Transcript - AMM Session 3 (14:00 - 15:30)
While every effort is made to capture a live speaker's words, it is possible at times that the transcript contains some errors or mistranslations. APNIC apologizes for any inconvenience, but accepts no liability for any event or action resulting from the transcripts.
Maemura Akinori: It is 1.45, and I want to remind everyone that 2.00 pm is closing time for the voting. Please don't miss the voting. We will resume the afternoon session at 2.00 pm.
Maemura Akinori: It is 5 minutes to 2.00 pm, and again, do not miss voting, please. Thank you very much. We will be resuming the session in five minutes. Thank you.
Tan Tin Wee: It is now 1.58, almost 2.00. Only 2 minutes to go. Please cast your vote outside the room now, otherwise no more votes when the clock hits 2.00 pm. Thank you.
Maemura Akinori: Please, if I can inform, less than one minute to close of voting.
Maemura Akinori: Okay, now the Election Chair is coming up to the stage and I believe he says something.
Tan Tin Wee: Thank you very much, Chairman. It is now 2.00 pm. We have already sealed the ballot box. Thank
you very much, everyone, for your votes. Our election tellers are counting the votes as we speak, and the two neutral scrutineers are already escorting and invigilating that process. They will be removing the ballot box to a private room to commence counting, and hopefully the results will be ready by 3.15 pm.
The entire process will be scrutinised by the election scrutineers, Mark Kosters from ARIN and Emilio from RIPE.
Just to remind you, if for any reason you have any complaint regarding the conduct of the election, you must lodge this in writing to me, the Election Chair. I will be floating around at the back and near the counter, at the registration desk outside, should you need to rush that written letter of complaint, stating exactly the reasons for your complaint. This must be lodged no later, according to the rules, than one hour before the scheduled declaration of the elections. So that means by 2.15, that is in 14 minutes' time, you must lodge your written complaint or notice to me.
This notice of written complaint must be lodged by members through their authorised voting representatives or nominees directly with the Election Chair. So any of the nominees here who wish to lodge a complaint, please do so to me directly, using a written notice.
With that, Chairman, may I proceed with the election process.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much. The election process is really smoothly handled by the great Election Chair. Thank you very much, Tin Wee.
Okay. Let's start again our business. The afternoon session will consist of the reports from local registries.
First, Izumi Okutani is starting the afternoon session with her report from the NIR SIG.
Izumi Okutani: Good afternoon. I'm Izumi Okutani, Chair of NIR SIG. I would like to give an update of the discussions we had at NIR SIG.
It is basically a SIG that exchanges information about activities of what each NIR is doing and also for APNIC to share their activities and services that are related to NIRs. Although it is called "NIR SIG", participation is open to anybody. So non-NIRs can attend the session and we also have a mailing list that anyone can subscribe to.
I myself am speaking here, but I also have a Co-chair, Jessica Shen, from CNNIC sitting over there. We work closely together in coordinating the SIG.
Just to introduce the current NIRs, we have seven NIRs in this region: IDNIC from Indonesia; CNNIC from
China; JPNIC from Japan; KRNIC of KISA from Korea -- sorry, I have the old logo, I wasn't able to obtain the latest one -- IRINN from India, TWNIC from Taiwan and VNNIC from Viet Nam. These are the seven NIRs we have in this region.
The NIR SIG was Tuesday morning. We had roughly 30 to 40 attendees. It was quite a small cosy session, but more attendees than usual, which was a good thing. I saw a couple of new faces, non-NIRs. Four updates from NIRs about their activities, from IRINN, CNNIC, VNNIC and TWNIC. And Miwa Fujii from APNIC also shared IPv6@APNIC and what are the activities that APNIC is doing on statistics and outreach to the economies.
The last agenda topic, we had -- our time was limited -- but discussions about how NIR SIG should move in the future. Just to introduce a couple of major points, it was quite notable that we had the update from IRINN this time, because it was the first time they had given us an update of their activities after they set up a new Indian NRI.
According to their reports, they have currently 71 affiliates -- that is what they call their account holders -- and expect to have 240 affiliates by March next year. So the membership is strongly growing. I found it interesting that they support eight languages
and have been conducting road shows to do more outreach about the activities and about v6 promotion.
I have highlighted a couple of the points, and my observation was what was common was all NIRs are doing some kind of outreach activities related to v6. For example, CNNIC is giving training to their LIRs on how to upgrade their DNS to support IPv6 under the government project.
VNNIC is organizing an event in May this year as a national IPv6 event to celebrate their v6 launch event. That was held last year, and this time in Ho Chi Minh City. They are also doing a project to promote small and medium ICT enterprises to support v6 in ASEAN countries.
TWNIC is doing a training program on v6 routing and they also do a regular training program. It is great that they have had already 3,000 attendees for their training so far, and they also provide a manual for their ISPs on v6 deployment.
There was a call from Miwa from APNIC, after sharing data about each economy's v6 deployment status, collaboration is welcome with NIRs on the kind of work that APNIC is doing.
