1 Http://2014.apricot.net/program#session/66335 AMM 2 >>Maemura Akinori: We are resuming the APNIC Member Meeting business, the second session. Please be seated. Welcome back to the APNIC Member Meeting. The second session is beginning with my report. Let's start my report with the report from the APNIC Executive Council. As Craig explained to you about the Executive Council election this time and the election of the office holders, we have already had the EC members for 2014. I would like to invite the EC members to introduce themselves, beginning with Paul. >>Paul Wilson: I'm Paul, I'm a member of the EC, ex officio, because that's written into our bylaws. >>Ma Yan: I'm Ma Yan. I'm still serving as the secretary for the executive board. >>Kenny Huang: Kenny Huang, also APNIC executive board member and board member from TWNIC. >>Zhao Wei: I'm Wei Zhao with the EC board and with CNNIC. >>Gaurab Raj Upadhaya: Gaurab Raj Upadhaya, with EC and currently with Limelight Networks. >>Che-Hoo Cheng: I'm Che-Hoo Cheng from Hong Kong. >>James Spenceley: James Spenceley, from Vocus in Sydney, 2 EC member and treasurer. >>Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much, everyone. The whole Executive Council is on the stage, to show you their faces. The Executive Council is representing the membership, to oversee the day-to-day job of the Secretariat. We are really happy to have your voice, have your opinion, to reflect it to our job. Thank you very much. The functions of the APNIC EC, this is a quite regular slide, but for sure I'm getting through. Representing the interests of the members in the governance of APNIC, oversight of the activities of APNIC, to consider broad Internet policy issues for APNIC's strategic direction, to set membership fees, to endorse the policy consensus toward implementation. They are our functions and our responsibility. Meeting schedule: we decided maybe one year ago to change the meeting schedule from the original shape, with monthly telephone conference and the face-to-face meeting in every meeting occasion, to the quarterly meeting, which means four times meetings a year, all in person, face-to-face meetings. We will have the meetings at every APNIC Conference and APRICOT occasion, and in addition to them we have two other opportunities to have our face-to-face 3 meetings. One is usually in December, somewhere, for example, in the Brisbane APNIC office and some other part of the region, and to have that, a retreat activity. Another part is usually occurring in May, to travel to other RIR meetings, to have some joint kind of activity, and there we will have the EC meeting for our own job. We have the meets since APNIC 36 in Xi'an, we had the EC retreat in Brisbane in December and we had the meeting this week, actually on Monday. All the meeting minutes can be found in the EC website, that is easy to remember, www.apnic.net/ec. Please visit it to see our activities. Strategic planning: the strategic plan has already been explained by our Director General, Paul Wilson. We have already endorsed a five-year strategic plan to focus efforts on our missions. That includes specific activities to focus on: serving members, supporting the Asia Pacific Region, collaborating with the Internet Community and to support APNIC as a resilient organization, capable of meeting our community obligations. It is something we additionally consider more deeply before we did before, and I believe that by this kind of strategic planning, APNIC will be improving more and 4 more. The financial objectives have already been reported by our treasurer, James Spenceley. We are happy to have the really stable financial management by APNIC Secretariat and we have decided to increase the cash reserve position, which was originally equivalent to 12 months of operating expenses, to build up to 18 months and the target deadline is by 2017. We are happy to observe that the current reserve position is approximately 15 to 16 months, and we are quite steadily moving to our target. Fees: as I said, one of the roles of the Executive Council is to set member fees. The current fee schedule will remain unchanged for membership and services for 2014. That means there is no major change of our fee structure. With that, the Executive Council has considered the implementation of policy prop-107, which enables the members to transfer the autonomous system numbers. We decided that registration of the AS number transfers shall be accessible to current account holders of APNIC. So everyone who needs to transfer their AS number needs to be an account holder of APNIC. Account holder means the members of APNIC and with a non-member account. No fee is payable for registration of AS number 5 transfers between APNIC members, so intra-APNIC. You do not need to pay the registration fee. But in the case of the inter-RIR transfers involving an APNIC account holder, the APNIC account holder will be charged a fee of 20 per cent of the annual associate membership fee, which is $635, and 20 per cent of that will make $135. Is that correct? That is actually consistent with our fee schedule for the inter-RIR IP address transfer, and that is the main reason why we have set this. Another point is RPKI services, which is Resource Public Key Infrastructure, developed by the APNIC Secretariat. We are very active in this activity. Currently, access to RPKI services of APNIC is limited to current members of APNIC. We have received a request to consider allowing all entities holding resources in the APNIC registry to access RPKI services. We consider that that is the issue and we are in the position that we want to reiterate the previous undertaking that APNIC made to holders of resources in historical address registration that were transferred into the APNIC registry, that APNIC will maintain these historical registry records on an "as is" basis at no cost. The historical registry holders are not forced to be 6 a member of APNIC, but they can stay there on an "as is" basis. For the access to the RPKI services, it is a bit different, because the RPKI service has been developed by the funds of the APNIC, which is the membership fee and the non-member service charge from the account holders. It is our position to have RPKI services, just only to the membership and account holders of APNIC. Internet governance: some of them have already been explained by the Director General. We at the Executive Council are closely following the developments which may affect APNIC. We have continued to contribute APNIC expertise in Internet governance discussions. In 2013, we have the Internet Governance Forum 2013 in Bali, Indonesia, and we approved the extra support for the IGF Bali, to have it stably operated. Another big point, in terms of Internet governance, we had last year the Montevideo Statement by the ISTAR leaders in October, and the APNIC Executive Council considered this statement and have resolved to support and endorse this Montevideo Statement as the really key movement for the future of the Internet governance. Then I am happy to have the consultation session with you, the membership and the broader community of APNIC, to have it discussed on this occasion. That is 7 because the APNIC activities are based on the consent of the APNIC members, and the Executive Council is in the position to represent the APNIC membership, to authorize the activities by the APNIC Secretariat. So please join and have the active discussion in the consultation session after my report. Appointment to the NRO Number Council members is one of the EC's jobs. The Executive Council appoints one member to the Number Council of the NRO for a one-year term, which is called the Executive Council appointee at the Number Council. By the way, out of three members, one member is appointed by the Executive Council and two members are elected by the community in the August meeting. This year, we are happy to announce the appointment of Aftab Siddiqui. APPLAUSE Aftab has already entered to his office of the NRO Number Council as the EC appointee and has already had two members of the ASO AC and he is already acting as that office. Aftab actually has the second position of the voting count in the member election in August, and that is why we think he is good to have that service. We would like to thank Andy Linton, who is still 8 doing the chairing position of the Policy SIG and who has served as the EC appointee at the NRO NC for two years, 2012 to 2013. Andy, thank you very much. APPLAUSE The APNIC member survey is a survey for the membership and for the broader community. We will be conducting the biennial survey; every two years, we conduct the member survey. 