NIR SIG transcript

APNIC 25
NIR SIG 1100-1230
Wednesday, 27 February 2008

Co-chair elections

IZUMI OKUTANI:

OK. Welcome, everyone, to NIR SIG. Before we move on to the agenda, I'd like to first make housekeeping notes before I forget. Um, this evening, we're going to have APNIC social event from 6:00 to - no, 7:00 to 9:00 and it's held at Shintori 5. Transportation will be provided. Ticket available at the registration desk, which is on the fourth floor, and more information can be found on this APNIC meeting website.

And there will be APRICOT closing event that will be held tomorrow from seven o'clock at Chung Shan Hall and APNIC informal dinner on Friday, Friday evening, same time again, at seven o'clock. Transportation provided and, if you're interested, there will be an additional fee of 600 Taiwanese NT and more information, again, available at APNIC Helpdesk at the basement here.

There will also be a survey online and if you, um, comment on the survey, you can win a digital photo frame. So please, you know, feel free to fill it up and try to win a prize.

So that was the housekeeping information. And then we'd like to first now move on to the actual agenda. It might be a bit blurry to see the details but we have four agenda items for this meeting. First, we're going to have a co-chair election. We have myself as the chair and David Chen from TWNIC as co-chair, but we feel that having one additional co-chair will be helpful to help us run the session so we're going to have an election of one more co-chair position for the SIG. And, we're going to have three presentations and out of which, one is a proposal this time from APNIC on revising NIR policy document. And, there will be an update of KRNIC activity from KRNIC and another update will be done from TWNIC on their activities. So, is there any questions about the agenda or the way to proceed? No?

OK, so then we would like to move on to the co-chair election now. So what we're going to do is first - well, we have one candidate for the election, so we would like to have a speech from the candidate, Billy Cheon from KRNIC.

APPLAUSE

BILLY CHEON:

Hi, nice to meet you. My name is Billy from KRNIC. I'm good to - it's my pleasure to see you guys again here. Um, I think these two guys have done really good job with NIR SIG, but I just personally have some - I want to, um, help them so that we can have a more productive and good conversation here and I think cooperation between NIRs is getting really important these days because we are at the very important stage with the Internet, so hopefully I can, um, facilitate the conversation and cooperation with the NIR people, so that's why I applied for the position. Thank you.

APPLAUSE

IZUMI OKUTANI:

So, unless there are people who are concerned about Billy taking the position - if there are - well, please express it now. And, if there's not, then we would like to welcome Billy as the new co-chair. Please, everyone, please express your support if you support Billy by clapping your hands.

APPLAUSE

IZUMI OKUTANI:

So, move on to the next agenda. We would like to now have a policy proposal from APNIC on updating the NIR policy document, and the presentation will be done by George Michaelson.

prop-054-v001: NIR operational policy document revision

GEORGE MICHAELSON:

Sorry. Please excuse me while I get my Mac connected to the projector. I've only had a Mac for two months and I'm still learning how they work.

I think I'd better turn off my Instant Messaging as well.

Hello. I'm presenting - I could have sworn I turned off my Instant Messaging! I'm presenting proposition-054, which is a fairly small revision to the document APNIC-103, the operational guidelines for the NIRs.

I've just put up here the document that we're revising, so it's the operational policies for the NIR in APNIC, and you can see that it's got, um, quite a lot of coverage of general areas, so it discusses definitional terms and about the address allocation process. The proposal that I'm presenting today is really only about making changes to Section 3.4 that you can see down here at the bottom of the screen. It's about the process that we document within APNIC and the NIRs for delegation of reverse size inaddr.arpa, so I'm not discussing any changes to the substantive relationship between APNIC and the NIRs that's documented in this document. It's only about the narrow technical specifics of DNS delegation.

OK, so the proposal is that we'd like to seek agreement to revise this policy document and what we're trying to do is make the section of the document that deals with DNS reverse delegation more up to date and reflect what we actually do do nowadays to manage reverse DNS. It doesn't currently document how ip6.arpa is delegated, and operational practices have changed since this document was last revised and it's really more appropriate that we take account of how we are actually running systems.

The other motivation is that we'd like to understand how to manage the technical relationship better than the kind of policy document process that we use for address management policy really allows. Now, I don't want to imply that we're taking away any kind of consensus decision-making or discussion about this arena. It's very important that we stress that we want to continue to agree with you a basis for technical interaction, but we think it probably would suit a slightly different form of management process, and so the intention is that we revise the document, change it here, but then have a different process to take account of that technology.

What we're proposing to do is to take the current Section 3.4 and include some explicit text about ip6.arpa and also document two processes for management of reverse DNS, a manual process, which is aimed at people that are maintaining information in web services using MyAPNIC, and an automatic process that's suitable for machine-level process management. Maybe people are using their own customer management or information management systems and they can script the update directly from those systems, and that has its own specification, which we'll publish on the web so that we have a strong technical definition of the way that we would perform the machine-level service.

Now, as a result of changing over to reflecting that we have the manual process and this automatic process, another part of the document, an appendix that we added on to that operational policy document, is no longer relevant and that's the appendix about the flat file view of the zone. That reflects an older method of zone sharing that's in the process of being deprecated. So, we want to remove that appendix so there's no implication that that's a current reflection of technology that's going to apply in this space.