The last agenda was the future of NIR SIG. The idea was that we have been conducting the session in the SIG
format for a long time, mostly for historical reasons, but the current session that is held in SIG format is just Policy SIG and NIR SIG. And in the past we used to have proposals at NIR SIG, so that's why we needed to call it a SIG, and we have clearly defined election process and people need to submit a public call for presentation, and we need these kinds of formalities.
However, observing from the content of NIR SIG in the past five years, we haven't had any proposals, and it's mostly updates from NIRs. Usually, all NIRs want to give their updates, so just make it like a regular session, maybe similar to global reports, to give a chance to all NIRs to give updates, and not have the formality of having elections or having to submit requests for presentation, et cetera.
There wasn't any concerns expressed or opposition expressed at the session, but since the time was limited, we will continue to seek for comments on the mailing list, if people have any questions. Then if there are no strong concerns, we will try it under a new format, probably, for example, call it NIR Reports session, instead of SIG, from the coming meeting in APNIC 36.
There were other related discussions on perhaps we should have more area focused information exchanges, for
example, activities and outreach we do on IPv6 or v4 transfers, DNSSEC, RPKI, and many things that NIR comment on activities. Maybe we can think of better ways on how we can exchange information and have discussions in this area.
There was one more issue that was brought up, which was not just based on what NIRs do, but sharing information on an economies basis. Maybe we can hear what the government is doing in the NIR's economy or the situation in general, for example, on IPv6 deployment in each of the economies, and things like that. These were some other discussions that were made at the end of the session.
The next step is we will have a comment period. We will keep it the same as policy proposals, eight weeks comment period, to see if we are going to try the non-SIG format from APNIC 36, and if there is no strong opposition, we will call it like another kind of session for NIRs. That's one thing.
For the issues that have been raised which I mentioned, as related discussion topics, we didn't really have a concrete idea on the future direction, so myself as Chair and the Co-chair will consider what can be done and we will share ideas on the mailing list, and we will continue discussions on a better way on
exchanging information on these other related issues.
That's all from me.
It seems that I usually come up to the microphone, but Jessica Shen has done a lot of work in organizing the agendas, I would really like to thank her. And also Sunny from APNIC Secretariat, you have done a lot of help and support for us. Thank you so much.
Rajesh Chharia (IRINN): As you are now dissolving the SIG NIR, and you are just putting the update of NIR into the committee, if there are any concerns or any issues faced by the NIRs, can that go to APNIC through NIR SIG or can it be presented directly to the SIG? What was the last system or what will be the future system?
Izumi Okutani: You are saying, besides the updates, if there are any issues you want to discuss -- for example, voting or fee related issues that concern NIRs -- would it be possible to discuss in this new format? Is that your question?
Rajesh Chharia (IRINN): Yes.
Izumi Okutani: Personally, I would like to accommodate and to accept that kind of agenda and have open contact, so that if people have any interest to discuss a topic, that is besides the report session, I would like to allow that. But this is my personal opinion, and for
that particular issue I would like to seek for comments on the mailing list.
Rajesh Chharia (IRINN): Let's assume that we move that into an NIR and all the NIRs are finalising on one issue, that will be referred to the SIG or that will be going directly to the EC for decision?
Izumi Okutani: Can you give an example?
Rajesh Chharia (IRINN): Let's take the example of the fees. All the NIRs are facing right now 190 per cent of the premium on their existing fees, which is quite high, and all NIRs are deciding to reduce this 190 per cent to 100 per cent or 150 per cent. At that time, the complete process, if all the NIRs agree, it will be going through the SIG or it will be going directly to the APNIC EC?
Maemura Akinori: I make a comment. Thank you very much, Rajesh.
Setting the fees is the responsibility of the Executive Council, as you know. Izumi is now concerning about new format of the NIR SIG. Anyway, the opinion from the National Internet Registries will be well heard by the Executive Council for our consideration, then we keep that, even if the format for the NIR SIG changes. I'm pretty sure for that.
If so, do you have any comment?
Rajesh Chharia (IRINN): No, fees were just an example. How about any other issues, regarding the allocation or procedure issues? That will be discussed into the NIR SIG and then it will be going directly to the APNIC EC or it will be going through the simple proposal of just the SIG? Right now, we are speaking NIR SIG, means it is a parallel SIG of the NIR.
Izumi Okutani: I'm not very clear about the process. To be very frank, this part is ambiguous.
But the point is that it is the same, even under the current NIR SIG format as well, so the only part that will change is that it's not going to be called a SIG and we will continue to have a kind of session that allows NIRs to discuss issues, for example, fees or whatever other issues you are interested to discuss, as NIRs. Then, depending on if it's a fee issue, then we can give that input on the EC, or if it's something related to address policy then we should share that input to address Policy SIG.
So we cannot decide things on our own, so it always has to be a decision that is made by another kind of process, following the regular standard APNIC process.
Actually, even at NIR SIG as it is, it is the same, that part hasn't changed.
Just to clarify one point: we are going to make it a
sleeping SIG, so we are not going to totally dissolve the SIG. If there are needs in the future that we need to organize in a SIG format, we can always revitalise, but we will just call it a different name and keep it as a sleeping SIG for a while.
Rajesh Chharia (IRINN): Just now you are proposing the NIR updates. We can see that the NIR SIG updates, if we are not using SIG we can use the update and if you are using the update (unclear).