2014 is the year for us to conduct the membership survey. We will be convening a number of focus group meetings across the region in the coming months, March, April or May, to capture the current issues and concerns from the members. The survey will run from 9 June to 11 July. Before that, the focus groups is for setting the shape of the survey and the design of the survey. So the focus group will be first, then we will run the membership survey. Please support this valuable feedback program by providing us with your views on what we are doing well and where we can do more. Another big decision by the Executive Council was the meeting planning. As many of you know, now APRICOT is rotating subregion, four of the subregions year to year, so APNIC conferences, which are regularly held in 9 August, as well as APRICOT, we will rotate subregion to subregion. The next APRICOT will be in Fukuoka, and then we will have the APNIC Meeting in 2015 in South Asia, then in a rotation, it goes to South East Asia, South Asia, East Asia and Oceania. This is quite a regular rotation of the subregions, and APRICOT and APNIC has some staggered in the setting of each rotation, then that makes it a quite smooth rotation from subregion to subregion. Another big decision by us is the next APNIC Conference in September 2014. We had an unfortunate report from the local host that logistical problems have arisen with the venue space in Noumea. OPT, the new Caledonian telecom carrier, was hosting the Noumea meeting, but with the agreement with them, we have had to cancel the plans to meet at this location. APNIC is really appreciating OPT for their efforts in trying to meet our Conference needs. After that, APNIC 38, the next APNIC Meeting in August this year, will be held in Brisbane, where the APNIC office is located. Actually, it is not really often, but we have some mind that, just in case the meeting host is not successfully conducted, then our plan of the fallback is 10 to get it back to Brisbane. This decision follows that idea of ours and still remains the subregion rotation plan within Oceania, then the meeting dates is unchanged: 9-19 September 2014. Member engagement: the EC welcomes comments, suggestions and questions from members, stakeholders and all others with an interest in APNIC's functions and operations. Rather than putting in that way, the membership is the very subject of the APNIC, Asia Pacific Network Information Centre, so I should say APNIC is you and the Executive Council is for you to represent the membership, to work with the Secretariat and then the Secretariat is working for you. So please let us hear your voice and what do you think about the APNIC operations, because APNIC is you. Thank you very much. That is all from me. I am happy to answer your questions, if you have. >>Ruby Rani (NIXI): Ruby from NIXI, working for IRINN. My question is for prop-107, the ASN transfer. Is it applicable for IRINN to ARIN, this ASN transfer? >>Maemura Akinori: I don't think so. The intra-APNIC account holders, we don't change the fee. Correct? >>Sanjaya (APNIC): It is from APNIC to NIR, because APNIC is a member of the NIR. 11 >>Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much. That is a good clarification. >>Andy Linton: Andy Linton, wearing my Victoria University hat. You talked about the RPKI thing. I have a dilemma. I have a historic allocation of a /16, which we have registered as the historic low allocation fee, and I also have from the university a /32 which we have registered normally for IPv6. So I have a ROA for my v6 allocation and it will cost me $7,500 a year to upgrade my membership so that I can get a ROA for that /16. The most economically rational thing for me to do right now is to open a shelf company in the Netherlands, transfer my address resources to that shelf company and move to RIPE, because it will cost me under $3,000 a year. You guys have posted a surplus of $3 million, and it is a real struggle for me at the university not to go down that path of doing the economically rational thing. So I just leave that thought with you. >>Maemura Akinori: Okay. Thank you. >>Pindar Wong (Verifi): I have the same point. I understand the dynamics, as you have explained it to the membership et cetera, but in terms of the wider ecosystem, RPKI is a good thing. Again, look at the economics that have been outlined and see how things -- 12 keep a watchful eye. This stuff takes quite a while to deploy, but in the end everyone benefits. >>Maemura Akinori: Okay. Does anyone from Executive Council have any comment? >>Gaurab Raj Upadhaya: I just point out to Andy that inter-RIR transfers to RIPE won't work, so your company won't work. What I am coming to is each of the RIR regions have their own way of doing things and for that, RIPE has very much a restriction on transferring resources there, which we don't have, and all of that needs to be considered when we look at this. In the grand scheme of things, I think Victoria University should not have a problem with $7,500, or whatever number it is. >>Andy Linton: I use this as an example of the nonsense of this. Members will be benefiting if everyone has a ROA and all resources are authenticated. I think, you say inter-RIR transfers, under mergers and acquisitions, I can't have my resources taken over by something in the Netherlands and transfer it. You won't stop me doing this if I decide to do it. This is not about threatening, but that's the economically rational thing for me to want to do, so that's what I should do, that's what my accountants at the university would want me to do and that's the behaviour you are driving with this. 13 There are plenty of other people in the region who are in a similar position -- there's not many of them -- but the business about the ROA, it doesn't cost any more to do a ROA for a /24 than it does for a /16, so the problem with that is not about the size of the address block. >>Gaurab Raj Upadhaya: And the process and the differing cost are two different things. You are not considering the time spent or the resources spent in building it, you are just seeing a product and clicking on a website. We can take this offline and talk about it. >>Andy Linton: No, I think it is important that it is online, because the alternative is for me to do an alternative register. There are other people who can do that. You guys don't have an exclusive ability to produce ROAs. I know there is a cost to doing all that sort of thing, but if you drive behaviour in this way, that's what people will do because that's what's rational to do. >>Gaurab Raj Upadhaya: Is this purely an economic thing that Victoria University doesn't want to become a member and pay the fee? >>Andy Linton: If I go to the university authorities and say, "For you to get a ROA, you are going to have to pay $7,500 a year for it." That's what it comes down to, 14 and they will say, "We won't bother", because I'm dealing with a bunch of clowns at the university now. If I can go to them and say, "We can have a ROA and it won't cost anything", they will say, tick, "Let's do it." But they will not pay the $7,500 a year to do this, that's really what it comes down to. >>Gaurab Raj Upadhaya: What will they pay? That's the question. It's not free. >>Andy Linton: Of course it's not free, but they will not pay it. They have got it for the other stuff, so adding in another ROA here for me and for other people -- I'm using this as an example, and I know other people haven't either thought about it or aren't prepared to get up here and talk about it -- but that's what it will cost our university and our university probably won't pay $7,500 to get a ROA, so they won't then be authenticated in their routes, and that's for everyone here, not just people who have signed up as members. I'll leave it with you, but that's where I see it coming from. >>James Spenceley: Andy, it is worthwhile to add this to the agenda for the next time we meet to discuss. If you take the bigger picture view, the university has an incredibly valuable asset, $7,500 a year, not specifically for your university, but in general, is not 15 a massive fee, given the value of the resources and in a lot of cases the income that that generates. I actively encourage people to become members of APNIC, who have resources, Australia and New Zealand are the two specific ones have a lot of people who have resources that are not members. I think people should be encouraged to join. This is one way to do it, but obviously there are side effects and those side effects probably haven't been adequately debated. >>Andy Linton: But come back to my position then about if the university had a branch office in Amsterdam -- >>James Spenceley: I can tell you, you will eat up the difference between RIPE and the $7,500 in legal fees setting it up. >>Andy Linton: On a recurrent basis? >>James Spenceley: I would believe so. I'm not going to debate the economics with you. >>Andy Linton: It doesn't have to be Amsterdam, it could be Ireland or anywhere in the Middle East or any country in the RIPE region. I can't believe we will eat up $7,500 just for that. All we need to do is to get the registration. You are going to drive behaviour. The other question is: why is the fee 2,000 euros for this same resource in RIPE and $9,000 here? >>James Spenceley: This is a broader question on fees and 16 something the EC continually looks at. It is not as simple as saying in one area it is this amount of fee and in another area it is another. We have very different structures in terms of NIRs and in terms of -- >>Andy Linton: And a $3 million surplus. >>James Spenceley: Absolutely, and I would prefer to have a larger surplus and a more stable and economically viable APNIC than have us scrounging for dollars to keep going in the future. >>Alastair Johnson (Alcatel-Lucent): I am not going to touch the economics, but I just don't feel this is serving the community particularly well. >>James Spenceley: Again, we will take to this on board and debate it at the next meeting. >>Pindar Wong (Verifi): Pindar Wong, echoing that, the wider view. >>James Spenceley: Again, we will debate it at the next meeting. >>Maemura Akinori: It is important to have economics consistent with the economic benefit. It is good for us to have your input to further consider this issue. Thank you very much. Any other questions? >>Rajesh Chharia (ISPAI): What I suggested in the earlier session about the reviewing of the NIR fee, may 17 I request EC to consider that at the coming board meeting, so what whatsoever we are discussing about the educational institute, we can discuss this also along with that. It will be a great support for the community. >>Maemura Akinori: Actually, as my report consisted, we continuously are considering the fee. Our position is not changing this year, or something like that. Changing the premium for the NIR is quite a difficult consideration