Transcript
APNIC 23
NIR SIG
Wednesday 28 February 2007
18:00 - 19:00
IZUMI OKUTANI: OK. Good evening, everyone. It's a bit late than the usual session but we'll start NIR SIG. It's a one-hour session until seven o'clock. And the agenda is we have three updates from each NIR - TWNIC, JPNIC, CNNIC and there will be also a presentation from KRNIC on revision of APNIC fee model.
And there is another thing that we would like to introduce as our SIG chair, which is draft SIG guidelines. And this is basically a guidelines document explaining how SIGs would be run in general.
The time slot - I'm very sorry, we are pretty tight on time so to ensure that we have plenty of time to discuss about the fee, we would like to request each of the presenters to make five to ten minutes' presentations and we will have maybe 15 minutes of time for fee discussions.
First, I would like to introduce a brief idea on the SIG guidelines. This document is actually posted on our SIG website which is over here. It's a pdf. And the background behind this document was to - was that some of the SIG chairs, they - although they are delegated their responsibility from the SIG members, they don't attend the SIG meeting and it's not very appropriate for the same person to keep chairing the SIG all the time. So we should rotate the responsibility and make sure that everyone who is willing to chair the session should have a chance to chair the SIG. So that was the idea behind it. And I would like to introduce some of the things to note what's been defined in this document. For example, the term of the SIG chair - currently we don't have any terms that are defined for SIG chairs, but now it's limited to two years so, after two years we will have an election to replace the current chair or the co-chair.
And the basic idea is that, if we replace both chair and co-chair at the same time, we would not have a continuity for the SIG. So for one year we will have election for the SIG and in the year after that, we will have a co-chair election. For example, if we have a SIG chair election in this year, in year 2006, then the co-chair election will take place in the next year, year 2007. That's the idea of how we are going to run this election.
And the mechanism to remove a chair or co-chair would be if they do not attend any APNIC meeting - any of the APNIC meetings within one year then they would be removed out of the responsibility. So the requirement would be that they must attend at least one APNIC meeting in a year. And also, if the SIG members feel that the current SIG chair or co-chair is not filling the responsibility and there is consensus, that you know, the chair or co-chair should be removed, then they can be removed as well. So we try to make it a bit more diplomatic. And another new idea would be some basic steps on consensus, decision-making process. I won't go into too much details from here but it defines that consensus is not based on votes or there are some types of asking consensus, not just support or against but also ask how many people has no opinions and things like that, so we recommend you to take a look at this guidelines document and, if you have any questions, please feel free to ask myself or David or any of the SIG chairs and, since this is not a proposal, it's a document drafted just to define how the SIGs should be run, it's already active from this meeting but you are of course welcome to suggest any changes or comments.
On some of the SIGs, they're already holding elections from this meeting but, for NIR SIG, since we didn't call for candidates online in advance, we will ask this before the next meeting on the mailing list and we will have the actual election for the chair position in APNIC 24. I hope this procedure or idea is clear to everyone and do you have any questions or comments? OK.
So let's move on to the updates from NIRs. First will be JPNIC update from Toshi.
TOSHIYUKI HOSAKA: Thank you, Izumi. I am Toshiyuki Hosaka from JPNIC. Today I will give you a very short update presentation for the JPNIC activities.
So I should finish within five or ten minutes? Okay.
So, just like APNIC, as you may know already, JPNIC is conducting the Open Policy Meetings, it's JPOPM meeting, twice a year. Last year, JPNIC had an Open Policy Meeting, the tenth meeting of JPOPM, Open Policy Meeting, that was held on July 7, 2006. And we had four proposals. One is a revision of JPNIC policy development process, and this proposal, consensus was reached. And second, changing Whois registration requirement, regarding this proposal, consensus was reached but this is not accepted as a whole, only the part of the proposal so we should keep discussion on this proposal. And third, lame delegation cleanup proposal is coming up and this is the same proposal which APNIC submitted at the APNIC open policy meetings. And the last we had reclaiming unused historical address proposal and we didn't have a consensus and discussions is still continuing.