Now, the benefits are that we think it would be better for this document if it was less restrictive and prescriptive about the technical implementation. It's going to make it much more easy for us to move with future technology shifts and we think it will also provide you, the NIR, with the kind of flexibility around how we come to an agreement of the technical management of the reverse DNS. The other benefit is that it will include ip6.arpa, which isn't officially documented. And this is kind of a reflection of one of the drivers we got from the SOHO review process. We've got this strong sense that we should be continually reviewing technology and process, we should have continuous improvement; and since we have made technological change, it seems appropriate that we reflect that back into the document as well.

So the goal is that if we can reach consensus on this, that we would take this to the EC for endorsement and then formally make the changes to the policy document two weeks after endorsement and then post the revised operational policy on the web and maintain it.

So, in summary, I'm seeking consensus around the ability to change the document in respect of the operational policies for the NIR.

Thank you.

IZUMI OKUTANI:

Thank you, George.

And... OK, so everyone for - when you speak, since this is all transcripted and recorded, please make sure you state your name and where you're from. And before moving on to ask questions from the floor, I would like to confirm that - so this proposal consists of two elements - the change of the actual operation, this time itself, and then also proposal to change the process to update any technical changes?

GEORGE MICHAELSON:

The... the document change that is under formal review at the moment is strictly about the longer-term aspect of how we should manage the technical interaction. The actual specific change that's taking place at the moment, moving from the current framework of flat file shared zones to MyAPNIC and the online system is not under formal review in this document, but we are taking account of the consensus position that's emerging from the NIR tech community around what the timetable should be for that cutover, and I think the position we're taking there would honour the spirit of what we're documenting in this proposal, that it should be understood that the interface is documented and that we mutually agree a deadline, which is achievable by all of us, that we don't arbitrarily terminate service when it's still a dependency and that we basically maintain stability in the system as a whole.

IZUMI OKUTANI:

OK. Thanks for the clarification.

So I would like to first seek comments on the actual technical changes rather than the format of changing the document. So are there any comments on the actual changes that are being made, which is to add in IPv6 reverse zone and also...

GEORGE MICHAELSON:

We already actually have full delegation of ip6.arpa from IANA and in the act of taking delegation of ip6.arpa and moving off ip6.int, we basically adopted the current technology that was available at the time as the mechanism for delegation.

The problem is that the document never actually referred to it so to some extent the technology went in advance of any formalism about how NIR, RIR, we should relate. But the obvious thing to do was to say, "Well, it's all just reverse DNS." So we made it use a consistent technology platform. Now, there's actually been some really good conversations with Shin and the technical group being back probably two or three years over aspects of the ip6.arpa delegation, the boundary in v6 of where you delegate is very awkward because the natural allocation unit we were receiving from IANA was a /23 and that was on the wrong kind of bit boundary for DNS delegation. We actually acquired an obligation that for every /23, we had to have two /24s that were then sub-delegated and when we were delegating /35s as the natural unit we gave up to people, every /35 had to be represented by two instances, because it didn't line up on the bit boundary and we actually had to come up with some quite interesting liaison on just how we were going to make that work.

So there's kind of a history of an emerging dialogue about how we make the technology work in the light of the policy shift, but I just wanted to stress we do already do ip6.arpa. The change is that we'll document that we do ip6.arpa.

IZUMI OKUTANI:

So, point taken, and I would like to confirm your comments on each element.

So first, is there anybody who feels strongly against, um, well, adding a description on how APNIC will update ip6.arpa? It's actually done in operation, but putting it clearly in the document, are there any concerns over this?

So could I assume that other people support this idea? Please raise your hands if you support this idea?

Support. Support. Support documenting.

OK, so I think there's enough support on this part.

And so the second part is describing manual process and automated process as a separate form. We don't know if it's in the form of a webpage or a separate document - a technical document. That's still to be fixed but it's going to be version - so it's agreed that it's going to be -

GEORGE MICHAELSON:

Yes, we think that it's appropriate that any kind of documentation we do in this area should be subject to a publication process including versioning and that it would be quite clearly understood which particular version was active and available, and it would be a mutual development activity that we would undertake essentially following the norms that we're used to but not in quite the same way as the document development process, which requires us to actually go into the AMM and seek wider consensus and be subject to EC publication and approval, which is just not appropriate for the technical phase. It's not that we don't want a consensus process. It's that we want it to be a more accurate reflection of the technical drivers that we mutually agree.

IZUMI OKUTANI:

OK. Thanks for the clarification. Are there any questions over this change? Anything that you're not clear?

SPEAKER FROM THE FLOOR:

So one thing -

IZUMI OKUTANI:

Please state your name.

SHIN YAMASAKI:

Shin Yamasaki from JPNIC. One thing I'm still not clear is when I saw this URL, they are just links to various pages, so my question would be are you going to state directly to this page or are you going to make a link and make another page? Then state those issues.

GEORGE MICHAELSON:

That's a good question.

What do you feel would make more sense? If you are a consumer of this level of technical information, what would be appropriate for you as the way of documenting this class of information?