needed. As James Spenceley said, it is not our position right now to change. Your voice is heard and it is quite worth us considering for that change, possible change. Thank you very much for your input. >>Rajesh Chharia (ISPAI): Thank you. >>Maemura Akinori: Any other questions or comments? Thank you very much. Now I can go to the next, discussion session on Internet cooperation. The next Executive Council report, we would like to have a discussion session on Internet cooperation. As I said in my report of the Executive Council and as our Director General said in his report, we now have a very big move of the Internet governance, starting with the Montevideo Statement. We have the 1Net 18 initiative and we will have the NetMundial global multistakeholder meeting for the future of Internet governance -- maybe. We will have the ITU's plenipotentiary meeting for 2014 this year and we will have the WSIS+10 review. That is really the series of events, and we have a bunch of activities on here. I would like to invite Paul Wilson to brief what is going on for that kind of activity and movement, and for us all to have the discussion. As I said, again, I would like to emphasize that APNIC activities need to have the consent from the membership and the Executive Council is representing the membership for that. So I am really happy to have a lot of input for us to consider. Thank you very much, Paul. >>Paul Wilson: We have touched on this topic already a couple of times this morning, so I don't want to labour or repeat what's been said before too much. I think what's most important is that there be some discussion, that there be some exchange of views amongst the membership and the community, that we have not too many unanswered questions and that we have a sense of where we collectively want to go in future. I think I need to just give some background here, but again, I hope not to repeat too much of what we 19 already know. I think you understand and have seen the Montevideo Statement. It came from the meeting, as I mentioned earlier, of the Internet technical coordination groups last year in Montevideo. Its key points were arising from the revelations about pervasive surveillance, a warning against responses to that that would result in fragmentation of the Internet -- say, governmental responses, for instance; a concern about a general undermining of trust and confidence in the Internet among the Internet user and business community; reiterating something that has been said many times, which is we really feel that community-wide efforts are important to keep developing the model under which the Internet is governed or managed. I want to say here, as I did in the panel the other day, that Internet governance, the word may be a bit difficult, because sometimes "governance" is seen as something that governments do, that the governments of the world do governance. But Internet governance is something that is absolutely connected with everything that we do. In fact, what is going on in this room and in this meeting is Internet governance. Even before anyone 20 started talking about Internet governance, we are doing Internet governance. If I think back to my first sort of challenging engagement as the DG at APNIC, I was asked to go to Beijing within the first month or so of joining APNIC and talk to governmental representatives there about what APNIC could do to provide more certainty in IPv4 address supply. That was an Internet governance discussion, even though nobody called it "Internet governance". It was part of outreach and communications that I have had to do ever since I started at APNIC, that many of us at APNIC have had to do ever since the beginning, in different ways, but actually in increasing ways. I think it is completely understandable that this demand on APNIC for communication and engagement is increasing because the Internet is growing constantly, rapidly, not just in terms of infrastructure but in terms of function and importance and many, many people these days are more and more interested in how the Internet is working and we need to be able to tell them at least what APNIC does, because what we do is absolutely critical. IP addresses, we all know, are a critical Internet resource, how they are manage is something that is of interest. 21 I think it is fair to say that over the years, the technical community which used to -- if I could put it bluntly -- have our heads in the sand about how other people relied on the Internet or how other people may have needed to understand what we do. We had very technical meetings, very little time spent on communicating the technical content with people who didn't speak the language. It really was a head in the sand sort of attitude. I think across the technical community, we have taken our heads out of the sand and we are more and more trying to engage with people, to be understood and to understand the needs and the concerns. That's what this field is all about. I want to stress again, Internet governance is not something out there. Internet governance is actually something that we are all part of. We are starting to use the term "Internet cooperation" because "Internet governance" is a little bit tricky. It still sounds like it's something that governments do. In fact, Internet cooperation, a cooperative relationship and a set of cooperative processes is what has driven the Internet and what has been behind its governance, ever since the start. That was a little bit of a digression from the key 22 points of the Montevideo Statement, but a community-wide effort towards the evolution of the system is something that is called for. Quite specifically, something that should not be a surprise, in terms of what the NRO has asked for, is what we referred to as globalizing ICANN and IANA. That refers to two different things. Globalizing ICANN refers to the fact that ICANN has a special relationship called the Affirmation of Commitments with the US Government. Globalizing IANA is about the fact that ICANN has a contract with the US Government for IANA functions. They are two separate things which actually need a different approach if they are going to be changed. One of the reasons for the change of those agreements is about perceptions and the fact the existence of those agreements causes a lot of questions to be asked. They cause a lot of concern about the perceived unequal set of relationships in those arrangements. We also added something which shouldn't be a surprise either, which is about the transition to IPv6, which needs to remain a high priority. The APNIC EC met in December, wanted to stress the APNIC EC support for the statement, and they did so in 23 their own statement in January. In the APNIC statement, there were a few other things that were said, but I think, without going too far into detail here, the interest of APNIC is in stability and reliability of the number registry function provided by IANA. That is a key interest of APNIC, of the EC, of all of us. The registries provided by IANA, the number registration provided by IANA should be continued in a manner which complies with global policy development, obviously, and which responds to the needs of the community that are concerned with them. APNIC, like the other RIRs, has supported the operation of the IANA global number registry under ICANN and we will go on supporting that -- as we have done, because it works. What we called for is some clarity and transparency in the relationship that we have with ICANN for IANA functions and also, finally, we wanted to see -- and we have an interest in ICANN's ongoing evolution to a globalized structure. The APNIC EC wanted to say, as well, that we recognize the multistakeholder model, that we support the Internet Governance Forum as the agreed place for Internet governance matters to be discussed. 24 Now, that doesn't mean the IGF is perfect, by any means; in fact, we want to see ongoing evolution. But if there is to be a global forum in which these matters are discussed, then the IGF is the best solution that came out of a very long process and we don't want to go back to the drawing board or to select something else that may be available as a substitute. We actually have a sort of commitment to the IGF to work, to do the job that it needs to do, which is to provide that forum. We spoke about IPv6 and wanted to reiterate that again in the EC statement. The IPv6 progress is pretty good, but we felt the need to commit to ongoing active support. That is the Montevideo Statement and the EC's response to it, which was published in January. The last few months have been pretty confusing because it was around the time of the Montevideo meeting, or very soon after, there was an announcement about another meeting which is happening in Brazil, hosted by the Brazilian Government. They decided that they wanted to have a global meeting about Internet governance. There was a lot of speculation about what that meant. I think it is very important to see the meeting that is now referred to as NetMundial as something that 25 doesn't create a new forum, it doesn't create fragmentation. It should, in fact, I think -- and many people, I think, are supporting this view -- that whatever happens in this Brazil meeting, which is happening in late April, it should simply support what we are doing. What we want to see is a reaffirmation of the importance of IGF. We want to see a reaffirmation of our understandings about Internet governance and multistakeholder model. That is something that I will speak about it in a minute. It is very good to see in the NetMundial meeting that there is a multistakeholder process that has gone on, there has been selection of representatives on different committees that are connected with the meeting from different parts of the world and different stakeholder groups. It's nice to see that the Asia Pacific has quite a good representation in those preparations, even though the meeting is happening on the other side of the planet. Maemura Akinori is a member of the executive management committee, representing the technical community. We also have an academic from Korea, who is part of the academic community, there as well. It is quite well represented. We are quite well represented. 