This is the photograph of JPNIC Open Policy Meeting and we usually have 60 or 70 attendees to our meetings.
And we also had Open Policy Meeting on last December and we had three proposals and one very important discussion regarding the IPv4 address exhaustion. So this is the photograph of our open policy meetings. You can see how many participants raising their hands and actually this is the photograph of the consensus of our meeting, in our meeting.
So, corresponding to APNIC policy development process, JPNIC is implementing the - some proposals, some policies, which has been reached the consensus in the APNIC region. The first proposal is 4-byte AS number assignment. We are implementing this policy and we are going to assign 4-byte AS number on March 2007.
And APNIC - sorry, IPv6 portable assignment for multihoming network. This policy proposal has been passed through the APNIC policy development process and we will implement this policy on June, coming June, 2007. And regarding the proposal of reclaiming unused historical address, we will implement this policy in coming July.
In addition to our Open Policy Meeting activities, we had some participation workshop. The first is the JPNIC show case, we call it JPNIC Show case. And this event was actually held back-to-back meeting with JANOG. This is the operational community in Japan and we introduced the policy development process to that community. And we also had the birds of a feather, the JPOPM BoF. Also, we introduced the policy development process to the communities and the background behind coming proposals at the next day of this BoF.
Regarding IPv4 address exhaustion, we are conducting some workshops and discussions and actually we had a discussion in both JPOPM10 and JPOPM11. And the Working Group was established to discuss what can be done from address policy perspective and this working group has submitted the policy proposal to this APNIC meeting and that proposal is coming up at the Policy SIG next day. - I mean tomorrow.
And we have some other topics, including our IRR service, Internet routing registry service. And we had some survey to our LIRs. The results can be seen here. I'm not going to explain in detail but this is very interesting result and we are now reviewing this result and we will continue to make better our activity.
So that's it. Thank you.
IZUMI OKUTANI: Thank you, Toshi. We'll take any questions at the very end of the session if we have enough time. So we'll try to move on to next, Ching-Heng Ku from TWNIC.
CHING-HENG KU: Good evening, everyone. I'm Ching-Heng Ku from TWNIC. We have just a small time to talk about the TWNIC update.
The outline of the major activities in the TWNIC IPv6 showroom. The TWNIC activities include - we have one TWNIC member meeting last year and two open policy meetings and three IP committee meetings.
We also have some statistics and survey about Taiwan Internet connectivity bandwidth survey and the Taiwan ISP directory.
Our training includes IPv6 tutorial, and MPLS, QoS and security workshops last year.
The 7th TWNIC IP Open Policy Meeting was held 23rd of November. We also include a Policy SIG and a Routing SIG in our agenda. The first discussion issue was the IPv6 mobile Internet and the IPv4 address shortage. Besides, we introduced the WIFI experience and FON. In the Routing SIG, we discussed IPv6 multihoming issues and debogon issues and the last one was it's ISPs' security issues.
This slide shows the IP member meeting in 27 December. We discussed about Internet service convergence trend, so we had some discussions in IPv6 infrastructure and the ISPs' experience-sharing, on things like multiplay, convergence, VPN and WiMax. These discussions were more focused on application trends.
Next I'd like to introduce our TWNIC IPv6 Showroom. TWNIC is in charge of this in Taiwan. We set up an IPv6 Showroom in our office. So we have some applications in our showrooms, such as remote control, home surveillance, RFID application, and IPv6 MoD and realtime streaming and remote illumination and air conditioning control. And let me show you for a few seconds, this is our website and we can remote control the IPv6 network and it comes on. And I can click the button and you can use this. The first button is to turn on the light and the second button is to turn on and also turn off the fan. So that's the view and you can remote control the camera to show the environment of our IPv6 showroom. So, yes, thank you very much. That concludes my presentation. Thank you.
IZUMI OKUTANI: Thank you, Ching-Heng. And the next presenter would be Dong Yan from CNNIC.