Izumi Okutani: We will do the update sessions, and then in the future, if some issue comes up that we really need the SIG format, we can revitalise the SIG. That's my point.
Rajesh Chharia (IRINN): Then in my opinion, we should continue with the SIG.
Izumi Okutani: If we are going to keep it as a sleeping SIG, you would rather keep it as a SIG. Okay.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much, Izumi. That is a quite exhaustive coverage. Thank you.
Masato Yamanishi (Softbank BB Corp): This is a comment as a delegate of Softbank, not a comment as a Co-chair. Since voting rights and fees is related to all members, not only NIR members, so I would express strong concern about discussing these things within NIR members.
Izumi Okutani: Thanks for that input. Just to add, we of
course don't decide anything as NIR on our own. I think there will be some discussions in the future, for example if we do, then we always make sure we share with wider membership, rather than just discussing closely within NIR on our own, just to clarify with your concern.
Masato Yamanishi (Softbank BB Corp): The reason why I express concern is I cannot understand the benefit of discussing these things only within NIR members, because voting rights or fees are related with all members, so should be discussed among all members.
Izumi Okutani: I totally agree with your point, yes.
Maemura Akinori: Masato, your point is well taken.
The reason why currently all policies are discussed in the Policy SIG is avoiding such a situation where the NIR things are only discussed among the NIRs, so that's the reason to have all discussions in the Policy SIG.
For the fees, yes, I said that is the power, the discretion of the Executive Council, but we don't do, for example, the discussion of the fees just among the NIRs, but the Executive Council is clearly responsible for setting fees, to make the proper balance between NIRs and non-NIR members.
If you have some concern, yes, APNIC Member Meeting is a very good chance for you to express. So
I appreciate your comment. Thank you very much.
Izumi Okutani: Perhaps we can discuss it more on the mailing list. There are some comments I would like to make regarding that, but I think better to discuss on the NIR SIG mail list further.
Maemura Akinori: NIR SIG is not closed but open for everyone, so that's another point.
Izumi Okutani: Thanks very much for all your input.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you, Izumi.
Maemura Akinori: The next report is from PPAC, which stands for Public Policy Advisory Committee. I believe Naveen is now coming up.
Naveen Tandon: Honourable members of the Executive Council and the members of the community present here, a very good afternoon to all of you. My name is Naveen Tandon, I am here along with my Co-chair, Shyam Nair, to present the first inaugural session report of the Policy Advisory Committee.
Before the session was conducted, we prepared a draft agenda, because it was important, given the fact this committee intends to be a truly multistakeholder committee, it was important that we have engagement of the community, government, industry, academia, technical community, all from the very beginning. The starting
point certainly was the agenda.
This was the agenda. Given the fact we had 90 minutes, it was important for us to have discussion on what issues would be discussed and to transact some business, share some best practices and hear what the community members would like to discuss in the committee.
In this 90 minutes, we had tried to allocate and tried to balance all the issues. We started with a welcome, and we had the discussion on structure, functioning, periodicity of the meetings, etc. Then we had an interactive session on what issues we would like to take up in this committee in times to come.
We are certainly thankful to Dean, Mr RM Agarwal and Manoj for making individual contributions on very important issues. And then we ended the meeting with the way forward for the next APNIC.
The quick facts, before we move on to the next slide. The inaugural session was held on 26 February, the duration was 90 minutes, it was well attended and with active participation. Our sincere thanks to everyone who participated.
Around 90 participants attended the session, a great turnout, which included both members present in person and through remote hubs, stakeholders from all
categories -- government, industry, technical, academic community -- everybody attended the session.
An important point, we truly had a gender balance in the session, which reflects true multistakeholderism and the interests of the community. The discussions overall were on content and functioning of PPAC.
A quick word about PPAC's role, which will be to work with APNIC on matters related to public policy issues for development of Internet in the region. It will discuss issues to foster sustainability, security, stability and development of the Internet and facilitate the information and exchange of ideas and best practices.
The next two or three slides will provide an update on the summary of discussions which happened, because there were mixed thoughts coming up. There were thoughts on having the forum to have a dialogue on various public policy issues related to the Internet, something similar to the manner in which Internet Governance Forum meeting are held.
Certainly there was an importance highlighted on inclusion of government as a stakeholder through a planned outreach program was highlighted and felt imperative by all.
All stakeholders need to be made part of decision
making, irrespective of numbers.
Importance was also felt to have an inclusive dialogue, need to assess the impact of technical policies on the growth of Internet and how it empowers communities.
Planned purpose and role of PPAC is to be an informal discussion; and another thought which came up is that we should have a forum to discuss informally, sharing of ideas and discussion, focus, because there is a clear-cut focus presently on what APNIC should do. So the forum should continue to move in that direction and there might be some issues which might be contextual, but that can be discussed in background but it should not become a focus.
Agenda should cover the topics of the challenges being faced by the APNIC Community; and outcome, because it is important to measure the outcomes of the committee; it would be helpful if it helps promote sharing of information and perspective and best practices from all stakeholders.
