24th APNIC Open Policy Meeting - APNIC Member Meeting

Friday 7 September 2007, Intercontinental - The Grand Hotel, New Delhi, India

Minutes

Meeting commenced:

09:30 am

Chair:

Paul Wilson

1. Welcome

   The Chair opened the APNIC Member Meeting and thanked the meeting sponsors. He then explained the agenda.

2. Voting procedures for interim fees proposal

   Presenter:

   Paul Wilson, APNIC

   The Chair explained the procedure for voting on the interim fees proposal, including the closing time, authorised contacts and voting entitlements.

3. APNIC Secretariat overview

   Presenter:

   Paul Wilson, APNIC

   This presentation provided an overview of the APNIC managerial and departmental structure.

   Full details are available in the presentation.

4. Services Area

   Presenter:

   Sanjaya, APNIC

   This presentation provided an overview of the highlights and priorities of the APNIC Services Area. The Services Area is a core area within APNIC, and is a centralised point for service delivery.

   The presenter reviewed the various units within the APNIC Services Area and their priorities. As at the end of August 2007 the Resource Services Unit had allocated approximately 3.5 /8s. There has also been growth in IPv6 and ASN allocations. Priorities for this Unit include streamlining procedures, NIR process improvements, resource certification planning and resource recovery.

   Member Services has extended hours to service different time zones, and has the ability to quickly resolve urgent technical and administration issues. Member Services has received many DNS update requests. APNIC membership has continued to grow in 2007, and has now reached over 1500. Unit priorities include enhanced membership support, Clients First implementation, knowledge base development and ICONS community-building.

   Training Services has run 43 courses so far in 2007, reaching 17 economies and over 1000 attendees. The Unit's priorities include increasing training coverage, partnership building throughout the region, launching a training survey, and further developing the training curriculum and blended learning.

   Key projects for the entire Services Area include improving the resource management system, Certification Authority 2, and resource certification.

5. Technical Area

   Presenter:

   Sanjaya, APNIC

   The Technical Area has four units: Network Operations, Research and Development, Security and Software Engineering.

   The presenter provided an overview of the APNIC network design and discussed the new co-location facility. The presenter also discussed the latest root server installations.

   Technical Area priorities include an ITIL service desk, a CMS implementation, document and web search engine, and a resource certification repository.

   Research and development activities have focused on DNS measurement and 4-byte ASN projects. Resource certification has also been a major issue for R&D. The unit has been collaborating with other RIRs and NIRs, participating in IETF activities, and working on three service model designs for MyAPNIC members: Full service through MyAPNIC, self-run using open source code, and hosted.

   Future R&D projects include activities related to projection and analysis of IPv4 consumption, seeking 4-byte AS peers in Tokyo and Brisbane, improving information presentation and access, and adding DNS statistics collectors.

   The Security Unit is currently implementing an intrusion detection, log monitoring and analysis tool. The Unit is also working on new certification authority manager software (EJBCA, which is written in Java). The presenter asked for parties interested in sharing information about either of these tools/applications to contact APNIC.

   The presenter discussed the different systems and functions managed by the Software Engineering Unit, including ARMS, Accpac, Events management, RT, MyAPNIC, Email, Whois, CRISP, DNS, XML. In the near future APNIC will release a system that will potentially allow DNS updates in less than two minutes.

   Questions and discussion

   • It was asked how the recovery of unused IPv4 would prolong availability of IPv4 and effect IPv6 uptake. The presenter noted that it might help in relieving IPv4 address consumption, but he does not believe it would have a big impact on IPv6 uptake.
   • It was asked what specific improvements would be made to the NIR process. The presenter said major improvements would include faster DNS updates, and improved response time in allocating resources to NIRs.
   • It was asked who were asking for 4-byte ASNs. The presenter asked Guangliang Pan that only two had been allocated.
   • It was asked how long it would be before 4-byte ASNs would proliferate. It was noted that workshops should be conducted on 4-byte ASNs in India and that 4-byte ASN information was available in the meeting archives. It was also noted that there was already a policy with certain dates for 2-byte and 4-byte allocation. The compatibility of 4-byte ASNs was discussed.
   • It was noted by an ARIN representative that people getting 4-byte ASNs and not knowing what to do with them was by no means limited to this region and that people should be directed to the information at the time of allocation. The Chair suggested that APNIC Training should also address this issue.