26 But let me go on into one of the specifics about that meeting, that there are public submissions which have been called, which are closing in just over a week's time, on 8 March. What the NetMundial organizers, including the executive management committee, have asked for are public submissions on principles for Internet governance and on the roadmap for Internet governance. The NRO EC, the RIRs collectively, will be meeting next week and will be talking about this issue, amongst others. I hope we will be talking about drafting a submission into NetMundial. Again, I don't think this needs to be a terribly complicated thing, but it is quite useful for us to be able to say to the NetMundial organizers and as our input into the NetMundial process, that we all know what Internet governance is, we have been talking about it for the last 10 years and it has been defined. We have also recognized the multistakeholder model. Like Internet governance itself, that model didn't arise when somebody invented a new word, it actually is intrinsic to the way the Internet has operated, ever since its beginnings, as the open multistakeholder nature. But we want to see and acknowledge that that has been now recognized as being a critical part of the 27 success of the Internet. We also want to make sure I think that in any governance processes, what we actually need to be focusing on is the Internet itself, the fact that the Internet has unique characteristics that may disperse, they may disappear, they may be sacrificed under different sorts of management approaches. For instance, in the Montevideo Statement we are very concerned about responses to surveillance being to fragment the Internet along national lines or along other lines, to interrupt the free flow of information, as a sort of crude response to the surveillance issue. That would not be a good outcome. In the processes of Internet management and governance, we actually want to maintain the global nature of the Internet, to avoid fragmentation, we want to maintain the openness, the end-to-end, the neutrality of the Internet, that is the separation between the infrastructure and the applications. I think it is actually fairly straightforward to put these things into the NetMundial processes basic statements of principles. They are not new things. What we would really be doing is reminding the meeting of what has already been said, probably many times before. 28 On the second part, on the roadmap, as I said already, the IGF is recognized and supported. We don't have an alternative. We want to evolve and strengthen the IGF so it works better. Probably part of that roadmap for governance has to be, again, a reminder that we have called for the globalization of ICANN and IANA, as processes to continue, so that that sort of question about the privileged role of one government can disappear and make many people actually more comfortable with the way things are working. Just to confuse matters even more, we have not only the IGF, we have not only the Montevideo Statement, we have the NetMundial, we also have something that came up as an initiative informally between ICANN and the RIRs, a discussion forum called 1Net. 1Net was intended as a sort of movement or a forum or a place for an encompassing dialogue, an encompassing inclusive conversation to happen involving all stakeholders in this Internet governance set of processes. There actually doesn't exist one already which includes all of the stakeholder groups. There is a lot of fragmentation between civil society and technical and others, so 1Net is something that was established to provide that. I wrote a paper about it a little while ago, late last year, explaining, again, a vision of convergence, 29 of keeping things simple. I think the point about 1Net is that it can be a place for the discussions that are happening annually at IGF, for those discussions to happen in between IGF meetings. If you are interested in that -- you may or may not be interested, you may or may not have time -- 1Net is a place to go. It is extremely active. You don't subscribe to the mailing list there without expecting a lot of traffic in your mailbox. I can only recommend it if you would like to dip in and have a look, or really spend some time looking at some very interesting discussions that are happening there. The bottom point on this slide is part of the potential for 1Net. It is also part of the potential of IGF and improving the IGF activity in this region, for instance with the India meeting that is happening later this year. The voices from this part of the world are not well heard, they are not very present in these global discussions, and I think it is really important that we are. That's a discussion starter, I hope. I think the best way to start discussion would be to discuss. I'll sit down and hopefully hear some interesting comments and contributions. Thank you. >>Maemura Akinori: Thank you, Paul. 30 >>Masato Yamanishi (SoftBank): I am Masato, working for SoftBank, APNIC member. I have an iPad. It means my comment is prepared, very long one. >>Maemura Akinori: Please keep it short. >>Masato Yamanishi (SoftBank): No, I don't want to do so, because it is very important. I have two major concerns about this context. First, it is very important to keep liaising with the other bodies, like ISTAR, ITU and UN. I also understand your intention, Paul, in introducing the governance discussion in this community and involving more people in this discussion. However, despite your intention, actually you are making a gap in APNIC community and APRICOT community, because the discussion has only buzzwords, many buzzwords, like "globalization", "fragmentation", "coordination", "cooperation", "interaction", "evolution", "accelerating", "encouraging". I pick up these words from your presentation. I can pick up more from other presentation, but it is a waste of time. Also, it has very few realistic things. Another good example is the video message from ICANN CEO on Wednesday's session. It was very short message, just 20 seconds, I think. But he just said, "IANA 31 should be global." What did he mean by "global"? Isn't IANA global already? I cannot totally understand his comment. Also, people in the governance discussion often say, "Without xxx, the Internet will stop or will die." But it's not true. Let's consider the case if the Internet governed by ICANN will be corrupted totally for some reason. What happens? Is this the end of the Internet or is this the end of the world? Totally not. In such case, I think Google will say, "Okay, we can provide alternative solution. You can resolve all existing domains by asking to 8.8.8.8, also we can provide additional features, like filtering focusing size, because we have enough data from gmail service; also we can provide additional service. How about this? Everybody use that service and everybody will become more happy. No problem. People saying, "Without xxx logic," it is like the boy who cried wolf. There are so many such people in the governance discussion. As a result, many people, in particular working for operators, saying, "Oh, this discussion is not related with me, and also related with my company. Those high level people are doing something, but it's not for me." 32 Even if they were to bring it back to their company, the reaction is, "Oh, then, what next?" Nothing happens. It means you fail to involve operators, not only individual level, but also on the company level. The second concern: in my understanding, main object of APNIC is regional address registry. However, it seems you are spending too much resources for the governance discussion. In this context -- APPLAUSE -- resources means HR resources, budget and also meeting time, including this session. I don't want to open details in here, but I have clear evidence which shows APNIC is spending too much resources to the governance discussion and as a result, it is causing negative impact for daily work as RIR. I don't think it is your intention, but the fact is fact. Then it is not a comment only from me. I talk with many people in yesterday and I heard same concerns from multiple people, directly and indirectly. As one of the APNIC members, I would like to ask two things to our EC members and also our Director General. The first one is considering the way to approach the community regarding the governance discussion. Current way is totally misleading. Okay? 33 The second one is limiting the resources which will be used for the governance discussion, because it already has negative impact for daily work at RIR. Thank you. APPLAUSE >>Maemura Akinori: Before the next comment, do you have any ... >>Rajesh Chharia (ISPAI): I don't have the iPad, I have the piece of paper. I was expecting during this APNIC Meeting that APNIC this year will also announce some prizes as iPad, but sorry, this time it doesn't come. The next billion of the Internet users are from our region. Our region consists of a variety of economies -- developed, developing and underdeveloped. Hence our concerns towards the Internet is much more. I really appreciate the effort of the APNIC EC, APNIC community and especially under the leadership of Paul Wilson towards the Asia Pacific for discussion about Internet cooperation -- not governance. Paul, you rightly say that it should be Internet