PPAC APNIC Secretariat, the comment came from the government stakeholder that they should continue to provide the required support to share policy developments with the stakeholders for confirmation of the benefit of the Internet in the region. Government
certainly needs to be part of the discussion as a key stakeholder, because it is important for them to understand each of the perspectives for better deliberation and outcomes.
In the middle of all these discussions and the thought processes which came up, we felt it was important to form a small subcommittee, a small group of four people, who can help work on the draft rules for structure, functioning, agenda, periodicity of PPAC meetings. We have four volunteers: Mr Dean Pemberton, principal consultant of InternetNZ; Laina Greene; Dr Govind; and Amrita Choudhury. So we have -- again, in the subcommittee we have ensured a gender balance and truly multistakeholderism, who will work and submit a report before the next EC on how we should work upon.
The next agenda was to have an interactive session. Given the first session, it is important that we discussed issues related to Internet, so we don't want to impose any particular topic of discussion, be it security, spam, access and diversity of Internet. We thought it is important that members should pick up their comments and prepare a report, so that it may be a good way of exchanging facilitation of ideas, information and best practices.
In the first session there were not many takers, so
as a next step, before the next session, we will call for papers from members of the community who would like to present on topics of interest relating to Internet in the region.
We had individual presentations by Mr Dean Pemberton on InternetNZ public policy framework. He talked about the activities being undertaken and was very supportive of this effort. We had a presentation from one of the government stakeholders from Government of India on critical Internet resources and the related policies of IPv6 from Government of India. Then we had an excellent presentation from Mr Manoj Misra, Cable & Wireless India, on the regulatory environment for Internet services and the financial positon of the Indian telecoms sector.
The next step: we are very thankful to APNIC for providing the encouragement and support to hold the meetings for the next three years. It will be held at every APNIC meeting, APNIC Conference and APRICOT meetings for the coming three years. Emphasis of discussion certainly to be on transforming Internet to equinet.
There was a very important discussion which came up that there is a need to have an outreach program for wider engagement of government as a stakeholder in the
deliberations of the PPAC and the required support. The required level of protocols as applicable certainly needs to be maintained as applicable. Mandate of PPAC certainly needs to include all policy matters related to Internet, and the subcommittee will submit a report to the Chair of the Working Group before the next APNIC.
The discussions will continue. Here are the useful links through which anybody who is not a member of the Working Group can become. With this, I end my presentation and offer myself for questions or clarification. Thank you very much.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much. Any questions or comments? Dean is coming.
Dean Pemberton (InternetNZ): I wanted to clarify one point on the last slide. I wondered what it was referred to of "the mandate of PPAC needs to include all policy matters relating to the Internet". I wondered if you could clarify that.
Naveen Tandon: Sure. By this point we meant that when we conceptualised the thought process on forming the committee, it was felt imperative all the broad issues relating to the Internet as it affects the community should be taken up. What actually will be deliberated will depend on session to session; whether in the next
session you want to talk about only IP addressing scheme or spam or security. But certainly the only benefit -- as the Chair, I feel and I believe certainly that the benefit of the committee will certainly have if we have more discussion on content and exchange ideas on new issues, because Internet affects everyone and connects to everybody. So there cannot be five issues or six issues related to the Internet. The more broader we have, the better exchange of ideas and discussions we will have which will be helpful to the community. That is what the "mandate" word means.
Dean Pemberton (InternetNZ): Okay, that helps to clarify the brief. One thing we will need to be cognisant of is that we focus on public policy matters within the PPAC, and we focus on technical matters like, as you mentioned, IP address allocation; that we focus on those in the Policy SIG. If "the mandate of PPAC needs to include all public policy matters relating to the Internet," that sounds great.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Okay. Thank you very much, Naveen.
Maemura Akinori: Next we will have Che-Hoo Cheng, for APIX report.
Chee-Hoo Cheng: Good afternoon. I present the APIX
update on behalf of APIX. The slide set was prepared by Toyama-San, but he is now back in Japan, so I am doing it for the organization.
What is APIX? I think I explained it before. We are the Association of Internet Exchange Points, IXPs, in the Asia Pacific region. We are very much like Euro-IX in Europe. Our objectives are to share information about technical, operational and business issues and solutions regarding Internet exchanges.
Right now we have 15 IXPs as our members, including BDIX from Bangladesh; HKIX from Hong Kong, where I am from; BBIX, Dix-ie, JPIX, JPNAP from Japan; KINX from Korea; IIX from Indonesia; NIXI from India; MyIX from Malaysia; NP-IX from Nepal; SGIX and SOX from Singapore; VNIX from Viet Nam; and Equinix from all around Asia Pacific.
We have some other IXPs in Asia Pacific which show their interest to join APIX, so we welcome them and we are talking to them and hopefully our list of members will be longer next time.
This is our meeting history. This week, we had our seventh meeting, and we did have very good turn-out. We had 40 people from all around Asia Pacific and Europe, representing 14 IXP members of our organization. We hope we can get more and more people involved going
forward. These are the participants list. I won't go through it.
In this meeting we have confirmed our logo, and this is our logo. I think it is quite good. Going forward, we will use it.
