 Meeting Results |
| SIGs |
| BOFs |
| Programme |
| AMM |
| HM Consultation |
| AC Election |
| Sponsors |
| Social Event |
| Past meetings |
| APNIC 12 Home |
| APNIC Home |
12th APNIC Open Policy MeetingOpen NIR meetingThursday 30 August 2001, Grand Hotel, TaipeiMinutesMeeting commenced: 16:05 Chair: Akinori Maemura The Chair introduced the meeting and explained the agenda. Contents
Presentations
The modified agenda was reviewed and accepted. Moo-Ho Cheon, KRNIC This presentation outlined KRNIC's operations since its launch in 1999 and its basic principles and procedures for IP address allocation. Questions and discussion There was a question about how KRNIC uses the information about peak-time traffic. It was explained that it was used to calculate the number of subscribers an ISP has. It was clarified that details of infrastructure and number of subscribers are required from the ISP at the time of membership application, to ensure that only ISPs that actually require IP addresses can become KRNIC members. Chia-Nan Hsieh, TWNIC This presentation outlined the presenter's positive experience of hostmaster training at APNIC. The training was divided into an introduction to basic hostmaster principles and procedure, followed by hands-on experience at processing IP address requests, (although NIR requests were not dealt with). Suggestions were given to improve the training for future hostmasters. Questions and discussion There was a question whether TWNIC and APNIC's allocation practices and procedures were different. It was explained that there are some differences, in particular, TWNIC's evaluation process appears to be more strict that APNIC's. It was established that this training was available for all NIR hostmasters to attend. Izumi Okutani, JPNIC This presentation outlined some problems with JPNIC's previous structure, including the fee structure, and described the structural changes commenced in 2001. It was explained that the structural change means that members now apply separately for contracts related to domain management and IP address management. The revised structure is expected to result in a more stable funding structure for IP management at JPNIC. Questions and discussion There was discussion about per-address request fees. It was explained that the current price structure was an intermediate stage and that the amount charged per-address would be reduced. In particular, it was expressed that IP address fees should be driven by goals of resource management rather than profitable business models. There was discussion about the need to be multihomed to become a member of JPNIC. It was explained that this followed the recommendations in RFC 2050 and was used to prevent allocations to small ISPs who should be obtaining their resources from their upstream provider. Son Tran, APNIC This presentation outlined the relationship between APNIC and the NIRs. It was noted that request evaluation is consistent across the NIRs and APNIC. APNIC encourages NIRs to send hostmasters to APNIC for training for a period of 1-3 months with at least one month's advance notice. Questions and discussion There was discussion about how the NIRs?evaluation methods may differ from APNIC. It was noted that procedures should be the same across the region for the sake of fairness and to ensure stability for NIR members. It was explained that APNIC conducts internal consistency checks by having a weekly meeting where allocations by all hostmasters are compared and adjusted for uniformity. It was suggested that the NIR workshops will be useful in increasing uniformity of evaluations. It was noted that JPNIC and CNNIC have yet to send hostmasters to APNIC for training. It was noted that some NIRs may need to update their database software. Paul Wilson, APNIC This presentation outlined the progress of discussions relating to the role and structure of NIRs, including their operational responsibilities and services. It was established that APNIC's role in the process has been to act as facilitator, and that it is the responsibility of the NIRs to direct the course of action. It was explained that any changes to the NIR structure will need to be voted on by the APNIC membership. One possibility raised has been an agency model in which ISPs are members of APNIC and that NIRs act as agents for APNIC. Questions and discussion There was a general discussion of cost recovery under an agency model would allow the NIRs to cover costs. It was suggested that there could be a division of member funds that are assigned to the relevant NIR, but that the agency structure would need to be discussed in much finer detail first. Clarification was sought on the EC's position in regard to NIR structure. It was explained that the EC's primary concern is that there is no disruption of service, but would leave the development of NIR structural change to the NIRs. It was noted that the NIR Open Meeting status was unclear. It was not described as either a BOF or a SIG. It was suggested that a working group be formed to draft a proposal that could be brought back to members for discussion. It was suggested that work be conducted to develop a single report on the NIR structure issue to present at the next meeting. It was explained that one of the primary goals of the agency model is that every ISP under NIRs gains a vote on APNIC issues that directly affect their operations in line with ISPs in countries without NIRs. There was discussion about the difficulties of moving from the very different models of the current NIR model to the agency model. It was stated that there had not been any development of the NIR structure change between the KL and current meetings. It was explained that the Secretariat needed to respond to requests by the NIRs rather than instigating its own version of NIR strategy. There was discussion that NIRs would not be made redundant by a change to the agency model. The possibility of ISPs not wanting to join APNIC directly was raised. The use of the NIR mailing list for further discussion was encouraged. It was suggested that APNIC develop a few main points of understanding from which NIRs could begin an informed discussion. Marcelus Ardiwinata, ISOC-ID This presentation outlined the mission ad structure of ISOC-ID to develop a second NIR for Indonesia to cater for non-licensed ISP organisations wanting to request IP addresses. Questions and discussion A question was raised about the “AsiaNIC proposal?mentioned in the presentation. It was suggested that such a proposal cannot be found (as claimed in the presentation) on the ISOC-ID website, and does not appear to exist as a document or in any formal sense. The speaker confirmed that this proposal has been made by ISOC-ID alone, and should be available on the ISOC-ID website. Trancy Tsai, TWNIC This presentation outlined the resource management system (RMS) implemented by TWNIC. The system consists of IP/ASN queries, member section, hostmaster section. The hostmaster section allows simultaneous registration of records in the TWNIC and APNIC databases. There was a live demonstration of the RMS. Questions and discussion It was explained that each TWNIC member receives an ID and password to access the system. It was stated that the management system was a very positive move. It was suggested that perhaps APNIC should develop one system that could then be implemented across the NIRs, or that it could make its own developments available to working groups from the NIRs. It was noted that JPNIC is currently developing a similar system and offered to assist with the development of a uniform system through the establishment of a working group. It was suggested that perhaps APNIC streamline the processing of second opinion requests from NIRs, which currently require a lot of documentation, creating very large emails. The similarities between TWNIC's RMS and APNIC's proposed MyAPNIC were noted. It was proposed that a taskforce be established to begin discussions on the development of a system that can be implemented by APNIC and all NIRs. There were no objections. Meeting closed: 19:30 Minuted by: Sam Dickinson |