For instance, the automated process will require us to publish an XML schema, which is quite a rigorous document that's really aimed at machine-level parsing. It's human-readable but it's not classic-flow word processing text. It's an XML statement that can be put into an XML parser. So that maybe shouldn't just appear in line. If you went to that URL, you shouldn't just see a blob of XML. We should have descriptive text, maybe, that then points to the XML file that is a formal representation of that protocol. But is that the level of structure that you're looking to see?

SHIN YAMASAKI:

I'm just trying to say a very simple thing.

Could you show the page -

IZUMI OKUTANI:

Shin, I'm sorry. Every time, can you state your name.

SHIN YAMASAKI:

Yes, I'm sorry. Shin Yamasaki again. Could you show people the page?

So anyway, we need to wait quite a while. It's Shin again. So my idea is -

SPEAKER FROM THE FLOOR:

(Inaudible)

IZUMI OKUTANI:

Sorry. No-one can hear you.

GEORGE MICHAELSON:

I'm very sorry, Shin. But at this time I can't fetch the document for you because I have not configured my laptop to connect appropriately to the network infrastructure. It's my fault. We'll have to manage without it for now. I'm sorry.

SHIN YAMASAKI:

OK, Shin Yamasaki again. That's fine. OK, so just when I saw the URL, there are lots of links, so my idea would be those processes can be, um, written in a separate page, but I'll let APNIC choose the best way.

IZUMI OKUTANI:

Izumi, yes.

GEORGE MICHAELSON:

That sounds very good. I think we would be very happy to take that constructive proposal on board and construct a documentation framework that reflects that kind of structure. So if we would maybe come offline, then we could come back into this context and give you a better sense of what we can do. But, I think we would like to adopt that kind of structure. Yes, thank you.

IZUMI OKUTANI:

So the details of the format will be discussed later, but would you confirm what are the elements that you want to ensure APNIC will, you know, keep?

SHIN YAMASAKI:

Shin Yamasaki. Um, the bottom line I'd like to so would be the whenever APNIC changes of recreates the page which states the manual and automated processes, APNIC should notify us and whenever APNIC makes a change in a page, APNIC should notify us too. And the - both, the third, would be the APNIC should state the version of a document should be, um, on the top of the webpage.

GEORGE MICHAELSON:

I think those are all extremely sensible suggestions.

IZUMI OKUTANI:

Fine.

SAMANTHA DICKINSON:

Is that on? Hi. Sam Dickinson from APNIC. I just want to clarify, Shin, with the second point - because I'll be the one documenting this - you said any time APNIC makes a change to the page - are you talking about the reverse DNS page or the page that lists the precise technical details about implementing? It's just that with that reverse DNS page, we do an awful lot of ad hoc changes related to general news that's not related to the actual update method.

GEORGE MICHAELSON:

Perhaps we should take another URL to be embodied.

SAMANTHA DICKINSON:

That's what I'm thinking.

GEORGE MICHAELSON:

Could this be taken outside of this process consideration? I think this may be the kind of thing that is fine-grain detail that we could resolve, you know, in a consensus manner before this gets formal policy adoption. The broad sense is that there would be documented two processes - a manual MyAPNIC process and a more technical online system process and that itself should have a stable URL at the APNIC web for publication. It may not be the one on the slide, but it will be a stable URL and it has to encompass both people reading and machine-structured information and it should state clearly its context and its version. Yes? Those are strong drivers that you would like to see there? I think we could take account of that before this reaches formal approval process. Would that be acceptable?

Chairs?

IZUMI OKUTANI:

Yes. I think that's an acceptable suggestion. So is that acceptable by not just Shin but other NIRs? How do other NIRs feel about this? I think I would like to hear opinions of other NIRs as well. Are there any comments?

JI-YOUNG LEE:

Ji-young Lee from KRNIC. Actually, every November, we make a plan for the next year, so this time, we were not notified before November, so we could make a plan for your new system. But that six months - sometimes it's not good for us.

GEORGE MICHAELSON:

I'm very sorry that six months appears on the slide set. I downloaded this from the APNIC document store and unfortunately I did not get an edit made in time. It's not appropriate for us to put a strong prescriptive time like this in place at this stage in this process. We obviously need some certainty about when changes are made in technical systems, but clearly they have to take account of the production realities that you have in your own software maintenance cycle and in your own information systems. So, where I say 'six months', I do not mean - and I don't believe this proposal can mean - that that must be a fixed, rigid timeline. It has to reflect the realities of the cycle that we apply. So what would be more appropriate for you to put in as a statement here?

JI-YOUNG LEE:

Ji-young Lee again. According to your proposal, new system is followed by a URL of APNIC homepage, but it makes me feel like I'm forced to follow your plan because -

GEORGE MICHAELSON:

Yeah. I think that's the wrong relationship between us as developers of this kind of system. So I think we need to find a better way of saying that we will mutually agree forward changes and agree a deadline, a target to achieve a software development. So, if we take the current cycle of movement, where initially we proposed the March deadline and there was discussion, and it's clear that June is more appropriate, then we should have a policy statement that allows us to say, "June is a more appropriate target for deployment." I also think that we must take account of the realities for systems deployment, and if you reach the deadline and you have a major systems failure in a new system, it would be inappropriate to go ahead.