cooperation, because the word "governance" is putting some government or governments approach towards the Internet, which should not be, because it is contradicting with "the one world, one net". We are seeing a lot of evolution into different 34 countries, and really, up to the present event, the trust and the confidence of the Internet users has shaken a lot. To bring back the confidence and trust towards this powerful media, the role of APNIC is very important and I really appreciate again for their role towards the Internet, I would say cooperation, not governance. The Mundial meeting is going to happen in April and the main Internet governance is going to happen in Turkey. Before that, the Asia Pacific regional IGF has a very crucial role to play. We have to decide our direction towards the Internet and the same thing, we have to replicate into the main IGF. The process has started, the Montevideo Statement is a good effort, but at the same time the globalization of the ICANN and IANA which is now under the process is raising the doubt, what was the present status of the IANA and ICANN when they are claiming that now globalization is taking place? Another thing: the youth, the next generation, who are going to actually adopt the Internet from us, and we should be responsible in handing over this powerful media to them so that they can use this media in a better and constructive way, not in a destructive way. 35 Thank you. >>Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much. >>Brajesh Jain (Citycom Networks): I also have a few pages, but don't worry, most of them are blank. The first thing is: Mr Paul, you mentioned as pure clear response to surveillance, but the response is not at all pure. For the past few years, governments have been raising various issues. Because the response was not coming, this could be one such way: last year, we did not hear of Mundial, now Mundial seems to be the focus. Similarly, the last four years we have been trying to raise the issue in APNIC as well that we are not outreaching to the administrations, Internet, for all is good, but it has got to be safe Internet and for safe Internet, who is the custodian of safety? It goes back to the government. We had the PPAC session, first it was called GAC, but it was said the government need not be involved into the affairs of the Internet, which is completely incorrect, hence the PPAC got created through the support of APNIC. But PPAC, at this moment, did not get the right attention or focus at all. Today, I can assure you that some other administrations next year, instead of Mundial, it could 36 be APL or something, which would attract the attention, like ICANN, say from the Indian context. Indian Government has been raising so many issues on Internet, to ICANN, to these things, and even APNIC, we do not seem to be outreaching to them and there could be some response from them, which will be government security and surveillance, which you would tend to term as pure; the response is not pure at all. The next point is: how do we know who are representing in Mundial, what view they are taking from APNIC? Does that view represent the view of the community at all? I have not seen that -- I want to see the representation from APNIC which is going to Mundial, do it represent the community interest at all? Has this representation group discussed with the governments what do they want to be presented at this Mundial? I do not see that. Thank you. >>David Farmer (ARIN AC): David Farmer, University of Minnesota, ARIN AC. I have a couple of comments, quickly. One, while I understand this community's and the technical community's focus on cooperation rather than governance, I would caution us not to back away from the term "governance". We would leave it to the governments then, which we don't want to do. We need multistakeholder Internet governance that includes the 37 governments and the technical community, leaving that word to them is dangerous. I would like to remind the technical community, through a local thing at the University of Minnesota, we say the network works so much better when the students are at home and not on campus. But the purpose of the campus network is not for the technical people, it's for the users, the students. In the global Internet, the citizenry. So we are a service industry, we are here to serve the community of interest, the globe. Governments have a role in that. We can't push them away. But we need to be assertive as well and make sure that the technical issues are resolved as well as the political and other community issues. Thank you. >>Maemura Akinori: Thank you. >>Andy Linton: I would like to say, I support the statement Masato has made fully. I think APNIC is in real danger of getting away from its core mission, which is to run a registry. David has just said that we should be thinking about, drew the analogy of the university and the students, the idea that the students would govern the university because they happen to be users of the network doesn't necessarily follow. So that is a thing to think about. 38 I think we are in real danger, this organization, and I look at organizations like InternetNZ, back at home, and I look at ICANN, and there is a host of nonsense talk about multistakeholders. We are actually building a new aristocracy, where people who can afford to fly around the world, going to lots of meetings deciding what's good for us are doing this and they are not actually consulting with the people who this really matters to. I think it is a real risk that what we are doing is getting to the point where we have lost the plot, all of us, or a very large number of us. >>James Spenceley: Andy, thanks for your comments. One of the things we are, as the EC, is the members' representatives, so if there are a number of people feeling this same thought, we absolutely need to listen to that. Masato's statement, thank you very much for making that, it was very much well thought out. Is that something that people generally agree with? Can the members raise their hands if they think that is a critical issue, both Andy's and Masato-san's comments, is that something we could do? If you want to comment on that, please put up your hand. Are there people that disagree with that and think 39 we should be particularly more involved? Three people. If you have a view on this, now is the time to really come forward, this is our annual member meeting. Again, if you think that was something we should be seriously looking into, please raise your hand, that would be very useful. It is very hard to read a room where only four people stick up their hands for the two options. >>Pindar Wong (Verifi): If you are going to do this, maybe you want to think about the process, to give people time to think about it, before springing it on them. >>James Spenceley: We will put this in the membership survey, I think that is the best way to get the most exposure and result. >>Masato Yamanishi (SoftBank): Now, reading email, that's a very good example of what I mention. >>James Spenceley: Would you be happy if we put this into the survey and get you involved in drafting the questions for the membership survey? >>Masato Yamanishi (SoftBank): Why spend such a long time? >>James Spenceley: Because that's a great way to get the entire membership to provide their feedback. >>Masato Yamanishi (SoftBank): No, something will happen in June, so you spend three more months, or you need more 40 time to analyze the survey, but we already have good evidence. More than 80 per cent of people is not hearing this discussion. >>Maemura Akinori: Then they are not hearing your voice, Masato. I am putting it that way. >>Masato Yamanishi (SoftBank): Because this discussion is not related with them, as I said. >>James Spenceley: Rather than making a sort of snap reaction to these comments, I think the best source of finding out what the entire membership feels is the membership survey. If it takes a few months to do that, I think that is probably far better than us making rash decisions without consulting the members. >>Masato Yamanishi (SoftBank): James, it is the problem of interest level. So even if we will ask this one in the survey, you will not have, I can say, significant feedback. >>James Spenceley: We usually get 600 or so replying back. >>Masato Yamanishi (SoftBank): I'm not talking about generic feedback, I'm talking about specific feedback about the governance discussion. >>James Spenceley: I agree with you and I would like to work with you to propose that and formulate that for the survey. >>Masato Yamanishi (SoftBank): No, it's not the problem of 41 the question in the survey. It is a problem of interest level about the governance discussion. Many operators do not have any interest for governance discussion. >>James Spenceley: Sure. >>Masato Yamanishi (SoftBank): If you will ask some questions about governance in the survey, they will not answer or they will answer quite, "Oh, so, so, it should be okay," like that. But it doesn't mean it is fine for them. >>James Spenceley: I agree with you, but I think we need to work out a way that is structured to get feedback. >>Masato Yamanishi (SoftBank): I think it is the task of EC how to handle this issue. Asking to members doesn't have any meaning, in my understanding. >>James Spenceley: I tend to have a different view that I think Andy put. >>Andy Linton: James, I think there is a huge arrogance if we take the votes or opinions of 4,000 members or whatever it is of APNIC and say that gives this organization a mandate to speak on behalf of the people of the Asia Pacific Region, which is more than half the world's population, and say we are the ones who know how to do Internet governance for you. It is a huge arrogance. Our job is to run an Internet Registry here and the rest is fluff and boilerplate. 