussion.

It was proposed that APNIC develop draft policies which would clarify and formalise the basic criteria for provider independent assignments and provider aggregatable allocations to provide a clearer path for new entrants to the Internet community.

It was suggested that such policies should provide for clear eligibility criteria for initial allocations of IPv4 address space. It was explained that current policy provides little guidance as to what is sufficient justification for a minimum allocation. This lack of certainty can create inefficiencies and problems that affect both requestors and APNIC.

It was explained that there are uncertainties and inconsistencies in the current practices. For example, it was explained that the current distinctions made between PA allocations and PI assignments create confusion for many people. It was also noted that since both PA allocations and PI assignments carry the same “policy cost” in terms of address space usage and routing table entries, that the practice of treating them differently is illogical.

It was noted that this proposal is intended to be framed within the goals of address space management and to create and a greater level of technical and internal consistency.

The Meeting was asked to consider the points set out, with a view to determining whether there is sufficient consensus to proceed with these proposals.

There was a statement made from the floor in support of the proposal, provided that the issue was re-presented in greater detail at the August meeting.

A representative from RIPE NCC noted that they also are challenged by many of the same problems that have been discussed here. It was noted that these are important issues that need to be tackled in order to bring policies into line with the operational reality of the Internet.

A representative from ARIN noted that the position in ARIN is different, as they do not have the same number of small, developing ISPs. It was noted however that ARIN would monitor with interest the developments in this region.

It was noted that a change in APNIC policy would not necessarily lead to a change in NIR policy, although all parties do acknowledge the desirability of consistency.

There was a call on EC members to comment on these issues. In particular, the EC were asked to comment in general on the concept of APNIC seeking to improve policies in the interim period, while research into a better understanding of the operational environment is conducted.

It was noted that the current policies create many problems for the development of Internet Data Centres (IDCs). It was suggested that the IDC issues were likely to continue to grow in importance.

There was a request for a future presentation on the progress of renumbering under these proposals. A representative from ARIN noted that the position at ARIN, where a similar policy is in place, is that there is a general understanding that renumbering is required.

It was noted that there is a great deal of misunderstanding among network operators about the impact of renumbering. It was suggested that there is a need for RIRs to provide better information about this issue. However, it was noted that there is a danger in the RIRs becoming involved in the active routing issues of ISPs, in that it changes the nature of the relationship between RIRs and their members. There were several other statements to the effect that there is some role for APNIC in routing, but that there needs to be very careful consideration of the balance of this role.

There was a call for a show of hands to indicate a statement of consensus on the proposed issues. The show of hands was favourable but not conclusive. There was a call for guidance from the EC members on how to interpret consensus in this group.

It was proposed by the EC Chair that consensus had been reached. There were no objections and, therefore, consensus was declared.

Cable/xDSL Working Group

Takashi Arano outlined the activities and progress of the working group to present a draft on guidelines for cable/xDSL network assignments to the next APNIC meeting. He also encouraged the participants in the meeting to consider joining the working group.

No questions or discussion.

BOF: Certification Authority

Chair: Paul Gampe

The SIG chair was not present. There was a call for a report from an attendee.

Fabrina Hossain outlined the content of the BOF.

No questions or discussion.

BOF: Membership Agreement

Chair: Gerard Ross

The BOF chair reported on the issues covered in the BOF and the progress of the draft Membership Agreement and the related documents. He outlined the suggested steps to be taken for the acceptance of the drafts.

No questions or discussion.


Chair: Philip Smith

The BOF chair reported on the issues covered in the BOF, and summarised the?activities of the APOPs list. It was noted that there is very little activity on this list.

No questions or discussion.

[break 15:35 – 16:15]


Election results

The Executive Council election results were announced. The successful candidates were:

Kuo-Wei Wu

Qian Hualin

Xing Li

Byung-Kyu Kim

The details of the voting were as follows:

210 valid ballots

8 late ballots (disqualified)

4 ambiguous ballots?(disqualified)

2 blank ballots?(disqualified)

It was noted that the invalidated ballots would not have altered the overall result.

The volunteers made the following recommendations for future elections:

That any additional marks on the ballot paper should invalidate the ballot.

That it should be noted on the ballot that it must be placed into the ballot box by the announced time or be deemed invalid.

That the deadline should be posted prominently on the ballot box.

That the volunteers should be involved in the process from the start, including the official marking of ballot papers.

That APNIC should develop clear policy of handling of late votes.

The detailed results and the sealed ballots and vote counts were passed to Kyoko Day.


NIR BOF report

Chair: Seung-Min Lee

The Chair presented an overview of the background, activities, and discussions of the NIR BOF.

In particular, the presentation provided details of the “Dispatch a Staff” project and the NIRs’ plan to develop a proposal for a clearer statement of the definition and role of NIRs.

It was noted that the 3rd NIR Meeting was the most active and productive NIR meeting to date.


Address Council status report

Takashi Arano

The presentation provided an overview of the background, activities, and discussions of the ASO AC, including the ASO Open Meeting held on 1 March 2000, the development of emerging RIR criteria, the RIR comparison document, and public listening facilities.

There was a call for interest in public listening to AC meetings. There was no expression of interest in this facility.


Other RIR reports

AfriNIC status report

Yann Kwok

The presentation outlined the background, current status, and activities of the emerging RIR, AfriNIC.

There was a question about the efforts made to contact RIPE NCC and ARIN members in the AfriNIC area. The presenter outlined the discussions that had been held with ISPs in the region. It was noted that the largest ISP in the region, UUNet, is not currently an ARIN member.

RIPE NCC status report

Axel Pawlik

The presentation outlined the current status and activities of the RIPE NCC.

No questions or discussion.

ARIN status Report

Ray Plzak

The presentation outlined the current status and activities of ARIN.

No questions or discussion.

Next meetings and closing remarks

Paul Wilson

It was announced that the Executive Council has accepted the proposal by TWNIC to host the next APNIC meeting in Taipei, 28-31 August 2001.

Dr Chen of TWNIC expressed thanks to the Membership for accepting their proposal and invited all to attend the 12th APNIC Open Policy Meeting in Taipei.

Presentation of gifts

To departing EC members:

Tommi Chen,

Oh Kwan Sok (accepted by BK Kim)

To Sponsors:

KRNIC (Gold sponsor)

TWNIC (Silver sponsor)

CERNet (Silver sponsor)

ChinaNet (Silver sponsor)

To a member with large holes in socks even though those socks had been re-aggregated by his mother:

Sung-Woo Shin

Meeting closed: 17:25

Minuted by: Gerard Ross


Home | MyAPNIC | Info & FAQ | Services | Training | Meetings | Membership | Policy | Internet community | Search
Last modified | © 1999 - APNIC Pty. Ltd.
Comments to: )">webmaster@apnic.net | Privacy statement | RSS Really Simple Syndication