You should keep systems running. We are operating a service in the public good. So, we have to be adaptable to the realities of our development cycle. At the same time, as you say, you have a November-based planning timeline, so clearly you have some sense that there is a cycle time, and we also have a cycle time for software development. I think what we're trying to do is find convergence that there is a way we can agree all of us achieve our software development in a timely manner.

IZUMI OKUTANI:

I think I understand your concern, Ji-young, and I have two suggestions, and if there are other alternatives, please feel free to suggest it.

One idea is, I think, in the six months, the very idea of six months is probably being a concern to you, so one suggestion is, say, the minimum of six months, but it can be negotiated depending on situations of other - situations of each NIRs.

And an alternative is not to put any period, not to say anything, and APNIC will, you know, notify NIRs well in advance and coordinate the period where NIR feels it's comfortable.

Two options - which one do you feel is more appropriate? Are there any comments over preference? Or, are there questions? Are you clear about the options we have?

GEORGE MICHAELSON:

Sorry. Please excuse me. We would be really very willing to remove a prescriptive time and have no explicit six months and simply leave this that we use normal consensus process to work out what is mutually acceptable.

JI-YOUNG LEE:

I agree.

IZUMI OKUTANI:

So, put no specific time and just state that, you know, APNIC and NIRs will mutually have discussions on an agreeable time to implement any operational changes. Is this agreeable by everyone?

For those people who think this would be agreeable, please raise your hands to express your support.

OK. I think there is enough agreement on support to move towards this direction.

So this part is agreed as well.

And so I will - is there - I believe this is pretty much what we need to discuss on this proposal, but if there are any other comments or still concerns that you haven't -

GEORGE MICHAELSON:

Could we also discuss the removal of the appendix.

IZUMI OKUTANI:

Oh, sure. Alright. OK. Of course, yes.

So removal of appendix details on describing flat file view of a zone. This actually does not affect actual operations. It's just that, you know, this information is no longer necessary. So, simply removing it. It doesn't really have any, um, effect on the actual operation of NIRs.

So do you feel removing this description is agreeable? Please raise your hands if you can support this part.

OK, yeah, enough support on this as well.

So anything else you would like to specifically seek for consensus on this proposal, George?

GEORGE MICHAELSON:

No. Apart from - I'd just like to say thank you to the NIR tech members who've helped us work through the design issues behind this change. I really appreciate your help getting this outcome.

IZUMI OKUTANI:

And before this closing of this particular item, agenda item, if you have any comments about, you know, anything that you didn't really manage to express, please feel free to raise your hands and make comments.

OK, so everyone seems happy. So this is done. Yeah, thank you.

APPLAUSE

GEORGE MICHAELSON:

Thank you.

IZUMI OKUTANI:

So let's move on to the next agenda which would be a presentation from KRNIC. I think the presenters will be Billy and Ji-young. Is...

2007 KRNIC Activity for Customer Satisfaction

BILLY CHEON:

Hi. Good to see you again. Just elected as a co-chair. Very happy.

LAUGHTER

So, today I prepared a very brief report what we have done in the year of 2007. We can share experience about how to, you know, to boost up our members' participation in NIR - I mean local activities.

OK, my presentation consists of five parts. First, I will tell you briefly - brief introduction of KRNIC. Plus Internet Protocol, act on the Internet resources, which might have misunderstood Korea. And, member meeting. A little bit of change comparing to the last five years. And member service, what we have improved for our member service, mainly online service, I guess, and lastly, the - another KRNIC member will explain about system improvement.

OK, let's take a look at introduction of KRNIC. KRNIC was founded as a non-profit organisation in '99, June... '99, June 29. And it - many - when we started, KRNIC was founded, the main area we covered was .kr domain registration and DNS operation and IP and AS number management. But as other NIRs, our role and responsibility got bigger and bigger. We support - we have a policy development and technical support as well as we also provide statistical information for the local people and also we perform Internet business research and development and, you know, just like I do, just try to - other organisations, we do the cooperation work with international Internet organisations, such as APNIC and other NIRs.

And I think in the history of KRNIC, the most important turning point was setting up the registry act on Internet address resources in the year 2004. At that time, NIDA, and the National Internet Development Agency was founded and previous KRNIC as it was known, became the sub-organisation of NIDA. So now, the current topology is like KRNIC is the one, you know, department of NIDA now.

OK, in this slide what you're seeing - I will show you, what I will show you is about Internet Protocol, act on Internet Protocol. Some people might have a misunderstanding of Korea, with Korean Government or KRNIC is manipulating - I mean, make - manipulating their members, because we have a law the Government enacted. But that's not true.

Um, it's... I think to tell you for your information the background of setting up this law, like the law was set up in the year of 2004, but one year before the Government set the law, one of the biggest Korean ISPs - I think it was a DDoS attack and that was huge. It damaged the nationwide. So there was - I think it was kind of social atmosphere. We need some organisation to take responsibility, even if it's just a scapegoat or whatever. But we need some organisation to deal with this kind of accident, because these days, Internet, as Internet grows, Internet is regarded as one of the national public resources, so the government - sorry, the government has set up, act on address resources to protect our local people, to protect our ISPs.

