APNIC 22
Annual Member Meeting - Session One
Friday 8 September 2006
09:00 - 10:30


PAUL WILSON: Well, good morning. And thanks for coming to this, the last day of the APNIC Open Policy Meeting, the 22nd APNIC Open Policy Meeting. This is the APNIC Member Meeting, which is the last day of the meeting and it's the day in which we discuss business of particular relevance to APNIC members. There'll be a few reports from the APNIC Secretariat, also from the meeting. There'll be a few demonstrations of some new developments at the APNIC Secretariat and there'll also be time for open mic and for any general discussion, contributions that anyone would like to make.

I'd like to thank, firstly, the silver sponsors for this meeting - KRNIC of NIDA and JPNIC, both of them National Internet Registries within the APNIC system. So thanks very much to KRNIC and to JPNIC for generously sponsoring the meeting. It's very important to have these contributions to the meeting and they're very welcome.

I just mentioned a few things about the agenda. The full program for the morning is here. As I mentioned, some service reports and demonstrations in the morning. Before breaking for morning tea, we'll be having a look and I'll be explaining the NRO Number Council election procedure. That's going on today and everyone should have - every individual in the room should have a voting slip, which is like this one here. Now, I think the voting procedure is quite self-evident and you can - by following the instructions on that form, you can find out quite clearly how to cast your vote in the Number Council election but I'll be spending about 10 minutes before the morning tea at 10:20 approximately to explain this form and also to give any candidates who are here the chance to make any statements about their role, their candidature for the election.
So, if you want to vote now, you can do that but if you want to delay voting until you've heard from the candidates, then please feel free. And the voting is going to close after the lunch break.

The second half of the morning is going to be reports from the Executive Council on and Address Council and also the SIGs and BoFs and the APOPS session that happened during the week. There'll be an introduction to the APNIC member survey before we break for lunch. Some of the afternoon is going to be taken up by the discussion of the APNIC fee structure, which is an ongoing issue that we're all interested in, I'm sure. There's going to be a proposal here for the new non-member fee structure, or for some changes to the non-member fee structure that I suppose we'll be spending most of the time in that session talking about the APNIC fee structure itself for members and I'll be asking the chair the APNIC EC, Akinori Maemura, to join me to chair that session.

We have some colleagues from the other RIRs here and they've come a long way to come and be here and be part of this information and also to present a bit of information about what's happening at the other RIRs. We'll be doing that before the afternoon tea. We also have travellers from IANA and from the NRO, again Axel again, for reports in the afternoon and the last part of the afternoon will be the election result and also we have a couple of prize draws for the end of the day as well. Now one of those is going to be for the eLearning demonstration area. The other is going to be for the meeting evaluation form. Some of you may have this evaluation form but if you do, you can feel free to fill it in now. If you haven't picked one up yet, then they will be distributed around lunchtime. We're really interested to hear any suggestions that you have for the meeting.

As I've mentioned already, this meeting is now a slightly new and changed program with a new extended APOPS session and we'd be very keen in the APNIC Secretariat to hear from you about what you think of that program and whether it's been successful, because we will continue it in future if there's good feedback about it. As I mentioned, if you don't have this form, you'll have a chance to pick it up during the day. We would appreciate it if you fill that in. There will be a lucky prize draw at the end of the day, to give you just that slight incentive that you might need to complete that job. Thanks very much.

Now, another change we made during this meeting is in terms of the APNIC Secretariat reporting - we've got some of the APNIC departmental managers who are going to be giving a series of service reports about what's been happening at the APNIC Secretariat. And so these are in order - first, Gerard for communications, Son Tran for member services, Sanjaya for technical, Irene for finance and accounting and Cecil, the new training manager, will be presenting the report about training.

So what I should do before we start that is ask if there are any questions or any suggestions for the agenda. Is that Randy approaching the mic? It is. Great. We should do a bit of agenda bashing so, please, if you've got any suggestions or questions, line up behind Randy.

RANDY BUSH: Randy Bush, IIJ. Just when you're doing your thanks - the network service here has been fantastic.

PAUL WILSON: Thank you, Randy. That's great to hear. There's a couple of guys up the back of the room there who are looking after the network service - that's Andrew and Terry from APNIC. They've been not only looking after the network service but they've been acting like those guys you see at the back of concert halls with the panels of buttons and they've been controlling the microphones and the cameras and sort of all of the stuff for the webcast.