DONG YAN: Hello, everyone. This is Dong Yan from CNNIC and I'm very glad to be here to show you some things about the CNNIC update in 2006.
Okay. Here is the outline of this and first I want to state the current situation of CNNIC and also two projects. One is the RMS upgrade, and the other is the Termly Track project. I want to also show you some information about our Open Policy Meeting in 2006, and last I want to discuss with you about our unexpected change of original network.
Okay. Until now, there are 210 members in our region and until the end of 2006, there were 390 /16 IPv4 and 15 /32 IPv6 that have been allocated by CNNIC. Here below is the graph of the percentage of members in different size. You can go through it and check the details of this graph. And here is the member growth of CNNIC from 2000 to the expanded 2007 and you can see that, in the recent three years, there were about 50 or 30 new members in our confederation.
And here is the IPv4 allocation growth of CNNIC from 1999 to the expanded 2007. Until now we have allocated 390 /16 IPv4 to our members.
Okay, that is one of the projects, that is RMS upgrade system. We have done something in 2006 that we will finish the others in 2007 and our plan is to add a reverse delegation system and we want to allow our members to do automatic statistics of the Whois DB registration and we want to interface to make it easier for our members to use it.
Okay, that is the picture I cut from our testing system. You can get a general impression of our systems interface.
Okay, in November 2006, we held our OPM in Hangzhou. There were more than 80 attendees in that meeting, including two APNIC staff. And the topics in that meeting included the CNNIC annual report and we also had open policy discussion, both in native China and also in the AP region. Also we invited some experts to the IPv6 technical tutorial and the DNS tutorials.
Okay, that's a picture taken in that meeting.
Here is what I want to discuss with you about the unexpected change of original network. You know that when a member requests IPv4 or IPv6 addresses from CNNIC or APNIC, they should make a one-year plan. So, theoretically the request cycle should be one year, but we have investigated the cases that were handled by CNNIC hostmaster in 2006. We found that there were more than 80 cases, but only 33 approximately just a one-year cycle, but the others are maybe a slow or high rate. The slow rate means that the request cycle could be two or three years and the high rate means that a member could come back to request more IPv4 addresses maybe two or three times a year.
Before that discussion I want to show our other project is the termly track project. That is the project that we have done to look at the high rate and low rate thing. At first, we understand the unexpected change of business development. You know that the business development is not that theoretically consistent with our network plan so first we want to understand it. Then, for the slow and the high rate cases we will discuss with our members and we also maybe discuss with hostmasters and we want to do some termly tracking because we want to know whether they use their resources properly or not, and we collect information for the slow-developing cases and we may suggest something for the reservation for the fast-developing countries.
Okay, that is the plan that we want to do in 2007. At first, we want to finish our RMS upgrade. Then we want to intercommunion with NIRs and we want to exchange information and experience with the member management of the technical system. And we also want to hold our OPM in 2007. Besides that, we want to do more tutorial and outreaching around China in 2007. You know that we have done some IPv6 technical research and that we will do more and we want to exchange all the information and the resources with other NIRs and also other organisations.
So thank you. Thank you, Izumi.
IZUMI OKUTANI: Thank you very much. I know that CNNIC will be very active and has been very active, and will be in the next year as well.
Well, too bad that we can't really go for questions and answers for these presentations but let's move on to the fee by Billy.
BILLY CHEON: Hi. Good to see you. My name is Billy Cheon. I'm from KRNIC and also I'm on the current APNIC EC. And this time I ran for the election and hopefully I can get some support from you guys.
Today, I prepared the review of APNIC fee structure version 2.3.
Okay. I'd like to start my presentation with the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, which was held in 2005, December. In article 38, this article is closely related to Asia Pacific case. Possibly - I don't know - some people interpret there different ways but for us, I interpret "specialised regional Internet resource management institutions" as Regional Internet Registry, in our case APNIC, "to guarantee the national interest and rights of countries in that particular region to manage their own Internet resources". In this says sense, I think, I believe, APNIC and NIRs have cooperated with each other and enjoyed many years successful - enjoyed successful years. However, I think we have to go through some difficult times, remodel our fee structure but hopefully we can find some win-win solution for NIR and APNIC Secretariat as well as all the members.