So basically, NIDA was founded right at the base of things, based on the international policies and policies and politics and MIC, we - Korean Government, we negotiated, Korean Government devised it and get a small command from Internet Address Policy Committee and then the role was just set up and according to the law, Korean Government set NIDA as official organisation for managing IP address and AS numbers. But that doesn't mean we are not forcing our local members to be our member. Actually, there's no penalty, even though you don't want to be our member. I think it's just voluntary, it's their decision to be our member.

So what I'm trying - my point here is our members can choose to be our members or to be, you know, direct APNIC's member. It's not, you know, - the law doesn't make them to - doesn't force them to be our member.

OK, this is the main part.

OK, next, member meeting. I believe KRNIC, just like APNIC and other NIRs, we do have a local meeting called KIO. Korea Internet organisation workshop. It was very big meeting. Maybe 200, more around 200 people I think attended the meeting. But we realised that the meeting was getting bigger, but we feel like we are missing very important part, which is ISPs real needs or their interests. So we - as - I mean, in 2007, we changed the structure. People that we visited, ISPs, our staff visited our members directly, major ISPs and 58 ISPs we visited last year and listened and listened their needs and interests and then, um, we also provided education, basic education for IP management for their new staff and also notified our member service so they can benefit from it.

And also we listened what we have to change. I mean if the policy, if there's - if we have to - we sometimes change the policy based on the opinion that we collected from them.

So, throughout the ISP visit, we also had two ISP workshops. First half workshop was in April. Attended 61 ISPs, people. The main issue was IPv6 network, how to hook up the IPv6 network and we also gave information about new trends and policies on IP address and AS numbers. And second half workshop was September, attended 43 people. Was - main issue was VoIP, Internet services in public sector. It was more like a more tech-oriented meeting, I think.

And we also had the two ISP seminars. The first half seminar was June, attended 77 and DNS - main issue was DNS, IPv6, IPTV and technical education. We invited able speakers from the Cisco or LG Hitachi and they gave, I think, practical lectures to our members. And second half was December, attended 59, and it also - it's focusing on security issues, such as spamming and hacking, and the thing is our members taking the workshop and seminars, and I think the meeting was a smaller than before but we feel like they really liked it and these days, I think, they have to apply very - if they want - we have too many, too many attendees, so it was a really hard for us to fit all ISPs in seminar, one seminar.

So this is all for our member meeting.

And member service. We are also running electronic booking system for customer satisfaction. I think - I don't know about other NIRs, but customer satisfaction is very important, getting important and actually it's our priority for the member services. So we receive - members complain, members claim, members complained and they called it, in the IPv6 AS number and we checked and we looked internally, we had a meeting how to solve this. I think it was very hard to serve our members' needs and what you're seeing is our Internet system, accessible by only our staff.

And also we provide statistical information. You can see how we get the IP - you can see the trend of IPv4 allocation to Korea from '91 to 2008, the current time. And we offer this service to the nation, to the people. So, accessible by anyone who like. Another is we also report - we made a report on IP address and AS number and we made 300 copies and the contents was a major APNIC policy and other NIRs trend and we spread out this report to our members.

OK, from now on it's system improvement.

Let me introduce another KRNIC staff.

JI-YOUNG LEE:

Hi. My name is Ji-young Lee from KRNIC and I'd like to introduce KRNIC system improvement on customer satisfaction in year 2007.

The title is 'secondary reverse DNS for small size members'.

In my experience, I have learned that unlike major ISPs, small size members run single reverse DNS so KRNIC built a secondary reverse DNS for small-size KRNIC members who run single reverse DNS. The progress was as follows.

Phase 1, we added additional lease the line from our member, Hananet, two megabits/ps into KRNIC network. Phase 2, we deployed a new server and installed BIND program. Phase 3, we developed DNS management program and updated KRNIC member portal.

And this is a picture of KRNIC member portal. If our members don't run secondary DNS, they can mark these and the second DNS part is set as KRNIC's one.

And if the request is accepted, KRNIC web server updates main DDot comms of KRNIC DNS. From the moment KRNIC DNS is reloaded and from the moment KRNIC DNS works as secondary DNS for KRNIC members' primary nameserver. So reversal transfer occurs between primary and secondary so our members can utilise KRNIC name server as their secondary one. So, I hope this can assist our members' systems, operational safety and efficiency.

Thank you.

GEORGE MICHAELSON:

Sorry. George Michaelson from APNIC. Can I just confirm - the secondary reverse is an entirely new machine?

JI-YOUNG LEE:

Yes, new machine.

GEORGE MICHAELSON:

That has not appeared in any other context or has any other delegations? It only does member secondary?

JI-YOUNG LEE:

Yes. As you know, we have .kr DNS for our reverse zone DNS and this is for our members.

GEORGE MICHAELSON:

Right.

JI-YOUNG LEE:

We bought new DNS and this is only for our members.

GEORGE MICHAELSON:

Thank you. Thank you. That's good. That's very good.

IZUMI OKUTANI:

Interesting project. Are there any questions or comments from other NIRs on activities that KRNIC is doing, or on the system area or some of the customer satisfaction activities that they're doing?