Another important matter that we decided at the meeting is that we went through the very first formal steering committee election. This is the members elected. We have myself from HKIX, Raphael Ho from Equinix and Katsuyasu from JPNAP.
We have five positions but only three candidates, so we have two vacancies. Hopefully, next time we can fill up the remaining seats. For the terms, we have two years.
Here I would like to say thanks to Gaurab and also Katsu-san, who have been involved in the formation of APIX during the formation period. Unfortunately, they were not candidates so we could not vote for them, but hopefully next time they will agree to go through the election.
Of course, the other people from other IXPs, if they are interested, you are welcome to participate.
We also reported about Internet Exchange Federation. There are three similar organizations around the world. I mentioned Euro-IX, and we have another one from Latin
America, which is called LAC-IX. The three organizations actually signed an MOU on a global federation of IXP associations in November last year. We will have more and more collaboration among ourselves.
Our first goal is to make an IXP database, because right now it is very hard to have a complete set of IXPs all around the world, and we need that so that people can get accurate and up to date information.
This is the MOU that we signed.
We also have other action items to deal with. First of all, we need to form a legal entity. This is not a simple job, we will do it gradually. Also we will talk about membership fee. We need funding, so definitely we need some income for that; membership fee is one of them.
We need to improve our website. This is another difficult task. We need help on this.
And we need more global collaboration going forward.
If you are an ISP, if you want to join, please contact us at this email address.
We will have our next meeting in Xi'an, co-located with APNIC 36.
We would like to thank APNIC for helping us provide the meeting room facilities, coffee and snacks, and also
Bryon Westmoreland and George Kuo, to have our election on Sunday.
That's it. Thank you.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much.
Maemura Akinori: Any questions or comments? It's fantastic to have a global IX federation. Very good. Thank you, Che-Hoo.
These are all the reports from the various sessions.
Now we are going into the section of introducing the forthcoming meetings. The first thing is that we are now having a global Internet Governance Forum meeting in Bali, Indonesia. The hosting group of the Bali IGF, please come up to the stage and make an attractive introduction to the Bali IGF.
Parlindungan Marius: Thanks to the Chairman and EC and APNIC Secretariat and the committee for the time to share the 8th IGF Global Internet Governance Forum.
Michio Kaku, theoretical physicist of New York City, once said that the Internet is the type 1 civilization communication system, while the other utilities of life, such as energy and transport, are still in the type zero of civilization. So thanks to all of us that make that happen.
As we know, and as presented, the Internet has got
to every corner of our life, and IGF becomes a dialogue forum to discuss about Internet governance from various perspectives.
It is relevant for stakeholders who have interest in the Internet, with various other issues but not limited to security, law, economy and development, which we as a business and technical stakeholders would like to be heard and give our voice to in the forum.
Though IGF is not a decision-making process but a discussion within IGF sets the colour of the decisions on the Internet governance globally. Decision makers are attending the IGF, and when dialogues are happening there, we are talking to the right people.
In regard to this, the 8th IGF global will be a truly new model for multistakeholder approach and funding. In Indonesia, this will be the first model, compared to the other seven models that is hosted by the government and by the UN. This is the first time the Indonesian Government becomes one of the multistakeholders, and the business and civil society, under a group of IGF multistakeholder forums, will pioneer in hosting the Global Internet Governance Forum in Bali.
On the decisions of these stakeholders, I think it is all based on what has been discussed this week, which
is given by Paul Wilson on the meeting booklet and also a speech by Lynn St Amour of ISOC and Fadi Chehade of ICANN.
This approach also requires a global participation in the funding of the event too. But we believe that the success of this model will ensure sustainability and the opportunity for the underdeveloping countries and emerging countries to host and participate in this important forum.
Discussion about this has been started in Indonesia since 2010. We are distributing a book also, an Introduction to Internet Governance Forum, we translate that to Indonesian language.
On 1 November, Internet multistakeholders made joint declarations on the funding of the ID-IGF. If you take a look at these pictures, on the right side is where the government is helping us on talking to the local government, with the UN guys there, and on the left side you see how we come out with the key terms, the key word terms for the IGF 2013 in Bali.
We expected that this intimacy of creating the terms will also continue in creating and making the public policy in the future. For further about the terms, you can visit the IGF website.
As you see in the chart, we are all the
multistakeholders. So I'm not taking too long on this. As I usually say to my friends, money is not everything, but without money most of the things can't move.This is the budget summary. The proposal is for US$2.5 million, but frankly we are short of 90 to 95 per cent of it, so we are asking all of us to globally participate in the funding, as you are one of the fish in the pond of the Internet ecosystem. If the ecosystem is right, we are going to reach 3 to 4 billion Internet users without hesitation, so the traffic will grow even bigger.
IGF in Bali will be very important for global Internet Governance because it is after WCIT which happened in 2012, and we know what happened there. If you do not attend the IGF 2013 in Bali, you will miss a lot of important discussions regarding Internet Governance. On the other things, you will miss the beauty of Bali.
We are highly appreciative for your support in funds especially, but also other support such as technical network and referring us to the right person in the right organization and committee. If you have any queries or suggestion, please approach us later send us an email.