Okay. Let's look at my - these are the main parts of my presentation. First, in the APNIC fee structure version 2.3 - in this part, I will summarise some rationale from version 2.3. I think the rationale part is really important because that's the reason why we have to change the fee schedule. And next part, I will show you simply the result of the KRNIC analysis and in the last part, I would like to finalise my presentation telling you our suggestion.
Okay, then let's take a look at the rationale one by one.
First, overall revenue stability. Since 1996, there have been foreign exchange variations and for the last four years, APNIC activities and services have increased without any operational surplus. As APNIC EC, I recognise this part.
Next, annual fee calculation. As you guys know, currently we have a six-tiered system but, in the proposal it introduced a continuous formula. I think it's much more reasonable.
And next, NIRs. NIRs' one-off per-address fee can result in very large payments and it's unpredictable. So it's very problematic. Instead of abolishing per-address fee, the proposal into this new calculation method, which is NIR fees would be assessed according to individual ISP address holdings, using the same fee structure as regular members. I think this part is something that we cannot accept and I try to tell you more in the later parts of my presentation.
Non-member and historical resource holdings. Actually, I don't know about other NIRs' situation but in case of KRNIC, we have cooperated, we have done ERX project in cooperation with APNIC and successfully, we finished the ERX project. I think it's good for the consistency for global Internet resource management.
And last, voting entitlements and I think this is also controversial and I will tell you more in the later parts of my presentation.
I will just summarise that rationale that has to do with NIR, so I removed some other rationale like discount for LDC.
So, as you see, in the year 2005, KRNIC paid 40K as a membership fee plus paid 189K as per-address fee which is 220K. Sorry - I should have also put the figure in the year 2006 but we paid somewhere around 200K so I think every year is around 200K and the figures in the box is the payment that we have to pay once we adopt new proposal, version 2.3. KRNIC have to pay 120K as NIR fee and plus we also have to pay another 280K as NIR member fee which is altogether 413K so it's over 200% increase.
So we projected how the impact is going to be. So the first year we adopt, the new proposal was adopted, then our fee goes double and then year by year it goes up, up, up, up, continuously.
Well, I just borrowed that picture from Paul's presentation in the last meeting and if you see just the picture there, it's very unfair, right? OK, if you see address holding for NIR and NIR members, 50, we have around 50%, right? And paying 20%, right, could be - looks very unfair. But, however, I want to stress out that there is another cost that Maemura-san pointed out in the last meeting as well. NIR have their own system, right? Database and we have our own hostmasters to deal with our customers, right? It costs us as well, so I hopefully, Secretariat and other members also recognise this fact as well.
But, as I said, in general, I agree with the new proposal. Considering these possibilities of NIR for AP community, I think NIRs should expand its contribution more.
However, there are a couple of facts that we cannot accept. First, the calculation method that I mentioned in the previous part. NIR members are not APNIC members, because the new proposal separates NIR and NIR members based on direct allocation but direct allocation is not membership agreement. Okay? And furthermore, if you take a look at the APNIC 103 operational policies for NIR in the APNIC region, there is a transfer of members between APNIC and an NIR and it says ISPs can freely choose to be members of APNIC or NIR, so that means for me, I interpret it that NIR members and APNIC members are a totally different thing.
So, I concluded that, if APNIC's membership fee is applied on NIR's membership fee, then NIR is just nothing but bill collector, that's our conclusion.
And another thing is NIR fees increase too much - like I said, I showed you that figure in the previous part, 200%, even the proposal, it says NIRs have to pay 138% and NIR's member increases 52% but our case 200% which is impossible for us to take.
Another thing is voting rights - we think that voting rights and member contribution is decided according to membership tiers, right? In case of us, we are given 64 membership rights. Voting rights - just like our case, voting rights are clearly stated in the APNIC 081 APNIC Fee Schedule together, so we - so these are some counter-facts that we can - we have to think about.