SPEAKER FROM THE FLOOR:

Actually, yeah. About this customer satisfaction, we have a customer satisfaction evaluation between the national agencies. There are some groupings. So in our grouping, there is, like, 15 agencies, governmental agencies, so we compete each other. So not only with that, there's also we really give some importance of our customer satisfaction, we give out many things. And just see, you know, the first thing was the workshop because we hold a workshop for two days and one night. So we invited and we funded the room and so we, you know, just to rented a hotel room, like 15 or 20 hotel rooms for the members and then we had one night and two days workshop.

Also, and then the first time was the ISP visit because this one, it never happened, because ISP visit, it gives some kind of direct human network between the KRNIC and our members so this was really helpful so we only listened to the voices of our members and then they call us but we never met but this time we met, you know, face to face. I think it also, we gave them some information and also we gave them some opinion and that kind of thing, you know. It really helps to build up, you know, the strong human network between our members. Thank you.

IZUMI OKUTANI:

Thank you very much. I understand your point about, you know, by seeing in person it really helps build a human network. We do similar activities in JPNIC as well. Taking my chair hat off, you know, in JPNIC we also do similar things. I wonder if other NIRs do something like - similar like CNNIC or TWNIC?

DAVID CHEN:

It's David Chen from TWNIC. I have a question for you. Do you charge the members for the workshop training?

SPEAKER FROM THE FLOOR:

It is totally free because they are our members. Also, this is very close to the meeting - close educational meeting for our members so everything is free, yeah.

IZUMI OKUTANI:

Service.

SPEAKER FROM THE FLOOR:

I'm from CNNIC. Because many ISPs in Korea can choose to become a member of NIDA or a member of APNIC so do you have any competition strategy or any benefit to attract the ISPs to become your member?

BILLY CHEON:

Yes, like I said, because we have an act on Internet resource that doesn't mean we don't make them to be our members. But like our strategy, if you ask our strategy for the competition, I think it's the quality of member service. If they like our service, then they, you know, become our members. But if you don't like it, go to direct member. Take it our leave it. We never made them to be our perm, you know, we never forced them to be our members. So I think the quality of service is the most - is our strategy, I think.

IZUMI OKUTANI:

How about casing other NIRs? Any comments from other NIRs? Alright. Sorry.

SPEAKER FROM THE FLOOR:

Yeah, about that question. Before the act, only one of our current members was a member of APNIC before the act. So there is not much change. Also, currently, I checked the APNIC members, which is located in Korea and there are four ISPs, but we didn't do anything, you know, against them or just - I already know that there are four but it's OK.

IZUMI OKUTANI:

So in the case of KRNIC the quality of service is helping to attract members.

And in cases, JPNIC - again this is taking my chair hat off - we do take a lot of importance in our local presence, so we hold quite a number of meetings, face-to-face meetings, to update about our activities at least twice a year and we also hold trainings once every two months and which also organise hostmaster consultation sessions and things like that. So, we do keep focus on actual interaction, face-to-face interaction with our members

Anything from TWNIC? Oh, yes.

JIAN ZHANG:

This is from Jian Zhang from CNNIC. Actually, we do the same thing. We're still doing it. We have twice a year membership meetings and also we did some training. But you said you did - you're doing the training, like, every two months.

IZUMI OKUTANI:

Once every two months.

JIAN ZHANG:

Once every two months, OK.

IZUMI OKUTANI:

It's for beginners though. It's like resource management training that APNIC is doing but JPNIC version.

JIAN ZHANG:

OK. Yeah, we're pretty much doing the same thing.

SPEAKER FROM THE FLOOR:

I'm from TWNIC. We also host open policy meetings twice a year. Besides that, we also have the IPv6 departure in progress so we have some IPv6 training course. We also almost 10 training course a year. So these are all free. We have training course for - almost 10 training course a year and it's all free for our ISPs, so that is some technical training course is useful to get the relationship between TWNIC and our ISPs and with APNIC. Thank you.

SPEAKER FROM THE FLOOR:

Yeah, sorry. Thank you.

(Pause)

BILLY CHEON:

I think I'm done.

LAUGHTER

IZUMI OKUTANI:

That's it. Now you know each NIRs are doing some activities to raise customer satisfaction and even outside the session. Please feel free to exchange information individually and how to improve each NIR services. So, thank you very much for the two KRNIC speakers for very interesting presentations.

So, let's move on to our last agenda item which is a presentation from TWNIC on its activities.

DAVID CHEN:

Let's welcome to the TWNIC staff, Geng-Da.

APPLAUSE

TWNIC update

GENG-DA TSAI:

Hi. I'm Geng-Da Tsai from TWNIC. And my presentation is - this is my outline. It includes major activities, TWNIC activities and ninth TWNIC OPM. And we have IPv6 meteorological measurement and we have NICE project and we provide user to connect IPv6 network via IPv6 tunnel broker. And we have a press conference to inform everyone and there are seven ISP provider services. And then we have an IPv6 pavilion in Taiwan. It includes an IPv6 Showroom in TWNIC office and an IPv6 Pavilion in Taipei.

As you know, Taiwan has an education centre.

And we have one TWNIC member meeting and Open Policy Meeting in December. And in 2007, we have totally 12 IPv6 tutorials and it's all, all free. And the ninth TWNIC IP Open Policy Meeting was held on December 5, 2007. And there are more than 60 attendees and they include ISP, ICP, vendor, academic institutes and they are Policy SIG and TWNOG - Taiwan Network Operators Group. And we can see that here in the website.

