 Meeting Results |
| SIGs |
| BOFs |
| Programme |
| AMM |
| HM Consultation |
| AC Election |
| Sponsors |
| Social Event |
| Past meetings |
| APNIC 12 Home |
| APNIC Home |
12th APNIC Open Policy MeetingAPNIC Member MeetingThursday 31 August, Grand Hotel, TaipeiminutesMeeting commenced: 09:50 Chair: Paul Wilson / Che-Hoo Cheng Agenda
Paul Wilson The agenda was outlined and the conduct of the meeting was explained. It was noted that the APNIC membership is now five years old. There was an acknowledgement of the APNIC founding members. It was also noted that of the 90 founding members, at least 25 were present at this meeting. The sponsor for this session, Taiwan Fixed Network, was thanked for its support. Paul Wilson, Director General The presentation outlined APNIC’s resource and membership status. In particular, the following resource-related issues were noted: The presenter provided an outline of the APNIC training program and invited input and expressions of interest in hosting training. The presenter outlined service developments and planned projects with relation to: The Financial Report and Statement of Activities were described. In particular, it was noted that: It was noted that the Secretariat has been restructured to improveadministrative efficiency. It was noted that staff should increase approximately 30 people by the end of 2001. There was a question relating to the projected surplus. It was noted that the budget for 2002 has not yet been set. There was a discussion about the newsletter. It was noted that Apster will be published quarterly, sent to all members, published on the web site, and made available to others who wish to distribute it. Dr Tan Tin Wee, National University of Singapore The presentation outlined the progress of the APNIC Member Survey. It was noted that the details of the responses remain confidential, and that this presentation is a general description of the aims and progress of the survey. It was noted that the survey consists of evaluation forms and face-to-face consultations. It was noted that the response to the survey so far has been very good with a high level of interest and participation. It was noted that the survey is intended not only for members, and that other stakeholders are encouraged to participate also. Questions and discussion The Chair explained that the meeting evaluation form is separate from the KPMG-administered survey. The Chair reminded the meeting of the deadline for the return of AC ballot papers. [break 10:35 – 11:15] Che-Hoo Cheng, EC Chair This presentation introduced the current EC members and outlined the recent activities of the EC, in terms of policy and managerial supervision. It was noted that minutes of all EC meetings arepublished online. The presenter invited all stakeholders to approach the EC with any questions or concerns. Questions and discussion No questions. Gerard Ross, APNIC The presentation announced the EC approval of the APNIC Document Review Policy. The presentation?described the development of the Standard APNIC Membership Agreement and APNIC Definition Document.It was noted that recent legal advice had suggested minor amendments to clarify issues relating to: Questions and discussion It was explained that the EC had recommended that the latest amendments should be put to the membership for their consideration, but that there should first be a show of hands to determine whether these latest drafts should be put to a formal vote. It was explained that the recent legal advice was received in relation to APNIC dealing with several insolvencies recently. It was noted that a clearer statement of the effect of insolvency on the membership agreement would lead to greater administrative ease and protection of public resources. A show of hands was called. There was strong consensus, without objection, that the most recent drafts of the documents should be put to the vote at this meeting. Paul Wilson, APNIC This presentation described in detail a proposal to revise the APNIC membership structure by adding additional membership categories. It was explained that existing members would be either unaffected or advantaged. It was explained that the intention of the proposal is to develop a more open and participatory membership base, with greater flexibility. Questions and discussion It was argued that although the general proposal is a good idea,the option to upgrade to higher levels of membership, and thus gainmore votes, on the basis of money rather than address holdings isunfair. It was also noted that the nomenclature of the membershipcategories contributes to this potential problem. There was adiscussion of the history of this optional upgrade policy. There was a request to amend the proposal to remove the option toupgrade membership. In response, it was argued that the optionalupgrade is a feature as it allows organisations to choose tocontribute to APNIC beyond their strict requirement, and that it isreasonable that such organisations should receive a benefit forthat support. It was noted that there is no objection to recognising thisadditional contribution, but that the nomenclature is misleadingand problematic. An offer was made to develop a new naming systemfor the membership categories subsequent to this meeting, fordiscussion at a future meeting. There was a request for more clarification for associate members,and the effect this may have on members of confederations. It wassuggested that there should be a better way of encouraging APNICparticipation by members of confederations, rather than having thempay two sets of membership fees. It was explained that thisproposal does not seek to address the needs of members of NIRs as aprimary motivation. It was suggested that