So our suggestion:
First, NIR and its members should be treated as one body. It's our bottom line, I guess. And NIR fees should be increased gradually, yeah, and if - there is - the reason is, I mean, there is a reasonable reason then, yeah, I think we can pay, but not dramatically, it cannot go, you know, skyrocketing, like 200%. It's impossible. We cannot make our member to pay like that. So it should go gradually and business plan could be the reasonable thing.
So these are primitive ideas for this moment. I would like to suggest first, the setting of the total budget based on business plan by member decision. And then setting up NIR portion out of the total APNIC budget and each NIR pay out of NIR portion based on number of their own IP holding because IP holding is basic basis of new proposal. And lastly, voting rights, I think, voting rights should be changed with the fee schedule, yeah.
And one of my colleagues will, you know, have a chance to think about voting during the last day in the AMM
Okay, this is all for me. Any questions or comments?
IZUMI OKUTANI: Just for your information, we'll be presenting this at the fee session on Thursday, tomorrow. Just to give a summary of what we discussed at this SIG so that the issue will be shared among a wider audience and not just the NIRs.
So maybe we can go back to the slides and any comments on any one of these ideas, such as NIR and its members should be treated as one body, therefore the fee should be charged as one entity.
The second point is that the fees should be increased gradually and also the business plan first needs to be approved.
And the third is that the voting should be considered in conjunction with the fee review.
PAUL WILSON: Is there a microphone? Good evening.
Thanks very much, Billy for that very interesting presentation. I liked the first slide in particular and your comments about the NIRs and APNIC working closely together. I think it's very valuable and something to bear in mind and I support that completely.
I'm Paul Wilson from APNIC by the way.
Thanks very much for the presentation.
There's a couple of small points that I'd like to make. One is just a small point about the way that you're representing percentage increase. Basically if you talk about a percentage increase of 200%, that actually reflects a three times increase between one value and the next value. So, in fact, to represent the - according to that interpretation, you couldn't represent the KRNIC increase as 200%. It's in fact just under 100%, meaning it's slightly less than double. I just wanted to make that small point because it might be interpreted that KRNIC's fees under this proposal were increased by a factor of three. So, if you agree, perhaps that could be updated for the presentation tomorrow.
BILLY CHEON: Okay. Yes, I agree. Thank you for correction.
PAUL WILSON: I'd point out that what you're calling proposal 2.3, that is version 2.3 of a document that I've put forward personally as a set of personal suggestions or possibilities for the fee structure. So it really is a document that is meant for discussion. I'm glad to see that you're treating it that way but I think we should treat this whole set of possibilities and changes as being an open book. It's not that we're looking at one possibility versus nothing or one proposal versus no proposal. We're looking at something that's got, unfortunately, a lot of complexity and many things to be considered. So that makes it quite difficult to address the fee structure issue without subdividing and dealing with separate issues separately and that was the intention of the fee structure vote and I just wanted to mention that one thing that I'll be reporting on tomorrow at the fee structure session is the results of that straw poll that was conducted on 11 different questions about fee structure.
So I think that will help with some of the discussion but I would like to just point out again that I don't see this as a question of accepting proposal 2.3 or not. It's that proposal 2.3 is a discussion document about a whole lot of possibilities that can be separated.
It helps though - and I did deliberately put that document forward, as a set of specific changes because in order to make any change at any time in future, we're going to have to get specific. One thing that I think has been discussed just briefly but a number of times in the past is that, in moving to a new structure, we can decide a new structure and, if there are radical changes that would upset the business plans or the forward planning of any members, then that should be taken into account and so, having decided the new structure that we're going to move to specifically, then we could actually have a transition process towards a new structure. So that's something that we should bear in mind in relation to your very valid comments here about the impact of large changes.