We are welcoming you to the 8th Global IGF at Bali,
Indonesia, see you all in Bali. Please enjoy this short film welcoming you to the 8th Global IGF in Bali. Thank you for your kind attention.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much. Having the IGF in an Asian country is a really great thing. I think you have already had some talks with those guys for your support for the IGF in Bali, so please consider about that. I need to consider about that.
Thank you very much. There is a video.
Maemura Akinori: Fascinating.
Any questions or comments? I shall move on to introducing the next meeting of the Asia Pacific Network Information Centre in another fascinating city. Wendy, please.
Zhao Wei: Good afternoon, everyone. I am entitled to present our next meeting, APNIC 36.
While we start to think about the potential venue cities which can host the August APNIC Meeting, we start thinking about something different. Whereas most of you have been to Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, all these fascinating cities, we also want this meeting to impact most of the local community, to bring the bridge
of the digital divide. So we start making a list, and Xi'an is the first name that pops up on the list. Then we really like the city and that is how we choose the next meeting venue.
Xi'an is a historical, fascinating cultural site and it is geographically central in China and it is a living history book. I might not go through the whole book, but I will give you a preview of what kind of life and experience you can have down there.
As Xi'an is a tourist city, it is very convenient to fly from Sydney, Hong Kong, Singapore. If you cannot get there by flying from your home city, you can always fly to Beijing or Shanghai and take an internal flight to Xi'an. There is another opportunity to give the local high speed train a try. It won't take long, only two or three hours from Beijing to Xi'an.
The time -- we looked at the time of the last week of August this year. You definitely want to secure that time and go to the meeting, because APNIC 20 years anniversary is going to be celebrated in Xi'an. We will have a great event and we might have an exercise event outside of the meetings.
The venue city: we all know Xi'an as the birthplace of the Asian civilization, the home of the Terracotta Army. And also there is another fascinating side, you
can only step out of the hotel and check out, like the bell tower, you see the night vision is fantastic, and there is a city wall, which is one of the wellbeing Asian army protective system, like our Internet protection system.
The Tang Paradise is the place the social event is going to be held. It used to be the royal gardens. Even though we rebuild it, but it still has the feeling as the king, if you are walking around.
Also, there is typical terracotta museum, only like 30km away from the city centre, worth to check out. The Huaqing Hot Springs is a famous spa place, and the Qianling Tomb was the first queen's tomb, the only queen in China's history; and the Huangdi Tomb, which is a fascinating place to check out.
On the side, you can enjoy a little of the folk art aligned with the local food. Xi'an used to be call the table of delicious, so you can also find all your favourite dishes locally. This is for the people who are motivated by the Conference lunch and meals, so you have a reason to be there.
The venue hotel, which is the Westin Xi'an, is a 5-star hotel which does what all the other 5-star hotels does. It is a brand new hotel, started last year. This hotel is sitting in the middle of the entertainment
area. So outdoor is the so-called Great Tang All Day Mall, so you can finish the all day Conference, get freshened up and start for the night again. It will be a great event and a great place.
Welcome to Xi'an. I'm looking forward to seeing you all.
I prepared a little video as well, which is totally different from Indonesia, but hopefully you will enjoy the video.
Maemura Akinori: Fantastic.
Let's have the open mic time. If you have any questions, inputs, suggestions, discussions, please come up to the microphone.
SP Jerath (NIXI): Good evening, everybody. I am SP Jerath from NIXI and ISI India. I know a lot of us are waiting to close this meeting, but if I recollect from the meeting at Cambodia, we have one more proposal which has not been discussed during this particular session. This was one vote one member. I just wanted to check out, what is the status on that? Because there were certain diverse views given at the last meeting. I just wanted to know whether this proposal is live, is working, or something is pending.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much for your question. James, please.
James Spenceley: Thanks for the question. At the Cambodia meeting we announced the results of the membership survey. I think we in general covered this topic off, but I'm certainly happy to provide more clarification at today's meeting.
The results of that survey showed a much larger proportion of members were in favour of the current membership tiers. I don't have the exact numbers but I think it was 50 per cent of respondents preferred the current membership voting standards, and I think only about 9 per cent or 10 per cent preferred a change in the voting.
Based on that, the EC took a view that there is a large percentage of people supporting the current system, so we are happy with the current system. But we are always open to listen to concerns from members and are happy to put the question to the membership base again at the time of the next survey.
SP Jerath (NIXI): James, I agree there were two aspects on the proposal. One was the results of the survey, and second was, before that particular Chair and Co-chair were designated certain Working Group activities, and on that particular thing they have desired certain inputs
from APNIC, and that data did not come, and that is why I think the whole proposal did not move forward.
James Spenceley: My understanding is that the results of the membership survey and the EC's decision was communicated to the Working Group Chairs. We can track down that email for you.
Geoff Huston (APNIC): Geoff Huston, Executive Secretary of the EC. We considered this at our meeting on 30 October, and published minutes of that meeting, and I believe we also communicated back to the Working Group the EC deliberation on that.