42 >>James Spenceley: This is obviously an emotive argument. >>Andy Linton: Just fluff. >>James Spenceley: What I am trying to do is assess how many people agree this is an issue and if we can get some feedback from the members, if the active members are saying this and the broader member base is saying this, then we as the EC need to listen to that and have a very hard look at how much resources we invest in this area. That is us listening to you. I do not think it is fair to say to us that we need to make a quick decision based on feedback from one meeting and change everything on the spot, I do not think that is good governance that you or the broader membership would apply. We are having this conversation because we as the EC want to find out, there is obviously an issue burning there that is emotive and people feel strongly about, then let's get to the bottom of it. Are we spending too much time on it? Should we be more focused on being a registry? Will that reduce member fees? Will that do a number of things? If that is a topic on the top of members's minds, that is something we should decide. I would like to work with both of you to make sure it is in the survey and maybe we can or you can both open up a discussion on the mailing list, so we can get more feedback. 43 >>Izumi Okutani: I am speaking in my individual capacity. I really like the phrase that Rajesh has mentioned, Internet is not really about governance and the spirit is all about cooperation and the word "governance" doesn't really fit in with what we actually do. Having said that, I started to be more involved in this area of Internet governance from pretty much this year and the observation I am making at this stage is also feel very much what a lot of you are feeling, that it is quite difficult to find a topic that you can really relate to or that you feel that it really affects you, because there are so many things, like principles and matters, and how does that affect the way that we are operating the network, so how does that affect us as registry, and things like that. At the same time, I feel a little bit alarmed because out of this huge volume of maybe like 1,000 topics, every once in a while things come up that are relevant to us. You can probably see this from the WCIT discussion, like trying to regulate the Internet, and in the last IGF in Bali, which I attended for the first time, there was quite active discussions on surveillance and security. I also feel a lot of it is not really directly related to what we do, but I don't feel everybody has to 44 be involved, but there should be some kind of way that if something comes up that we need to be alert and we have to like send a message to the forum that is discussing it, we should be able to voice and give warnings, "Hey, this is how we do it," and make sure that things don't get decided in the way we don't want to. I am seeing a lot of the governments are really learning how things are working in the Internet operations, and that one is a positive sign. But if I get, like -- if I have a little bit of cynical view, they are more an advantage of knowing what's happening and be able to implement what they want to do, which I am sensing in one of the topics, and it is a little bit sensitive to share it with here, but I do actually feel, okay, if we don't really give our voices on certain topics, governments will start saying, "Hey, this is what is happening around the world, so you should consider doing this, and put pressure on us." So I just want to raise this as an issue that I'm feeling at the moment. >>Maemura Akinori: Thanks, Izumi. >>Nurani Nimpuno (Net Nod): I am going to try to give it brief, but I want to make a few quick points. One is the concerns about where the membership fees are going. 45 I think they are valid and they need to be listened to. We are at a point of time where the RIRs' activities are shifting, because of v4 exhaustion, and I think that is a time where the RIRs, all of the RIRs, really need to listen to the membership: where do you want your membership fees to go, and not assume. Having said that, I am someone who thinks that Internet governance cannot be ignored. I myself spend too much time on it, I think. But there are some challenges there, and I think -- I see two challenges. One is that whenever in the Internet governance sphere we talk about the technical community, we end up having the RIRs and ISOC and ICANN representing the technical community, and there are far too few operators and actual technical people in the technical community represented. I think that is a potential problem. I'm not trying to undermine the position of the RIRs or ISOC or ICANN -- I think in many ways you are doing a fantastic job. But I think we need to be careful that we don't create a disconnect between these policy bodies and the actual technical community. The third point I was going to make was about communication. I think some of the concerns voiced here are really valid. I have been in meetings -- I am 46 guilty of this myself -- I have been in many meetings where we carefully craft text, using carefully chosen words, to make subtle points that are completely undecipherable to people outside of our own little Internet governance sphere. Globalization, core operation, transparency, et cetera. I find myself even reading -- for example, when the Montevideo Statement came out, and I think I am in this core sphere of Internet governance people, and I had to decipher that statement myself. What are the RIRs actually saying? I had to speak to the various RIRs to understand what that message was. That is someone who is used to these terms and who operates in this Internet governance sphere, and who has direct contact with the RIRs. But I completely agree with the criticism that for those who are not in this sphere it is very, very hard to decipher this language. I say "we" including myself, we need to become a lot better at actually communicating what it is we are doing and what we are trying to achieve and what is at stake, because I don't think a lot of people really realize what is at stake. Sometimes maybe we need to move away from these big fancy carefully chosen words and really say what we are thinking. 47 >>Maemura Akinori: Thank you. >>Brajesh Jain (Citycom Networks): I would like to ask James, you are asking the community now. Did you ask the community before, "Hey, governance issue has come to light. Would you like us to take it up?" You have taken it up. That's number one. Please let me continue. Number two, as members, we raise about the fees. EC has already said it is a closed decision, the membership funding is coming up: When the dollar rate in Australia changed, you increased the fees. Now the dollar has come down, you are not reverting the fees, so you are not considering where the members' money is coming from. You should consider returning it back to the members. You should consider that issue, and you have said it is already closed. If you have budget, if you have money, please consider that it should be returned to the members in whatever form. Consulting the members at this moment, meeting like this, challenging the members to raise hands and all that, it is just not proper, because you never gave in the last EC, we did not have raise the hands who wants us to debate the governance issue at all. Thank you. >>James Spenceley: Let me address the first issue. The governance issue is not something we decided to suddenly 48 be involved in. Internet governance has been something that's been bubbling away and has evolved throughout APNIC's history. It is just that it has evolved more and to consume more resources and time. This is not something we suddenly decided to invest our efforts in Internet governance. That is the first point. The second point is I don't think we should have a closed discussion on fees. Certainly in this room there seems to be the view that we may be spending too much money in certain areas, fees are an issue for certain economies, so I am completely happy to table a fee review and open discussion at the next -- propose that, subject to the Chair agreeing -- for our next EC meeting, which will be in May. >>Brajesh Jain (Citycom Networks): In the AMM meeting so far, I got the sense that EC has already closed its mind. Chair said that this year it is closed, so next year maybe it will consider and think. >>James Spenceley: Typically we address fees in December at our face-to-face meeting in Brisbane. That's just historical nature, there is no reason we can't address fees at other points. >>Brajesh Jain (Citycom Networks): You said December, Mundial is coming up and you are tackling the issues as they are coming up. You cannot say the fees part is 49 closed and another part is open. >>James Spenceley: We have a job to do and a process we have gone through and there are certain times of the year when we do certain roles. We do the budget in December. That doesn't mean we can't change that and be flexible and listen to what the members are saying. In terms of the raise of the hands, I apologize, I just wanted to see if this is something that we should discuss more. I think there was a fantastic statement by Masato-san, thank you very much for making it, but I think we could easily get very off topic on that and I think it was well worth putting some more time into understanding that. So that was why I asked for a show of hands, it wasn't for any other reason, just to see if this is something we should debate. >>Dean Pemberton (InternetNZ): We have seen a very strong message from the community that this needs to be looked at. I think you are right that it needs to be looked at in a very structured way. I also heard some great concerns about if this is to be