But at the same time, when you say we should have gradual changes, I would say that you need to be specific about what we're changing towards so I think the principle of gradual changes is good but it doesn't get us anywhere unless you can be specific about what we're moving towards. So we're implementing gradual changes towards some specific agreed structure that will be in place, let's say, it will be fully in place at some point in the future. And so, I think the problem we have here in this meeting, as we've had time and time again over quite a number of years of discussion, is to get very specific about how APNIC fees are going to be structured in future and I hope there will be some more discussion about specific solutions because all we've got on the table so far is one specific but still a straw man proposal that is for discussion and I'd like to, I'd very much like to see some specific alternatives because, again, until we get those, we're not going to have a change in the current system.
Thanks. Sorry for the long comment.
BILLY CHEON: Paul, when - what is the final date for the...until what...when...you...
IZUMI OKUTANI: I guess your question is whether have you a particular timeline in mind to implement the review?
PAUL WILSON: I suggested - not in the latest version of the document but possibly at the last meeting I think - that we couldn't implement a new structure starting before 2008. That was the - so it seems to me that the 1st of January 2008 quite some time ago was the earliest possible. Time is still slipping by and I don't think - I think we'd be very ambitious to try to implement something from the 1st of January 2008, so we need to look forward to what is feasible and that actually is not my decision. I would try and make a recommendation about any fee structure proposal that I was involved with but the starting date depends completely on the membership and one of the decisions to be made along with adopting any fee structure is when it starts or when it should be fully effective and as I said before it it's one of the steps along the way because it may be that, as you suggested, that a radical change is too much to impose in one step and there should be a phased introduction over one or two or three years, whatever the membership seems to agree with.
Okay. Thank you.
BILLY CHEON: Well, actually, you know, I'd like to make a comment by myself. The reason - another reason that I make a presentation is that I - how should I put it? - I want to make very clear about NIR's activities, right? To general members, right? So hopefully we can have more time, I mean, we can make other general members understand, make other general members understand the NIRs' situation and, yeah, hopefully have more talk, discussion and then hopefully can get a good result and solution. So that's why I made the presentation.
Thank you.
IZUMI OKUTANI: Thanks very much, Billy, for raising this issue. And, OK, we don't have that much time left but do you have any other issues or concerns from NIRs' perspective as well as, like, the overall fee structure that you would like to share with everyone here? Or any comments on Billy's presentation? Whether you agree or disagree with these particular points?
Okay, so... Ching-Heng.
CHING-HENG KU: I see KRNIC's presentation - we also have the same, similar issues, the payment based on the new proposal, version 2.3. We also would have an increase under that.
So our point of view, we have some assumptions and we hope to have a calculation based on the membership so the NIR's members should be calculated on the amount of ISP addresses and not to separate NIR's member and APNIC's member.
Maybe I am not clearly -
IZUMI OKUTANI: So you're agreeing with Billy's first point that NIR and its members should be treated as one body in the fee calculation? Yeah, OK.
CHING-HENG KU: And the second one is that we hope the NIRs' fee structure could be same as it's APNIC's LIRs' fee structure. And this would be more fair to the expense for the NIRs and the LIRs.
And if APNIC needs more budget, to have some activities in the communities, maybe NIR can support more expense in that activities. But based on the - but among -- based on the amount of IP addresses, the calculation should be between the NIRs and the LIRs.
IZUMI OKUTANI: Thank you. To clarify your second point, you're suggesting that LIRs' and NIRs' fee structure should be the same. There should not be a different fee structure. But NIRs can make additional contribution in some other ways if it's necessary. Is that right?
CHING-HENG KU: Yeah.
IZUMI OKUTANI: Yeah. OK. Thank you. Maybe we can accept one more comment on the floor if you have any?
Okay. So, well, I suppose that's it for this session.
And thank you very much for all the presenters and those who have spoken at the session.
And this is the end of the NIR SIG at APNIC 24. Thank you.
So we'll have a social event from seven o'clock, which is at this time. So those who are willing to attend, I recommend you to hurry and those who don't have the ticket, I think you can go to the helpdesk to get hold of the social event ticket.
Thanks.