6. Communications Area

   Presenter:

   Paul Wilson, APNIC

   This presentation discussed highlights and priorities for the Communications Area.

   The presenter noted that the liaison team is not located within the Communications Area. In fact, liaison officers come from different parts of APNIC such as the hostmaster and training units in particular; and they are employed as liaison officers because of their own particular expertise in the areas that are assigned to them. APNIC has liaison officers for China, the Pacific, South East Asia and South Asia. It was observed that through the liaison officers APNIC has been working with PACNOG, SANOG, NZNOG, PHNOG and CNNOG.

   Recent Communications Area project include implementation of a new and very comprehensive contact management system called Sugar CRM.

   The Policy Unit is responsible for the coordination of policy activities of APNIC, in particular the policy agenda of the meetings, and also the co-ordination of policy implementations. The presenter listed the three policies implemented this year that were: Amended APNIC IPv6 assignment and utilisation requirements, the end-site Assignment Policy for IPv6 and the IPv6 portable Assignment Policy for multihoming.

   The presenter noted there has also been quite a lot of work undertaken in the Policy Unit to clarify, simplify, and provide more support regarding the policy development process itself.

   The presenter discussed Publications Unit activities, including Apster, APNIC's quarterly newsletter, multimedia projects, and overhauls of the website and documentation. APNIC is currently the NRO Secretariat, and has collaborated on publications for the IGF and revamping the ASO website.

7. APNIC: The bigger picture

   Presenter:

   Paul Wilson, APNIC

   This presentation provided an overview of some of the global co-ordination activities APNIC has been involved in during 2007.

   The presenter discussed NRO issues, including ICANN contract developments and global policy discussions. The NRO has made financial contributions to the IGF, and staff will attend the IGF events in Brazil and India.

   APNIC has also been heavily involved in IP addressing 'projection, policies and politics' in 2007, including the promotion of IPv6.

   The presenter discussed APNIC's recent organisational development, as it was relevant to fee discussions to be held later in the day. The presenter noted that APNIC Secretariat had been through a complete restructure, and is currently undergoing business continuity and budget planning processes.

8. APNIC financial report

   Presenter:

   Kuo Wei Wu, APNIC EC

   This presentation included comprehensive details of APNIC's operating expenses and budget for 2007, and membership statistics.

   APNIC's surplus for the first half of 2007 was $USD 247,000, and 110 new members joined APNIC. However, the presenter noted that the exchange rate had been very unfavourable, because APNIC revenue is in US dollars, and expenditure is in Australian dollars. It is projected that APNIC deficit will be close to $1 million by the end of 2007.

   The presenter noted that APNIC's financial priorities are continuous improvement of accounts and fee collection system, and a review of the fee structure.

9. AfriNIC report

   Presenter:

   Hisham Rojoa, AfriNIC

   This presentation discussed latest developments in the AfriNIC region.

   Membership has grown by 48 members. This has resulted in an increase in IPv4 allocation, and a slight increase in IPv6 allocation. IPv6 uptake is not high in the region, and this is being addressed through training and marketing. There have been changes to the IPv6 fee schedule to provide incentives to use IPv6.

   MyAfriNIC should be launched during the AfriNIC 7 meeting.

   Three policies have been recently implemented and six are currently under discussion.

   The AfriNIC 6 meeting had nearly 200 attendees and several new things were tried, including a newcomers meeting and hostmaster consultations. Six policies were presented at the meeting and three reached consensus.

   AfriNIC are currently reviewing their Open Policy Meeting process.

   The presenter noted that their next meeting would be in Durban, South Africa, from 23 to 28 September 2007.