handled in the framework of a membership survey, then there is a significant amount of time when the concern that the members have will just keep on going along as usual. I would say maybe a middle ground would be for the EC to place a moratorium on any increased resource in 50 this area until you can fully hear and appreciate what the members are saying. Thank you. >>James Spenceley: One of the things we can do is certainly understand the extent of our investment in this. We can work with finance on that. In terms of creating a moratorium, I think that is possibly one step too far, but as treasurer I would like to understand exactly the investment we are making in this space and the materiality of that and continue on discussing it. >>Masato Yamanishi (SoftBank): While some people are saying that APRICOT is the technical community, but in my understanding it is not only the technical community. In here, many discussions happen from business background. For example, some address policy came from business requirement, but we also need to consider the technical aspects to make a decision about that policy. In my understanding, this community is a very good combination of technical matters and also business matters and also political matters. We need to consider about the security, to decide some policies, and actually security is becoming a very big issue in the Internet. We are mixing up very well in here, but governance discussion, current governance discussion, is different. It has just politics. At least from outside, it 51 looks so. It is totally different. I think that that is the problem. >>Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much, Masato. It is true that we need to handle a lot of aspects of running the Internet and, as I said, it's a wide spectrum. Masato, go ahead. >>Masato Yamanishi (SoftBank): Again, if governance discussion may go to wrong conclusion, I and also my company will not care why. I will explain more detail. But my company is now trying to combine mobile and the Internet, regarding in business perspective and also technical perspective. You know the reason why? Internet makes a lot of money, no, now content and mobile is making a lot of money, but Internet itself is not. The reason why we are combining these two is that Internet already exist and it is working and it is growing. If the Internet will stop for some reason, we just threw away it, as we did for ATM. You said without this discussion, something wrong will happen. No, it's not wrong for me. I just need to find another thing. >>Andy Linton: James, you said the moratorium is a step too far, and perhaps you are right. But perhaps one of the 52 things that could be done here, if we are going to talk to membership, would be to say, as part of the accounts would be to break out the true cost of doing the Internet governance activities and also try and provide some real measurement of the real benefits it brings to this community. I am not convinced, and I am sensing a number of other people are not convinced, that the amount of resource we spend on it actually brings us the benefits that we claim or are claimed for it. Thank you. >>James Spenceley: I take that on board. >>Rajesh Chharia (ISPAI): In Gold Coast, when I first proposed the proposal of GAC for discussion about the policy towards the Internet, a few people laughed at me and tried to discourage me. Technical people think this is the platform for discussion about the technical policy. We are doing so, there is no problem. But who will discuss about the Internet and who will be responsible for this Internet continuity towards the users' side? Here, the Internet governance or cooperation comes. A lot of revolution is taking place into the different countries, we know, I don't want to name those countries. As I stated in my earlier statement also, 53 that the next billion is going to come from our region, the responsibility of our region and our community towards this cooperation or governance is much more. If you will not discuss about this policy, we will not be able to bring this trust and confidence into the Internet users, the Internet will die. And when the Internet will die, then there is no requirement of policy discussion about the technical things or anything, then we will not be meeting, we will not be meeting for the technical things, we will be just coming for -- I will say -- into the Hindi culture. I don't want that. What I want, along with the technical, we should also discuss about the governance and cooperation and I will request APNIC EC for encouraging the PPAC -- earlier it was GAC -- so that a different platform for the discussion, for the policy, of Internet users should also be discussed into our community. >>Pindar Wong (Verifi): Pindar Wong, Hong Kong, speaking personally, just to be clear. I'm not an APNIC member, but I do participate in the Internet governance sphere by historical accident -- and I do have a relationship with APNIC. I was at APNIC 1. I was a former alternate Chair of APNIC. I was appointed by the ISO to be the first vice-chairman of the ICANN board -- blah, blah, 54 blah. I just want to remind everyone that one aspect of these membership meetings, which was mentioned several times, is that you represent the membership. This is the membership meeting. This meeting was fairly quiet, in fact there was not much comment, until this topic came up, and then, boom. That's quite illustrative of Internet governance discussions. I actually want to speak in support of APNIC involvement with Internet governance. I think it is important. I think what I'm hearing, though, is a question of degree, in terms of resource commitment, in terms of the type of fees you collect and how it is spent. I want to take back what I said earlier in the morning about congratulating you with your ISO:9001. The reason I want to take that back is: don't lose the plot. Having these procedures and standards and these kinds of things is great, especially on Internet governance, because you can say, "I conform to a global standard on quality." But don't lose the plot about, one, there is an ecosystem out there -- and I use the RPKI as an example. Yes, there is a split between how much you spend on resources and the wider benefit to the ecosystem. 55 Before we had Internet governance, what I think we had was good stewardship -- by a few people, perhaps, but they always kept in mind, not necessarily the numbers, the books, but the wider health of the ecosystem. If you look at APNIC, in your chart, in terms of the revenue, there was a little bit of loss and a flatline in the middle, and this is great from a financial perspective. But as the membership meeting, and even your suggestion earlier of doing a survey, the point I heard was that it may or may not be of interest. One aspect to do with Internet governance, which I am really pleased to see, is what I would see here is, first of all, it's open to guys like me, dinosaurs can come in here and observe. I'm no longer a part of the community, I just want to be clear, although I still feel that way, so thank you. But what I would call transparency, this is an open discussion and you are being very candid. But also, more importantly, what I would see as accountable. You have mentioned that. If the membership here who have taken the trouble to be here are articulating to you in these terms, I think that's really healthy to see. Whereas a survey -- you know, if people aren't going to be interested -- and I play in the Internet 56 governance space. Nii and I, the open internet and me, we both serve in some sense on this, level 9, level 10. You know what? It sucks up all my time. I can't keep track of it. The question is degree. If you claim your accountability and transparency, now is the time to do it, because this is, the membership meeting. Don't throw procedure, don't throw bureaucracy. That's great, that's why I take back the ISO thing, it's good to have it and to manage expectations, but the gentleman said, hey, look, you should have told us beforehand, perhaps. Don't let procedures get in the way of communication. Remember, think global, act locally, and do this bottom-up. Thank you very much. >>Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much. >>James Spenceley: If I can just touch on a point there: we have varying different views from, "We have hit a problem, we are investing, we shouldn't be investing any time or anything," to people who probably believe we should be investing more and doing more. The issue around a survey is really to understand and get feedback on where most people sit. If we, as the EC, listen to the most vocal members, we are not doing our jobs. We need to listen to the views of probably the more active members first but also the broader membership. 57 There is a right answer, it is just finding what the answer is and putting the analysis into understanding where we are, what we are doing, what we are investing, how much time we are spending and how that compares with the members' view. Please don't view the membership survey as bureaucracy, please view it as a way for us to listen to more than just the vocal handful of members. >>Maemura Akinori: I am very excited to have a very big discussion, a fruitful discussion, but we are running out of time, so please keep your comments brief. >>Saputra Hendarwin (APJII): My name is Hendarwin. I'm from APJII, but I'm talking here on my behalf. I would like to support the involvement of APNIC on the governance, but also APNIC needs to be balanced on cooperation and governance. I am talking on my perspective about the governance, a sample of what's happening in Indonesia, where the government -- the civil society and the business sector and the academic are sitting together and talking about how we are -- how to do proper things and regulate for the entire Indonesia, but then we are not just talking about Indonesia itself, but we are talking about the working relationship within the regions, within the countries. 