It might be helpful to you if I read the minutes of that meeting, which explained the EC's considerations and actions. The minutes read:
"The EC considered the membership survey outcomes relating to the proposals arising from the final reports of the Working Groups on engagement with governments and membership voting. It was determined that the Chair of the EC would communicate to the Membership Voting Working Group the results of 2012 membership survey, indicating that according to this report a large majority of respondents to the questions are satisfied with the current membership structure and support the existing voting tiers and entitlements and, given this clear outcome, the EC intends to take no further action
at this time."
James Spenceley: Thanks, Geoff. I have just dug up the email that was communicated, 21 November, to the Working Group from the Chair.
Rajesh Chharia (IRINN): Rajesh Chharia, president ISPAI, India. Mr Geoff is speaking about 30 October, but we are speaking about the August Busan meeting, where in the Working Group meeting, the Co-chair and Chair, Mr Skeeve and Mr Desi Valli, has advised to the APNIC Secretariat for some input in regard to the data. That was being required. I don't know what happened after that, and even after the Cambodia meeting, Skeeve and Desi has sent an email into the Working Group, even the person who has proposed this proposal has sent the email into the Working Group, knowing about the status. If there is any development between August meeting of Busan and 30 October, that Geoff can clarify.
Maemura Akinori: James, do you have any comment back?
James Spenceley: My understanding is out of the Busan meeting there was a request for statistics on the number of members per category, which I believe was provided at the time to the Working Group mailing list. I would have to check through the details of the list.
Rajesh Chharia (IRINN): The input was not given to the
Chair and Co-chair and to the Working Group, the data was not provided, and that is the reason the Chair and Co-chair, in the absence of data, were not able to comment further about the group.
James Spenceley: I don't remember exactly every movement of what was posted to the list or not. I know that was a request made and as I understood it a number of people promoted the data. Maybe it wasn't the Secretariat, but certainly the data on the number of members, which is publicly available on the website -- I believe Dean potentially collated that data and posted it.
Rajesh Chharia (IRINN): James, into the Busan meeting, in the Working Group meeting, I was also there, and the request was for the APNIC Secretariat, not from the website or anything. That was a report that should have come from the APNIC Secretariat to the Working Group, then only the Working Group can work.
James Spenceley: Certainly. I would have to go back through the mailing list records to see if the Secretariat provided that information. Certainly I don't think that is the key piece of information. The key piece of information that the APNIC EC used to determine that the membership voting structure should stay in place was the results of the membership survey. That has a much broader reach. In fact, that survey
goes out to all members, rather than necessarily just the small group of members that are present at a Working Group or at an APNIC event.
So I can certainly tell you that the APNIC EC used the results from the survey of members, which is how we take our guidance from the membership base, through that survey, in coming to that decision.
As I think the numbers show, 50 per cent of people responding to the survey were in favour of the current voting; only about 9 per cent were in favour of a change.
Rajesh Chharia (IRINN): I really appreciate and honour the decision of the honourable members about the survey, I'm not denying that, but if someone is seeking any report or any data input from the APNIC Secretariat and the Working Group is live -- because after the Cambodia meeting, both the Chair and Co-chair and even the proposer sent emails to the Working Group and there was no response from APNIC. That is the very surprising thing.
James Spenceley: I will absolutely take that on board and make sure I go through the mailing list archive and investigate why that data wasn't provided by the Secretariat. If it wasn't provided, I apologise.
Rajesh Chharia (IRINN): I presume that till date you are
not yet investigating about the data input provided or not, the Working Group is live?
James Spenceley: The Working Group is no longer live.
Rajesh Chharia (IRINN): It is not live?
James Spenceley: Correct.
Rajesh Chharia (IRINN): It is very surprising that the Working Group was created into the AMM, and all of a sudden the working group died, without any information to the Chair and the Co-chair.
James Spenceley: No, I think the Chair of the EC communicated the decision on the Working Group to the proposer and also to the Working Group. I have the email here and I can quote from it. I will forward it through to you, if you like.
Rajesh Chharia (IRINN): But there is a gap between August and 30 October.
James Spenceley: A couple of months.
Maemura Akinori: Any other comments, questions, perspectives?
Rajesh Chharia (IRINN): On a different topic, this is a time of celebration in August 2013, APNIC is celebrating 20th anniversary. SANOG -- South Asia Network Operators Group -- is celebrating 10th anniversary. India has been given the entitlement for hosting SANOG in August first week, the dates are not finalised. On behalf of
SANOG and ISPAI and NIXI, I welcome you all to the SANOG in Mumbai, 2013 August first week.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much, useful information.
Masato Yamanishi (Softbank BB Corp): When we made these two Working Groups about voting and governance, I think the problem was when the mandate of these Working Groups or milestones were scheduled, everything was not so clear. So I prefer from next time, I prefer make these things clear when making another Working Group.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you, Masato. Any questions or comments?
We have a very smooth meeting until now. We are just on time.
Four minutes early. If there is no other questions or comments, I would like to invite Dr Tan Tin Wee for his services as the Election Chair, to provide the result of the election. Thank you very much.
Tan Tin Wee: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Sorry I have not arranged for the fireworks, just like the one you saw in the wonderful presentation from Xi'an.