10. ARIN report

    Presenter:

    Ray Plzak, ARIN

    This presentation discussed the latest developments in the ARIN region. The ARIN board has issued a statement regarding IPv4 consumption, and has instructed the ARIN Secretariat to undertake outreach activities in this area. ARIN have also launched an IPv6 wiki.

    The presenter noted that the ARIN board sees the policy process as a well-established and stable means of dealing with the current IPv4 consumption situation, and that no other process is required. While calls for unrestricted markets and so forth are not within the policy process, it does not preclude that policy process from generating some sort of regulatory aspects to a market. The board also reaffirmed the principles that were established in RFC 2008 and RFC 2050.

    The presenter noted 13 proposals were dealt with at ARIN 19. One will be discussed in the upcoming ARIN 20 meeting and seven were abandoned. The presenter observed that three of those seven actually went all the way through the policy process and were deemed to be operational rather than policy matters. It was noted that these policy proposals could have instead been routed through a suggestion program, which ARIN recently implemented.

    [Break 11:10am - 11:52am]

11. APNIC fee discussions

    Presenter:

    Randy Bush, Ming-Cheng Liang

    Randy Bush summarised the discussion that took place in the APNIC fees WG session on Wednesday 5 September 2007.

    He reported that a common question about the interim fee proposal was "Why an increase of seven percent?" In the APNIC fees WG, the APNIC EC and Secretariat explained that the major reason for seven percent increase was to increase Secretariat salaries to competitive levels.

    Randy Bush reported that as well as discussion on the current interim fee proposal, there had been discussion on the issues affecting the longer-term fee structure, such as IPv4 depletion.

    Randy Bush reported that there had not been time to complete all items on the agenda for the Wednesday session and that these would be included in the current AMM session.