And this slide is about the Policy SIG and TWNOG. We have 80 minutes for Policy SIG and 120 minutes for TWNOG.

And in the last, ninth Open Policy Meeting, we invited Cliff Lai, the chief business officer of Taiwan Mobile, on the new trend of merging telecommunication and network. And we have a panel about Taiwan Internet connectivity bandwidth survey. And the Policy SIG, included four things. IPv4 address exhaustion and the latest international policy report. And 3.5 G and VPN application and P2P application, detection and management and future WiMax-based service and address planning. In TWNOG, there are five - sorry, there are four agendas, include IPv6 tunnel broker service and botnets and DDos introduction and analysis of current conditions of VoIP and sharing experiences of IPv6-based VoIP development.

And this is a picture and we had four members in TWNIC IP and this is the four. And our director. Yeah. They are all here. We are all here. And we have us all here. Professor Liang.

And in 2007, we have a NICE project and there are seven ISPs in Taiwan provide SS service and we called it the next-generation Internet connective environment, NICE. And they provide IPv6 tunnel broker service since 9 November 2007. And we have a press conference to inform users we have this service.

And we have a new system or service and we joint project with Japan's Live E! Project, and it's objects is to research on small scale real-time weather vibration and Internet used for educational for earth preservation. And we have installed several weather sensors in Si-Tou, in the middle of Taiwan. And you can connect to Internet, you can go to the website and it will show the real-time the weather. We provide IPv6 connection, so you can try now.

And last year, we built an IPv6 Showroom in our office and we built a website so you can go to the URL and try to see it there. There are several applications and if you use an IPv6 connection to visit our website, the TWNIC baby will work with you. You can see it there to show you about IPv6. And we have several applications - our director - you can see him there.

OK, and we have an IPv6 Pavilion. It's an exhibition of IPv6 applications - its name - 'Exhibition of IPv6 Applications in Future Life'. We want to promote IPv6 applications. TWNIC held the 'Exhibition of IPv6 Applications in Future Life' on the third-floor exhibition hall of National Taiwan Science Education Museum in Taipei in 2008. The exhibition covers IPv6 use in every aspects of daily life, such as food supply, medical care, residence, transportation, education and entertainment.

And it's the floor plan. We have several areas from our kitchen and living room, study room, bathroom, Future Eye and eBus station.

And we have a press conference for Opening Ceremony of our - for beginning of IPv6 Pavilion and Opening Ceremony of exhibition was held on January 17th, 2008 in the first-floor hall of the museum, and was presided over by Peipei Lai, TWNIC chairman. It was a great honour to Tony Deng, post and telecommunication director-general of the Ministry of Communications and Transportation and Chuang-laung Liu, a research fellow of Academia Sinica also attended the ceremony and delivered speeches.

And we invited Aboriginal children to experience IPv6 life. Before the official opening of the exhibition, TWNIC had invited Aboriginal children living in the remote areas of Yilan County in the north of Taiwan to come to the exhibition and experience the convenience and wonder of future life with IPv6 and the wonder of future life with IPv6. The future world where, thanks to IPv6, each one can have Internet access everywhere to everything is expected to come soon. It is hoped that, through the interactive games and extra curricular learning activities of the exhibition, viewers from elementary and high schools in Taiwan can know more about IPv6 applications and develop interests in related research in the future.

And that's my presentations. Thank you.

APPLAUSE

SPEAKER FROM THE FLOOR:

TWNIC has did a lot of the activities and the training and also have a press conference. Is there any comments and questions for the TWNIC update?

OK.

SPEAKER FROM THE FLOOR:

About the TWNIC OPM, I see that we have more than 60 attendees to join this OPM. These attendees not just TWNIC's members. They include APNIC's member in Taiwan and besides that it also includes vendors or ICPs. So TWNIC OPM have some - it's a platform for Taiwan's industry to share their experience in that meeting. So they are more attendees to join our Open Policy Meeting. Thank you.

SPEAKER FROM THE FLOOR:

Just a quick question. What kind of topics usually are talked in this meeting? Is it all related to policy? Or everything?

GENG-DA TSAI:

I think before the OPM meeting we have a program committee meeting. So the program committee meeting, we have includes some members of TWNIC and they are our - Taiwan's strategy to organise the program. So besides the policy, we also have set up TWNOG with the technical session. Another session includes sometimes application of business sharing so there are different kinds of topics in our OPM. Yeah.

SPEAKER FROM THE FLOOR:

Thank you and is there any more comments?

IZUMI OKUTANI:

Izumi from JPNIC. I have a question. There's four presentations made at Policy SIG. Who were the presenters? And if they're not from the TWNIC Secretariat, how do you encourage people outside the Secretariat to make proposals or presentations?

GENG-DA TSAI:

Such kind of organised meeting as APNIC we have a chair for every SIG and for the TWNOG. So the chair and some members, they organise the topic. Their responsibility is to include speakers.

So every topic needs a speaker so if there is a topic, but no speaker, they will change the topic or they need to include other companies to invite them to be a speaker. Yeah.

DAVID CHEN:

OK. And TWNIC is end of this presentation, OK?