Here I am, happy to say that the results are here with me. I am also happy to report that there are no disputes that have been brought up to my attention at least, and I have called on both of the scrutineers to
make a comment on the vote count process and they have both told me that there were no anomalies to report, there were no irregularities with the counting of the ballots and everything went well. Thank you to Mark and Emilio for guiding us through this process. A round of applause for them.
I haven't seen the contents of the envelope. It sounds as if it is the Oscar nominee type of situation. I will try my best to be as serious as possible with the reading out of the results announcement sheet.
The 2013 APNIC Executive Council election, 1 March 2013: total paper ballots counted 94; total valid paper ballots, 94; total invalid paper ballots, 0. Nominee name number 1, in order of total vote count, Gaurab Raj Upadhaya, 1,410; nominee number 2, Wei Zhao, 1,386; nominee number 3, Kenny Huang, 1,331; nominee number 4, James Spenceley, 1,314; and last but not least nominee number 5, Lengchheang Hong, 372.
Now, the nominees who are successfully elected to the APNIC Executive Council are, therefore, Gaurab Raj, Wei Zhao, Kenny Huang and James Spenceley, being the four top number of vote counts. Congratulations.
I will therefore now hand over the results to the APNIC Executive Council Chair, Mr Maemura Akinori, and to all the nominees, thank you very much for your time taken to run for this election. Thank you very much.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much again. It is really splendid Election Chair, really amazing. Thank you very much. The result is the clearest ever result for the APNIC members. Thank you very much.
It is time to give the vote of thanks.
Paul Wilson: Thank you, Akinori.
This is the time, coming very close to the end of the meeting, when we really do want to give some sincere thanks to all the sponsors and supporters of APNIC 35. We are all very deeply grateful for the support and attendance of the sponsors, who have helped to make the meeting a success.
APNIC 35 was supported by iDA, the Infocom Development Authority of Singapore, and I would like to first give a round of applause to iDA. Thank you very much.
We have a training sponsor, which is Google, and I think we don't have a representative of Google remaining in the room with us, but Google again has come
back and given some generous support for the training activities of the meeting, which is very welcome, of course.
The Women in ICT and APNIC Closing Dinner events were sponsored by PHCOLO. I think Judith is with us, and I have a small gift for you, Judith. If you would like to come up.
Judith Duavit Vazquez: Always a pleasure. Thank you.
Paul Wilson: The APNIC Opening Social Event was sponsored by CNNIC and CNISP. Wendy, I would like to pass you the gifts for both. Thank you very much.
We have Dong Yan as well for CNISP, please come up.
The APNIC Member Meeting shared five sponsors, from TWNIC, JPNIC, NIXI, KISA and CNNIC as well. I have gifts for Shian Shyong Tseng, Yasuko Sakaguchi, Rajesh Chharia and Youngsun La.
More thanks: we have, as usual, many supporters, some old timers, some newcomers. Thanks to Izumi and Jessica, to Andy, Masato, Skeeve and Dean as SIG Chairs, Co-chairs and moderators, and to Tan Tin Wee as the Election Chair for this year.
We have APNIC EC members newly reappointed and standing, we have many RIR colleagues here who have helped in various ways and always travel far to come here; too many speakers to list.
The stenocaptioning is going on as usual, Nicky and Helen doing a fantastic job. Thanks.
To everyone who attended, and also those who participated remotely online, it really is everyone here who makes the meeting a success and who can help to make it even better in future.
The next one in future is going to be, of course, in Xi'an. We will see you there.
We have special thanks for our local host, SGNIC. They have received a gift yesterday. SGNIC was responsible for the APRICOT meeting and I guess they have gone home to sleep and recover. SGNIC deserves a big round of applause, as does everyone who I have mentioned. Thank you very much.
The next meeting in Xi'an. We have seen the video, you have heard the speech, you know about the Terracotta Warriors, you know it is APNIC's 20th birthday party. It will be a normal meeting, it won't be all fun -- the normal meeting is fun enough but it will be business as well. So, please, we really hope it will be a great
success. It will be another mid-year Conference which will have the week of tutorials and workshops, thanks to Philip and his team, with the full program of normal APNIC business and it will also have quite a bit of celebrations.
I really do hope that you come, everyone here, tell your friends, your colleagues, find us a few extra sponsors to help to add a few extra frills to the party, and we really hope to see you there.
See you in Xi'an.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you, Paul. We are approaching the closure. Before that, Sunny will make some housekeeping notices.
Sunny Chendi: Thank you, Chair. Just a reminder to take the survey while you are here in the room or back in the hotel before you leave, so we can capture your fresh thoughts on how we can improve our Conference and what else we can provide you in terms of forum, content, that would be very much appreciated.
Tonight's dinner, if you have paid for the dinner and have not collected your ticket, please go to the APNIC Secretariat room to collect it from Laurel, my colleague. We still have a few more ticket left, if you would like to pay and collect your ticket, you can do
that as well.
The buses will depart from the lobby at 6.00 pm to Straits Kitchen. This is a one way transport. After the party, you are on your own. If you want to go somewhere else or get back to the hotel, it's not too far, a very walkable distance from here. Thank you very much.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much.
I can say a lot of times thank you, but I think Paul has pretty much covered. Again, thank you very much. See you in Xi'an. Meeting is closed. Thank you.