    Questions and discussion

    • Hyun-Joon Kwon asked for clarification about the proposal to be voted on. Ming-Cheng Liang confirmed that the proposal to be voted on at APNIC 24 was an interim fees proposal that, if adopted, would remain in place until a permanent fee solution was developed.
    • Hyun-Joon Kwon suggested that there needed to be a time limit for the interim fee policy, after which time, the interim fee policy would not apply.
    • Randy Bush noted that it was probably too late to change the wording of the proposal. It was Randy Bush's understanding that a long-term solution would be developed within a one to two year timeframe. He suggested that the concept of a time limit for the proposal would be an EC responsibility.
    • Hyun-Joon Kwon suggested that if the interim fee proposal passed, a time limit for the policy should be considered by the EC.
    • Akinori Maemura stated that the time period the interim fee policy would be active for was not certain, but that it should not last more than two years.
    • Rajesh Chharia stated that for very small ISPs, it was already difficult to pay the current APNIC fees and that increasing the fees by seven percent would make it even more difficult. He suggested that to help very small ISPs, especially in India, APNIC should consider changing the minimum allocation size to a /22 or a /23.
    • Randy Bush responded that he understood the problem Rajesh Chharia had raised, but that it was one of many problems associated with the fee revisions that needed to be solved. Randy Bush suggested that prioritising the many problems associated with the fees structure was a longer-term discussion and the reason why the seven percent fee increase had been proposed as an interim solution.
    • Paul Wilson stated that Rajesh Chharia's suggestion about changing the minimum allocation size would make a good subject for a policy proposal. He suggested that Rajesh Chharia could raise the proposal for discussion at APNIC 25, independent of fee structure discussions. Paul Wilson suggested that the minimum allocation proposal could also include recommendations of associated fee changes.
    • Akinori Maemura clarified that the EC would like to be able to bring a long-term solution to the membership at APNIC 25.
    • Sumon Ahmed Sabir stated that the Bangladeshi currency had been devalued against the US dollar, so APNIC members in Bangladesh were already paying higher fees.
    • Paul Wilson stated that he sympathised with the position of ISPs in Bangladesh. He noted that he had previously suggested that there be discounts to the fees for members in developing economies and expressed disappointment that there had not been enough progress in the fee discussions over the years.
    • Randy Bush stated that it was his impression that the membership survey about fees in 2006 had shown strong support for fee reductions for developing economies. He suggested that perhaps a proposal addressing this issue could be put forward before APNIC 25.
    • Paul Wilson clarified that in the membership survey about fees, over 50 percent of respondents had supported the idea of a discount for developing economies.
    • Vinh Ngo stated that the issue for the day was balancing the current APNIC budget. He noted the need to increase salaries to prevent APNIC losing valuable staff. He stated that commercial organisations would expect costs to rise in line with the consumer price index, which was approximately 4.5 percent annually. Vinh Ngo pointed out that APNIC had not increased fees in ten years. This, combined with the need to increase salaries and account for the exchange rate changes, justified the fee change.
    • Randy Bush asked the members what issues in the longer-term fee discussions should be considered the highest priority.
    • Bill Manning suggested that ensuring that revenue and expenditures occurred in the same currency would make the budget easier to predict in future and would be a useful first change to the current fee schedule.
    • Randy Bush stated that he presumed that the interim fee proposal would be passed. If it did not, APNIC would need to deal with additional problems. He stated that he was interested in looking at how to solve problems for the long-term fee changes.
    • Ming-Cheng Liang stated that he had previously proposed a continuous formula for calculating fees, which could increase APNIC revenue from fees by approximately 30 percent. He noted that members would have to pay more, but that each incremental change in fees would be smaller and have less impact on members than the current large tier changes. He asked if members had any comment on this proposal.
    • Philip Smith expressed disappointment that the fee discussions had not progressed as much as he had hoped. He stated that fee discussions had been occurring in the region for ten years without a solution being reached. He stated that people needed to actively participate in the discussion. He observed that the three other Regional Internet Registry communities he participated in did not seem to experience the same lack of progress.
    • Philip Smith supported the proposal that APNIC fees be levied in Australian dollars.
    • Shengyong Ding stated that he understood that the fees should increase and asked if some new services could be provided to ISPs to help ISPs be more willing to accept the fee increase.