the specific problem ofthe NIRs may require a separate proposal, but that should not beincompatible with this current proposal. It was noted that in terms of IPv6 address holding, the existingfee boundaries would not change. It was noted that APNIC's model is based on openparticipation. It was argued that allocating a large block of votesautomatically to a confederation would pose a risk of block proxyvoting overwhelming the participation of the general membership. Itwas argued that such a system would create a body based on councildelegations rather than a membership body, and that this wouldalter the fundamental nature of APNIC. Therefore, it was argued, adirect fee for direct participation is more consistent with thecurrent (and intended) nature of APNIC. There was a discussion of associate members, and a suggestion toconsider a further category of membership without any votingrights. It was argued that because the NIRs do not use IP addressesthemselves, it is appropriate for the ISP members, who are the onesusing address space, to receive the votes. It was suggested that issues raised not directly related to thedetails of the proposal in hand be deferred until the afternoonsession. SIG and BOF chairs were invited to report on the conduct andcontent of SIGs and BOFs held at this Open Policy Meeting (forspecific details, refer to the relevant minutes). Takashi Arano, Asia Global Crossing The SIG chair reported on the topics, attendance, and discussionsfrom this SIG. In particular, the presenter outlined: It was reported that there had been a general consensus reached on the proposal in general, except for the issues of customer lists and full justification for assignments of more than /30, which would be referred back to the discussion lists. It was reported that consensus was reached on the proposal as published. It was reported that the consensus of the SIG was that special cases need to be better defined and brought back to the SIG. It was reported that consensus was reached on the proposal as published. It was reported that consensus was reached on the general issue of assignments to IXPs, but not on the issue of "critical infrastructure". It was reported that while there was consensus on the general principles proposed, details such as minimum allocation size need to be discussed further. It was reported that the SIG had recommended that this proposal be developed further and communicated to other RIR meetings. It was reported that consensus was reached to extend the bootstrapping period until the next IPv6 policy is implemented, on the understanding that the next policy takes account of bootstrapping needs. It was reported that consensus was reached to adopt the proposal with an amendment specifying /64 assignments for Exchange Points. Questions and discussion It was suggested that because these SIGs were well attended, it wasappropriate for the APNIC Member Meeting to accept the recommendation of the SIGs without the need to fully discuss eachissue again. There were no objections to proceeding in this way. There was a call for a show of hands to accept the consensus items reported. There was a strong show of consensus to accept the recommendations of the SIG. It was noted that this was the most successful SIG to date, in terms of participation and progress made. It was acknowledged that the experience of the Broadband Working Group was very successful. It was suggested that such a model is very effective and should be used more in future. The presenter called for suggestions on the formation of other working groups. Gifts were presented to Takashi Arano and Seung-Min Lee in recognition of their work in chairing these SIGs. Voting preparationsThe voting issues and the election process were explained in detail. Independent volunteers were called for to assist John Earles with supervising the election and counting ballots. Members were urged to check that they had received the correct number of ballot papers. Geoff Huston, Telstra The presenter noted that no issues affecting fundamental IPv6 Address policy were discussed in the SIG. This SIG was more of an overview of the activities of IPv6 operations and research in the region. The presenter summarised the content of the presentations that were given. Questions and discussion No discussion. Dr John Earls, KPMG The presenter reported that the election was carried out properly and that 142 votes were received. The successful candidate was Kenny S Huang. It was noted that the ballots were sealed in an envelope and presented to APNIC for temporary storage. Congratulations were offered to Kenny Huang. Gifts were presented to Jun Murai and John Earls for their assistance. [break 13:00 – 14:15] Philip Smith, Cisco The SIG Chair presented an overview of the topics discussed in these SIGs. It was explained that these SIGs were primarily operational in nature and that only two policy proposals were made (during the Joint Routing/DB SIG), namely: It was reported that consensus was reached to adopt this proposal. It was reported that consensus was reached to adopt this proposal, but it was noted that there should be more discussion to consider extending the policy to non-residential users also. It was also noted that the current “exceptional circumstances” clause would still apply to non-residential networks. Questions and discussion There was a show of hands in favour of adopting the recommendations of the Joint Routing/DB SIG. One objection was raised in relation to the amendment of section 7.17. It was argued that the principle of the proposal was acceptable but that it didn't go far enough. It was requested that the /30 should be changed to /28. There was an additional show of hands in support amendment