 SIGs |
| Programme |
| AMM |
| EC election |
| HM consultation |
| Sponsorship |
| Archive |
| Meeting Home |
13th APNIC Open Policy MeetingOpen NIR meetingTuesday 4 March 2002, Queen Sirikit Convention Center, BangkokMinutes Meeting commenced: 9:10 Chair: Akinori Maemura The Chair introduced the meeting and explained the agenda. Contents
Presentations
The modified agenda was reviewed and accepted. Ruri Hiromi, IP address committee This presentation outlined how the JPNIC Open Policy Meeting had been implemented to increase regional participation in JPNIC policy development. There was also discussion about how JPNIC policies interact with APNIC policies. Questions and discussion It was noted that JPNIC's new Open Policy Meeting (OPM) system had proven to be an effective way to create a more active interest in policy discussion. All NIRs were invited to attend the upcoming JPNIC OPM. Sanjaya, APNIC This presentation outlined the joint project by APNIC and the NIRs to develop an IPv6 management system that would be compatible across APNIC and the NIRs. Questions and discussion There was a question as to whether all NIRs were expected to implement a standard database platform. It was explained that while the major goal of the project was to develop the framework of the resource management system, there was an emphasis on the need to develop a platform that would be compatible with all systems currently used by NIRs. MooHo Cheon, KRNIC This presentation outlined KRNIC's current development of a resource management system for IPv6 address space. The presentation outlined the workflow associated with IPv6 allocations made by KRNIC to LIRs. Questions and discussion It was asked if KRNIC had settled on how the management system would be implemented. It was explained that it was still in the development stage. Izumi Okutani, JPNIC This presentation outlined the development of JPNIC's integrated IPv4/IPv6 resource management system. Questions and discussion No further discussion. Chia-Nan Hsieh, TWNIC This presentation outlined the old KRNIC fee structure and compared their new fee structure to APNIC's and other NIRs' fee structures. The presentation explained the reasons behind the change in KRNIC fees, which included a move to be self-sufficient. Questions and discussion There was a question about the fact that the new fee structure would still result in a budget deficit. It was explained that they hadn't wanted to change the structure too much. Marcelus Ardiwinata, ISOC-ID This presentation outlined the proposed functions of IDNIC (Indonesian Network Information Center) and ID-TLD. IDNIC plans to become a member of APNIC and incorporate ISPs, which are currently represented by APJII, but also other networks not currently represented by APJII, such as military networks (to be known as MilNIC) and government sites (to be known as GovNIC). IDNIC plans to utilise the existing APJII-ID to request address space from APNIC. Questions and discussion There was a question about whether IDNIC had considered the documentation that explains that a National Internet Registry must have the support of ISPs. It was explained that the documentation had been read and that a proposal had been submitted at the last APNIC Open Policy Meeting in Taipei. The ISOC-ID representative explained that APJII only encompasses commercial ISPs and that there was a need to develop a broader organisation to accommodate others such as the military, government, and end-users. It was noted that although the presenter has claimed that a certain proposal exists, no such proposal has been submitted to this meeting or to any other session of any APNIC Open Policy Meeting, and nor has any such proposal has been circulated elsewhere. . It was suggested that it was misleading for IDNIC to refer to a proposal presented at an APNIC meeting in documentation to other Internet organisations when no proposal exists. It was acknowledged by IDNIC that no proposal had been made, but that there was still discussion ongoing about the possibility of IDNIC. It was noted that idea of IDNIC had been developed considerably since the NIR meeting in Taipei. There was concern expressed about the sometimes loose use of language in IDNIC's presentation. [Proposal] Young Wan Ju, KRNIC This discussion summarised the discussion on the NIR mailing list regarding the establishment of NIRs. It outlined the need to continue the development of the criteria first proposed at APRICOT 2000. Questions and discussion It was noted that these were important criteria to establish. It was proposed that a consensus be reached and that the criteria be moved forward. It was noted that JPNIC and KRNIC consider themselves to be Internet Registries, while in APNIC terminology, they are known as National Internet Registries. It was explained that the original criteria had been developed from the RIR criteria. NIRs were urged to hold rigorous discussion about the criteria and come to an agreement. It was explained that once consensus was reached within the NIR meeting, it would need to be taken to the AMM for ratification. IDNIC was urged to participate in the discussion in its role as a potential NIR. It was noted that discussion on NIR criteria had taken place for two years. It was proposed that a working group be formed to develop a consensus within a stated timeframe. It was noted that a working group had already been composed but that a timeframe would be a useful addition. Meeting closed: 12:30 Minuted by: Sam Dickinson |