    • Paul Wilson replied that there would be a presentation later in the day showing how APNIC was responding to service requests identified in the latest membership survey.
    • Randy Bush stated that it was his understanding that APNIC fees had not increased in 11 years, but that salaries and costs had increased substantially. He expressed surprise that the interim fee proposal did not suggest an increase in fees larger than seven percent.
    • Philip Smith agreed with Randy Bush's statement.
    • Vinh Ngo stated that it had been important for APNIC to raise salaries to retain APNIC staff and suggested that, faced with a similar problem in their own organisations, APNIC members would also choose to raise salaries to retain staff.
    • Axel Pawlik stated that the RIPE NCC had been using the Hay Group to benchmark RIPE NCC for many years. He stated that APNIC also needed to be able to pay competitive salaries or APNIC would lose staff and members would not be able to receive service.
    • Axel Pawlik observed that many of the members of the APNIC EC were from the NIRs. He suggested that there was the potential for a conflict of interest for NIR staff serving on the APNIC EC.
    • Kusumba Sridhar stated that he was a member of the APNIC EC and that the potential issue of the NIRs dominating the EC was not a problem in reality. He stated that he was not from an NIR and had never experienced any conflict of interest issues with the NIR staff members on the APNIC EC. He stated that if the EC felt that there could be a potential conflict of interest, they would request external help. An example of this would be the use of KPMG to assist with the fee structure analysis.
    • Randy Bush stated that he had sat in on EC meetings over the past few months during fee discussions and had not seen any conflicts of interest arising. He suggested that the EC and APNIC and the NIRs should be thanked for moving the fee discussions forward.
    • Vinh Ngo stated that he understood the point of view of small ISPs who did not want a fee raise as well as APNIC's operational need for a fee change.
    • RS Perhar stated that when the issue of increased fees was first raised, the community was shocked. But after continued discussion, the community seemed to understand the need for the increase a bit more. He suggested the fee discussion was a matter of perception.
    • Kusumba Sridhar stated that he saw NIRs as an advantage to APNIC as there was a pool of knowledge between APNIC and the NIRs that could be shared.
    • Kusumba Sridhar also asked the community to remember that it the membership was the revenue source for APNIC, and that as a not-for-profit organisation, APNIC could not go to the bank for a loan to make up for the budget deficit.
    • Jonny Martin stated that FX Networks in New Zealand supported the interim fee proposal. He suggested that the increase was conservative and that, compared to the cost of buying routers and paying for staff, the cost of obtaining resources from APNIC was very small.
    • Gaurab Raj Upadhaya stated that he supported changing the APNIC fee currency to Australian dollars. He stated that, as he came from Nepal, no increase was welcome, but that considering there had been no fee change in 11 years, a seven percent increase seemed reasonable.
    • Philip Smith stated that, from his interactions with ISPs in the Asia Pacific region, many people were not convinced that the NIRs were doing a good job for them. He encouraged the EC to join with the rest of the APNIC community and develop a solution to the fees discussion.
    • Bill Woodcock commented that as an Associate member of APNIC, he spends ten times as much as his yearly fees to attend APNIC meetings. He encouraged the community to resolve the issue and move on to more important issues.
    • Izumi Okutani stated that the NIRs had wanted some more detail explaining the fee increase, and that this information had been provided in the APNIC fees WG on Wednesday. She stated that JPNIC was in favour of the proposal.
    • Kusumba Sridhar stated that the two largest membership groups in APNIC came from non-NIR countries. He stated that every member of the APNIC EC spoke as a neutral party and not as NIR affiliates.
    • Akinori Maemura stated he agreed that the EC needed to be more involved in APNIC activities such as fee structure discussions.
    • Gaurab Raj Upadhaya stated that although Kusumba Sridhar stated that India and Australia had the largest number of APNIC members, it was not clear how many members NIRs had. He stated that the number of members under an NIR should be made transparent as those members were using APNIC resources. He stated that without this transparency, it was possible that other APNIC members could be subsidising NIR operations.
    • Vinh Ngo stated that it was not the appropriate time to be discussing NIRs and suggested returning to the fee discussion.
    • Brajesh Jain expressed surprise that the APNIC EC would not know how much NIR members paid for IP addresses.
    • Robert Seastrom suggested that members should be surprised that the fee increase was as low as seven percent.
    • It was clarified by Axel Pawlik that when RIPE had financial issues, fees had been raised by about 50 percent.
    • Che-Hoo Cheng observed that both NIRs and other APNIC members thought that APNIC fees were unfair to them. He hoped that by engaging KPMG in the fee analysis, a solution could be found that was acceptable to all members.
    • Randy Bush thanked everybody for contributing to the discussion.