the proposal as discussed. The Chair noted that there was consensus for the proposal, as amended. However, on a point of process, it was decided that the original recommendation of the SIG should be accepted, and that the requested amendment should be returned to the WG and SIG for further discussion. Dr Philip Smith, Cisco The BOF Chair presented a summary of the issues discussed during this BOF, including a recommendation that APNIC establish an Exchange Point SIG. Questions and discussion There was a brief discussion of the call for an Exchange Point SIG. There was a?show of hands indicating consensus for this proposal. Paul Gampe, Red Hat The SIG Chair presented a summary of the issues discussed during this SIG and noted that it was primarily an operational SIG and proposed no changes to existing policy. Questions and discussion It was noted that although there were no specific policies changes recommended from this SIG, there were resource implications involved in investigating work on the issues discussed. The Chair called for expressions of support for APNIC to investigate the IDN Impact on reverse DNS. It was noted that APNIC should continue work on the other issues that were discussed. Maemura Akinori, JPNIC IPWG The NIR Chair outlined the content of the first Open NIR Meeting, including the TWNIC staff dispatch to APNIC; KRNIC's ISP request procedure; APNIC's organisational change; TWNIC's automated address management system; status of ISOC-ID; and APNIC's NIR status report. The meeting also included a discussion of a potential new NIR structure. It was noted that this meeting was very active and worthwhile. Questions and discussion No questions or discussion. Gerard Ross, APNIC The BOF Chair outlined the content of this BOF, which was being held for the first time. He also noted that there had been a strong level of participation in this BOF and recommended that it be held at future meetings. Questions and discussion No questions or discussions. Champika Wijayatunga, APNIC The presenter noted that the BOF was not particularly well attended, possibly because of its scheduling. He outlined the general issues discussed during the BOF, including content, duration, and frequency of courses. There was encouragement for all feedback and expressions of local support. Questions and discussion No questions or discussions. Sanjaya, APNIC The presenter outlined the content of the BOF, which provided an update to the developments of the APNIC CA project. Questions and discussion No questions or discussions. Sanjaya, APNIC The presenter outlined the objectives of the MyAPNIC project and gave a demonstration of the prototype interface. The presenter encouraged members to participate in the testing of the MyAPNIC project. Questions and discussion It was explained that the project is currently only in prototype. It was noted that a production implementation would not be run on the prototype Microsoft/ASP platform. It was also noted that there remains a lot of work to be done in finalising what features will be developed for the release version. It was also noted that APNIC would not develop a final tool without full input from the membership. There was an expression that such a tool would be very helpful for LIRs. There was a suggestion of forming a task force to accelerate the process of developing the specifications of the project. There was encouragement for all interested parties to contact Sanjaya. General discussionIt was noted that the voting deadline would be extended until 4pm [Break 15:25 – 16:00] Ray Plzak, ARIN The presentation provided an update of the activities and resource status of ARIN. In particular, there was discussion of restructuring and staffing issues, ARIN meetings, policy developments, and service developments. A detailed overview of the status of the legacy transfer project was given. There was also a discussion of ARIN's activities in support of LACNIC. Questions and discussion No questions or discussions. Nurani Nimpuno, RIPE NCC The presentation provided an update of the activities and resource status of RIPE NCC. In particular, there was discussion of restructuring and staffing issues, RIPE NCC meetings, and service developments including a discussion of producing a more concise policy document; the new version of the RIPE database; and new projects. There was also discussion of RIPE NCC's current role as ASO Secretariat and other outreach activities. Questions and discussion No questions or discussions. Paul Wilson There was discussion of the date and venue of the next APNIC meeting. It was noted that the next APRICOT will be held in Bangkok in 2002. There was concern expressed regarding the competition for sessions when the APNIC Open Policy meeting is run as part of APRICOT. It was noted that this issue should be considered carefully. There was also a general call for expressions of interests in hosting the second APNIC meeting for 2002. Questions and discussion There was a suggestion to consider combining with the IETF in Japan in July; however, it was noted that this would not allow much preparation time after the first meeting. Membership Agreement and Definitions Document Yes 159; No 23 – documents accepted. Revised Membership Structure Yes 100; No 82 – new membership structure accepted. Paul Wilson It was noted that there have been positive comments made this week in relation to the progress made in various areas of APNIC services and operations. The APNIC staff were thanked for their work in preparing this meeting. The sponsors for this day, Taiwan Fixed Network, were thanked. TWNIC in particular, as host, was thanked for its contribution in making this meeting a success. Meeting closed: 16:35 Minuted by: Gerard Ross |