58 A lot of samples: in here we are talking about the policy and other things, but the actual things, a lot of things are happening in the community, what we all really sit down together how to solve it. Sample things, we know Indonesia is a Muslim country, back then there was a -- we call it a video on YouTube regarding -- you all heard about it, and that part, government, civil society and the business sector sat down together how to solve it -- not only the government. So this is a example of the governance of Internet. Again, I would like to support the involvement of APNIC on the governance. Thank you. >>Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much. >>Nurani Nimpuno (Net Nod): I will keep my points very brief. I would like to reiterate the point on communication and consultation. I think that APNIC should be involved with this, if that wasn't clear from my previous statement. I think you need to listen to the membership about balance. But I think a big part of this is about communication and consultation, because the membership won't be able to make a decision about APNIC's involvement unless they understand what it means: what is this Internet governance thing that you are doing and what is actually at stake? 59 I think we can do a lot more there to bring clarity to the membership and to the community as a whole, and that will help the members -- that is how you will get the community and the membership behind these efforts. Thank you. >>Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much. It is very good to have this discussion. I think it is fair to have Paul to take on the role for this movement in the APNIC Secretariat, for explaining some of his views on that. >>Paul Wilson: Thanks. I think this is one of the most interesting and engaged discussions we have had in an APNIC Meeting for a long time, probably second only to fee structure discussions a few years ago. I think this one is a good one. >>Brajesh Jain (Citycom Networks): Back to fees! >>Paul Wilson: We are covering fees as well. It is absolutely correct that the APNIC organization runs a registry, and in discussions about Internet governance, however broad and vague that may seem, my emphasis and the emphasis I always want to give is on our role as an IP address registry. APNIC is a community and the community owns the registry, so I would ask the question: who is there to protect the registry? That's a real question. We are 60 grown up now. We believe the registry is critically important -- I think, if we asked for a show of hands, I hope that we would have every hand in the room agreeing that the registry is critically important. If it is critically important, then who is there to protect it? Because we are grown up now and we cannot expect that magically someone else is there or someone else is going to protect the registry. It's the community's responsibility. To think otherwise, to really not actually engage with that responsibility, is to have your head in the sand, as I said before. The registry, along with a lot of other aspects, very tightly linked aspects of the Internet, are the subjects of a big struggle now. There have been proposals amongst governments to create new registries, competing registries, national registries, to allocate IPv6 addresses according to phone numbers. There have been a stack of crazy proposals, crazy direction, some with more or less traction. The point is: who is there to answer those proposals? Who is there to actually engage? Luckily, we have plenty of friends. There are governments that actually do understand more or less how the Internet works and absolutely want to preserve the Internet as it exists, with its unique characteristics. 61 Unlike Masato, who will move on to his next business, there are people who are dedicated to the Internet, because it is what it is. But they actually need help. A lot of what we do is -- whether it is talking to government reps in Japan or Korea or Malaysia or New Zealand or Australia or in many other countries of the region, a lot of what we do is helping them to help us. Because without that help, without expert help, without actually discussing and looking at what's being said and how it can be counted and how compromises can be reached, these people are unequipped. I would challenge anyone here to really think about what happens if the registry is unprotected. There is a whole risk argument here and the risk of some dire hundred-year flood hitting the registry and losing it in one go may be a low risk. The expense of that, associated with that risk, is extremely high, I would suggest, and it is actually something that risks the livelihood of everyone in this room, let alone the health and integrity of the Internet as we know it. It is a judgment call. There is risk management here, there is budgeting, there is efficient use of resources and also rallying of community resources. There is plenty to talk about. It worries me a bit to say, let's have a moratorium or cut or take actions 62 in the context of this kind of meeting, because honestly this discussion has been going on for a long time. For anyone to suggest that there hasn't been consultation, they have missed a member survey that has happened every two years, they have missed numerous sessions about this topic in numerous meetings. I take it as a compliment, because that is exactly what this session is here for and it has been a great session, in terms of airing a whole lot of views. To say that we need to consult in this session is kind of missing the wood for the trees in some ways. We have done and we continue to do numerous consultations. Nurani has suggested we need to do more. If we need to do more, then it is going to fall under the Internet governance budget. I can imagine that we might increase our communications, we might increase our consultations, we might do all sorts of things to raise awareness, to continue to try to translate -- as I tried today, hopefully with more success than it might appear in some cases -- what has been going on into a language that people can relate to. I am a little afraid that if we were to do that, we would be told again that we are on some sort of a fool's errand, printing glossy brochures and talking about 63 Internet governance. That is a little bit difficult and I really do hope, as someone said, that in this process of finding some balance, of making a whole stack of quite deep and complex judgments, that we can actually come together. I particularly hope for a lot of engagement from the EC, who are elected exactly to make these decisions, and you will have a chance to vote for EC members again very soon, in the next year. It is a democratic process. So again, there are plenty of opportunities to change the direction that we are going in. I just hope that we can work together and understand the judgments that need to be made, because some of the comments that were made today do worry me, both in what they are expressing about and what they are implying about a lack of care. I hope we can be a bit moderate and goodwilled in finding the solutions we need to find. I think that's all, thanks. >>Maemura Akinori: I accept Masato's brief comment. >>Masato Yamanishi (SoftBank): I will make it short, one minute. I would like to emphasize this point. I am not asking about stopping Internet governance activity completely. I am not asking that. I am saying the current way has a big negative impact to inside the 64 community. So please change the way. That is what I am asking. >>Paul Wilson: Just very briefly, that is one comment that concerned me as well, Masato, that you seem to imply that APNIC services or activities are suffering because of a focus on something else. Really that concerns me greatly. We had a bigger surplus in this last year than we expected and we could have spent resources on improving services, if there was some perception that that was needed. Again, there is a member survey coming up. We need genuine answers about what is suffering, what needs improving. We have asked many times where members want their resources spent, and that is a genuine effort on the part of the EC and the Secretariat to really understand and to serve better. It worries me to hear that there is a reality or perception that services are suffering. Thanks. >>Masato Yamanishi (SoftBank): Sorry, but I don't want to wait until survey, so I can share it personally with you. >>Paul Wilson: Okay. >>Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much. We ran over the time, but it is worth for that. The Executive Council, as I said in my report, are 65 representing the membership and we will take a reasonable consideration after your voice is heard and with respect to the quiet people, as James says, and take the balance with what the Director General wants to do and what is very good for the APNIC community. That's our way to consider. You are still looking at the slide, thank you. I just want to spend 10 seconds to say for NetMundial, please visit netmundial.br and you can find the contents contribution page. The deadline for contributions is 8 March, you have one week. If you have any say, according to the two issues, please, we as the executive multistakeholder committee of Mundial, we are waiting for your response and contributions. Thank you very much. We will have lunchtime and we will be resuming the AMM business in the afternoon session at 2.00 pm. Thank you very much. >>Sunny Chendi (APNIC): Just one second. The lunch is level 1, in Fuzion restaurant. Please go to level 1 for the lunch. Thank you very much. APPLAUSE