12. RIPE update

    Presenter:

    Axel Pawlik, RIPE

    This presentation discussed recent developments in the RIPE region. RIPE has recently created a disaster preparedness plan. This emergency plan has been deployed into a full business continuation plan. There has also been an internal restructure and some new key staff have been recruited.

    The presenter noted that RIPE was also engaged in preparation for resource trading, and that a resource certification task force is working with members. Other activities included preparing a membership survey for early 2008, and assisting to create a Middle East NOG.

    RIPE now has more than 5000 members with strong growth in Russia. The next RIPE regional meeting will be held in Moscow. RIPE 54 were well attended. Coincidentally, Estonia was subjected to a DDoS attack during the meeting. The next meeting will be held in Amsterdam in October 2007.

13. LACNIC update

    Presenter:

    German Valdez, LACNIC

    This presentation discussed recent developments in the LACNIC region. LACNIC has now grown to 652 members and 16 staff. The Mexican NIR is now a full member of LACNIC.

    LACNIC has been engaged in formalising the organisation's strategic planning process, and defining a vision, mission and objectives. External projects include root server deployment, running a small IT grants program in collaboration with other organisations, and conducting a new IPv6 campaign.

    LACNIC X was in Isla Margarita in Venezuela. 325 participants from 29 different countries attended. 11 proposals were presented, and six reached consensus. The next meeting will be held in Salvador de Bahia, Brazil in May 2008.

    [Break 1:15pm - 2:15pm]

14. EC report

    Presenter:

    Akinori Maemura

    The presenter introduced the members of the EC and asked them to stand up. The presenter then discussed the main functions of the EC.

    There have been eight teleconferences held since the last APNIC meeting and two face-to-face meetings (one in Singapore to discuss fee structure and one in New Delhi). These minutes can be found on the APNIC website.

    The presenter summarised the financial report and reiterated the need to reduce the deficit. The EC is keen to establish a budget for 2008. It was noted that the EC was already talking about the budget, and wanted to get it organised earlier than in previous years.

    The presenter discussed the fee structure discussions. He noted that the proposed interim fee increase is a short-term fix, but in the long-term a better solution is required that takes into account fairness, NIR fees, financial stability and IPv4 free address pool depletion.

    The presenter noted that no proposals reached consensus at APNIC 24.

    He discussed the implementation of prop-033, which changed the HD ratio. During the implementation period an NIR member had raised that issue that during the proposal discussion it was noted that the per-address fee was not well advised. The presenter noted that the issue has been returned to the community for discussion and will be discussed at the next OPM.

    The presenter stated that Geoff Huston has been appointed as EC Executive Secretary, effective August 2007. Geoff has been appointed as a facilitator and advisor.

    Three EC members met with board members of other RIRs in Puerto Rico in June 2007. It was observed that this is the first time this has happened. The main area of discussion was IPv4 depletion.

    It was noted that no EC election would be held at this meeting. Kenny Huang's term will extend to the end of March 2008, and an election will be held at APNIC 25 in 2008. The presenter noted that online voting has been open since APNIC 20, but is still not widely used.

    The presenter concluded by thanking the meeting's local host, ISPAI, and sponsors. He noted that that the host for APNIC 26 would be announced later in the AMM, and thanked the applicants.

    Questions and discussion

    • Philip Smith asked why the EC had decided to suspend the implementation of new IPv6 per-address fees. He asked if this fee was just for NIRs. Geoff Huston responded, saying the decision was based on the fact that there was disagreement about how to interpret the policy wording, and how it applies to fees. Thus, the ratio has reverted to 0.8 until the issue is resolved.
    • It was asked if APNIC has budgeted based on 0.94 ratio, and if so, what the impact would be. Paul Wilson responded, stating that per-address fees for IPv6 are already quite heavily discounted, so it doesn't have a large impact in terms of forward projections. Also, these fees are only paid once.
    • It was asked what fees NIRs pay for IPv6 compared to normal members. It was asked why was this issue was not made public, and delayed until the next meeting. APNIC was asked to provide evidence that the whole show is not being controlled and run by the NIRs.
    • Paul Wilson clarified that details of the issue were posted publicly.
    • He noted that there wasn't a discount, and the fee was maintained at the previous level. He stated that the EC adopted the policy proposal on the condition there was no change to the fee structure, but the Secretariat had not interpreted this to mean that the fees themselves would not change.
    • It was suggested that the EC had behaved inappropriately, as the proposal had seemed clear. It was stated that this situation does not promote the idea the EC is independent of NIRs.
    • Che-Hoo Cheng said there had been heated discussion in the EC about the issue, and they could not come to a clear conclusion about how to proceed. It was agreed to leave the decision to the membership.
    • Akinori Maemura said that if there was ambiguity the membership should be able to decide. It was noted that this situation had been overlooked and should be discussed at next meeting. It was noted the EC should be careful about communication.

15. IANA report

    Presenter:

    Leo Vegoda, IANA

    This presentation discussed addressing from an IANA perspective, and also reclaiming 14 /8. The presenter showed a beta version of IANA's new website.