IZUMI OKUTANI:

Thank you very much. So, I think we still have a bit of time to - until lunch session so we can either finish or if there are any just topics that you would like to discuss or questions or share information, you can feel free to raise it.

MING-CHENG LIANG:

This is Ming-Cheng from TWNIC. I would like to know that. I know that Japan have been working very hard to promote this IPv6 and actually in Taiwan, as well as what's just reported, we do some education. We also work with our ISPs to put it into their services, such as working with the built-in and with the content provider, that type of thing. I'm not sure that - can you give us an order of what type of promotion JPNIC are doing regarding this time of part other than KRNIC or CNNIC? Do they do anything similar to that?

IZUMI OKUTANI:

Actually, JPNIC ourselves as an organisation is not directly involved in promoting the actual details of implementation but there is a working group in IPv6 Promotion Council, that discusses about what technical issues there are in order to have a transition to IPv6 and another issue, important thing, is I think it's what was mentioned in the plenary this morning. The business factor. How ISPs can make business profit with IPv6 service. And I don't think we really have a good solution about this at this stage, but it's definitely an area we're working on and perhaps maybe, um, someone from Japan, outside from JPNIC, can - do you think you'd be able to share the general situation or issues ISPs face in Japan?

SPEAKER FROM THE FLOOR:

I'm from Japan. I think most of the cases so we can deploy the IPv6 equipment, but they are making no money. So it's mostly an input point, I think.

IZUMI OKUTANI:

Thank you very much. So that's an area but we don't really have a good solution to that yet.

SPEAKER FROM THE FLOOR:

Actually, about this making money part. I think that there is one interesting aspect of this promotion is that when - let's say we work with the architect and when they put the IPv6 into their building, and they got, you know, they can, they can advertise and all that, and maybe like to say when they sell the house, then, you know, we are counting that how much is that but for them maybe they can make like 10,000 or 20,000 more in NT dollars maybe. So they can actually make a profit out of this business. So that's give them the motivation to do that. I'm not sure that that is the same case or not but that's what happens there for the build project. They are trying to do that.

SPEAKER FROM THE FLOOR:

Sorry. I didn't quite get your point. How did they make money?

SPEAKER FROM THE FLOOR:

Well, I think how they get the money is that because when they built a new building, right, and they say - usually, like, a building is sell at a certain price, but they tell the people that, "OK, it's equipped with broadband and also IPv6 equipped," so my house is better than others, so it will have to be sold at like 20% or 30% more. And people buy that. You know, people buy that and actually a lot of people rush into that. So that's how they make money.

Of course, I should say that this is - the money was made by the builder, not necessarily by our ISPs, but, of course, the part of the money - I think ISPs here would charge for that but it would be much, much less than the profit they got from the builder. But everybody makes money anyway, so that's good.

TOSHIYUKI HOSAKA:

Toshiyuki Hosaka from JPNIC. So the project itself is important but Ming-Cheng you're somewhat right because ISP can't live, survive, without any money from IPv6. So, um, current stage is, I think, to promote IPv6 itself is important but the more important thing is to let them know the situation for IPv4 and IPv6 and we still need a technical solution to move to IPv6. So probably we need to continue discussion like this and maybe this is the appropriate process to share the information among us. Thank you.

HYUN-JOON KWON:

This is Hyun-joon Kwon from KRNIC. We had actually, the - KRNIC is making a plan, national plan for the IPv6 promotion every year. Every three years or every four years. So this time they changed the strategy. First time, you know, the first phase of the plan they try to making a big promotion movement in private sectors. Right now they changed direction. OK, let's do the promotion only to, you know, the government sectors and then maybe five sectors are mature enough to do their own job so just to make it - let them know about the IPv6 connect so you know we're giving the education or some kind of seminars about the v4 depletion or v6 technology things, but we never - I think a bit of a change so the Government's added to this it's not that aggressive like v4 right now.

So this time, this year, actually last year we proposed to the Government, OK, another plan for the IPv6 promotion, so this year we got, like, exact - I don't remember the exact amount but 1.7 US dollars, 1.7 billion US dollar we got and then we are going to buy, you know, IPv6-enabled network systems and then we will supply the machines to maybe 15 or 16 national agencies. So and then we will intrigue maybe - maybe we - because it's kind of very slow to adapt, you know, the officials, so we just buy things and say, "Hey, use these things," and then maybe people will like this so maybe they will follow you, so this kind of thing. So we started with, you know, governmental agencies, so this year, I think, the promotion thing is really - NIDA will be the key organisation of that IPv6 promotion in the governmental sectors.

That's all.

DAVID CHEN:

Thanks KRNIC informations. Are there any comments about this?

OK. It's alright.

IZUMI OKUTANI:

So, thank you very much. And I think this issue of what we're going to do with this IPv6 and perhaps like relationship with government policy or public sector is also important, so I think it's going to be good if each NIR thinks, "Oh, this is a really useful, you know, government policy or situation in each NIR. It would be nice if we could share it among NIRs and also if we think it's useful as the community in general maybe we can also share it with, you know, the community as a whole. "

So, thank you for the agenda for making a very interesting presentation.

And since this is almost lunchtime we would like to end this session. I would like to thank all the speakers, as well as all the people who spoke up on the floor today and I think it was very good. We had quite good discussions and it was a nice session.

Thank you very much.