    The presenter noted that some IPv4 was returned to IANA, but more was given out. 14.0.0.0/8 was a Class A address reserved for X-25 packet gateways, and a lot of work went into reclaiming the 984 addresses. Out of the 29 contacts, 19 had email addresses, six did not have email addresses, and there were three mystery contacts. The presenter noted that he intends to update RFC 3330 later in 2008.

    The presenter noted that IANA intends to take over administrative and technical control of in-add.arpa from ARIN, and continue DNSSEC deployment.

    The presenter noted that the new IPv4 registry format was almost completed, and announcements would soon be made.

    Questions and discussion

    • It was asked how long the reclamation took. The presenter responded that it started before RIPE 54, and hasn't quite finished yet (about three or four months).
    • At this point Kazu Yamamoto, the departing IPv6 technical SIG Chair, was presented with a gift.

16. Policy SIG report

    Presenter:

    Toshiyuki Hosaka, Policy SIG Chair

    The presenter discussed the Policy SIG's charter and the revised policy development process flowchart.

    The presenter announced that Randy Bush and Jian Zhang are the new Policy SIG co-chairs, and Yoshinobu Matsuzaki was elected to the IPv6 technical SIG chair position.

    The presenter noted that one community resolution and four policy proposals were discussed, and some presentations had to be cut from the Policy SIG program due to time constraints.

    The following proposal reached consensus:

    prop-049: IANA policy for allocation of ASN blocks to Regional Internet Registries

    There were two proposals that considered ways to distribute the last remaining blocks of the free IANA IPv4 address pool to the RIRs:

    prop-051: Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space

    prop-046: IPv4 countdown policy proposal

    Neither proposal reached consensus; however, there was consensus on the following principles:

    • If there is to be a policy on the distribution of the last remaining IPv4 blocks to RIRs, then each RIR should be allocated one, not two, /8 blocks.
    • Discussion is needed on the policy under which the last /8 would be allocated in the APNIC region.

    Four open proposals were not presented at the meeting:

    prop-042: Proposal to change IPv6 initial allocation criteria

    prop-043: Proposal to remove reference to IPv6 policy document as

    an "interim" policy document

    prop-047: eGLOP multicast address assignments

    prop-048: IPv6 ULA-central

    Questions and discussion

    • The Chair noted that under APNIC PDP it was now time for the AMM to endorse the policy, and then after the final call for comment period it will go to EC for adoption.
    • It was noted there were no objections.
    • The Chair confirmed the proposal was endorsed and would now go to the EC.
    • As there was no NIR SIG report the presenter advised that Izumi Okutani from JPNIC was re-appointed as SIG chair. She was the only person nominated.

17. NIR SIG report

    Presenter:

    Toshiyuki Hosaka, Policy SIG Chair on behalf of NIR SIG Chair

    The presenter announced that Izumi Okutani had been re-elected as NIR SIG Chair.

    Questions and discussion

    • None

18. APOPS report

    Presenter:

    Philip Smith, APOPS Chair

    The presenter noted that the APOPS presentations were excellent, and encouraged people to attend future presentations and look at them on the web.

    He also noted that there was great interest in lightning talks, and six excellent presentations were presented in an hour.

    [Break 4:00pm - 4:30pm]

19. Member survey update

    Presenters:

    Cecil Goldstein, APNIC

    Srinivas Chendi, APNIC

    George Michaelson, APNIC

    It was noted that the results of the member survey were reported at APNIC 23. This presentation discussed the efforts that had been made into responding to these results.

    Top ten resource priorities:

    1. Technical resource and development activities

    George Michaelson

    It was noted that work with a short and long term focus was being undertaken. APNIC has been doing BGP analysis in 4-byte ASN space. Work is also being done on DNS, whois and web services reporting.

    APNIC has been collaborating in measurement activities with organisations like WIDE, CAIDA, OARC, Autonomica and vendors. These projects aim to produce high quality, publicly available information that can be used for strategic planning.

    2. Streamline resource request and allocation process

    Srinivas Chendi

    The presenter noted that APNIC is working on a process where new members do not need to create whois objects. Also, new members can request IPv4, IPv6 and ASNs in one form.

    3. Increase accessibility of APNC meeting

    Srinivas Chendi

    The presenter noted that this meeting is web and audio cast, and this has been happening for a long time. The meeting also uses live transcripts and people can use jabber chat to ask questions. Podcasts become available soon after the meeting.

    4. Increase accessibility of policy process

    Srinivas Chendi

    The presenter noted that members have been encouraged to subscribe to mailing lists, and training sessions feature policy analysis. It was noted that the latest issue of Apster featured more information about the policy development process. The presenter said that the Policy section of the website is currently being revamped, as is the APNIC OPM newcomers event.

    And represent the needs of ISP community to governments and regulators

    Srinivas Chendi

    The presenter noted that as part of NRO participation APNIC participates in IGF meetings. APNIC also runs joint events with ISOC.

    5. Expand training activities

    Srinivas Chendi

    The presenter noted that APNIC has completed 75% of training planned for 2007 (about 45 events to date). This figure includes economies APNIC had not previously visited. The presenter also noted that APNIC Training also offers online options for people who can't attend in person

    6. Improve the APNIC website

    George Michaelson

    The presenter noted that a new CMS will be deployed Q1 2008). APNIC have conducted website usability surveys to assist this project. The presenter noted that the focus is on improving content quality.

    7. Support ISP education in the AP region

    Srinivas Chendi

    The presenter noted that APNIC has expanded its IRME course to include more hands-on activities. The training team has set up a remote-access training lab in APNIC office. APNIC have also signed a number of MoUs in order to extend the reach of its training events.

    8. More root servers

    George Michaelson

    The presenter noted there are more than 35 root nodes in the Asia Pacific region. The earthquake in Taiwan made people aware of the lack of access to critical resources. Priorities for 2007 are disaster recovery planning and maintenance cycles.

    9. Resource certification to support better routing security

    George Michaelson

    APNIC is currently developing the resource PKI system, and the immediate focus is the MyAPNIC prime integrated service. APNIC are also looking at an openly available code base. The presenter acknowledged ARIN's support of this project.

    10. Expand external communications and outreach activities

    Srinivas Chendi

    APNIC recently expanded its liaison staff to four (they do liaison part-time and also perform their main jobs). APNIC has attended SANOG since its inception to provide support for its members. Liaison staff also accompany the training when trainers go to their region. APNIC is also creating material for distribution to local media.

    Questions and discussion

    It was noted that the training program is valued by New Zealand.

    At this point the APNIC prize draw was conducted. The winner of a digital photo frame was Shailesh Gupta.

20. APNIC fee vote result

    Leo Vegoda announced the results of the fee structure vote:

    Votes in favour of the proposal:
    Onsite: 242
    Online: 278
    Total in favour: 520

    Votes against the proposal:
    Onsite: 512
    Online: 62
    Total against: 574

    Therefore, the proposal did not pass.

    Paul Wilson thanked Leo, scrutineers and everyone who voted. He noted that APNIC would have no alternative but to reduce activities next year.

21. APNIC 25 host presentation

    Presenter:

    Ming Cheng Liang

    The presenter noted that APRICOT would be held in Taipei in from February 25-29 2008, and welcomed anyone who would like to attend.

22. APNIC 26 host presentation

    Paul Wilson announced that the APNIC EC had accepted the Internet NZ proposal to hold the event in Christchurch, New Zealand from 26 Aug - 29 August in the Christchurch Convention Centre.

    Jonny Martin discussed some features of the city, and invited everyone to attend.

23. Next meetings, thanks and closing

    It was announced that APNIC 27 would be held in conjunction with APRICOT 2009, and would be held in Manila Philippines.

    It was also announced that SANOG XI would be held in Dhaka, Bangladesh from January 10-18 2008.

    Paul Wilson thanked the sponsors, the SIG Chairs, the stenocaptioners, the APNIC EC and staff, APNIC's RIR colleagues, SANOG and ISPAI.

Meeting closed:

5:00 pm

Minuted by:

Sam Dickinson

Tina Bramley