I shouldn't forget the webcast either, actually. We've got full webcast video session as well as the broadcast of the transcripts going on here. So if there's anyone on the webcast at the moment, I'd like to welcome you to the meeting and thanks very much for joining us. There's an opportunity through the Jabber chatrooms, which are also part of the remote participation services, as an opportunity for anyone who is dialling in remotely to ask any questions or make any contributions. So APNIC staff are monitoring that and if there's any questions or contributions that come through, we'll certainly add those to the agenda as well.

So any final questions? Have I forgotten anything?

OK, I'll hand over now to Gerard Ross, who is going to deliver the report for the communications services of APNIC.

Thanks, Gerard.

GERARD ROSS: Hello. Thanks, Paul.

OK, I'll start by running through the communications - it's not an area just yet at APNIC. You'll hear more about that later. Currently under the banner of communications, we've got a few different functions.

I'll start with the woman who brought this meeting to you all this week. Vivian is in charge of events, also has had quite a lot of help in recent times from Miwa, who takes us down to training there. In training, we've got my what, Sall'ee, Amante and Champ and our brand new training manager, Cecil. In outreach and liaison, Nurani and Kapil have been working hard to spread the message. In my team, there's Tina, Yun, Chiaki and Chris and a very young-looking photo of myself as well. Splendid.

Some of the highlights of APNIC communications recently - we've been doing a lot to support Internet development around the region. One of the ways that's been happening is with the involvement we've had with quite a few of the network operator groups, particularly PacNOG, SANOG and NZNOG where we've really established now a tradition of having quite a good involvement in the meetings that they have and providing content to those meetings, really trying to bridge that gap out across the region.

We've also, along similar lines, been building the relationships we have with other organisations such as the ISP associations in South Asia, ISOC-AU, PICISOC and NIDA. We strengthen those sorts of relationships often by forming cooperative memorandums of understanding which are non-binding but encourage the organisations to mutually work together for training, for other sorts of outreach events.

As Paul mentioned, we've been improving the meeting services. For some time now, we've been providing the live transcripts that you see, as well as video casts. We've now added audio-only podcasts to that list as well. We've improved the chat interface for other people who want to try and participate in the meeting remotely and I think we've seen some evidence of that working at this meeting where there have been quite a few comments coming through from the chat service, people asking questions in the sessions and that's great to see.

In terms of awareness, we've been continuing to develop the resources that we use. You should have all received a pretty swish-looking interactive CD in your meeting kit at this meeting. That represented an awful lot of work within the Secretariat to get quite a lot of useful resources together. We've been continuing to develop other multimedia projects which have been quite useful at various events where APNIC has a presence. And we've also put together quite a few new banners and posters, which you may have seen tumbling from these non-stick walls regularly during the week.

In terms of our general house style, we're updating the look of APNIC, trying to bring a more consistent look throughout our communications. Apster, our quarterly newsletter which you all receive you might have noticed v has a restyled front page. We're now printing that on recycled paper, of which you will hear more later.

Some of the priorities we've got coming up for communications - continuous improvement of everything we do is one of the things we need to work on, particularly our websites. We're embarking on a major review of the content of the website. There's a fair bit of aged stuff on there. We need to strip that back and make it a little bit easier for people to find their way around the website and get the most relevant information.

Because we have people who are out on the road at these meetings and other RIR meetings, at the operator group meetings and all sorts of training events and other things that are happening around the globe really, we have a great opportunity to get a lot of feedback on what we're doing. Paul will be talking a little bit more about surveys later, but we also receive feedback from helpdesks and from those other things and we're trying to formalise the way in which we fold that back into the way that we try and improve our services.

Localising content is something we hope to show you a bit more of by the end of this year. We've recently released a brand new IPv4 request form on the website and we're currently negotiating to have that localised into a variety of different languages, so you should see that by the fourth quarter of this year and we'll hopefully also take that as a pilot for localising the entire MyAPNIC website as well. We'll keep you posted on that one.

Also, a lot of you might have seen the ICONS website, which is a portal for holding thoughts, experience, the ideas of anyone within the region who's interested. And we're encouraging people to use that as much as possible. The website does support different languages and we certainly encourage people to contribute articles in their own language to that website.

Other priorities - to keep on building stronger relationships with various others around the region and the world. We're doing some work on the systems back in the office to improve the way we can manage those relationships, trying to streamline the way that we send out mailing announcements, trying not to be bombarding people quite as much. We've developed - Sanjaya's team has developed a very good system in-house for improving the way we send mail. There'll be improvements to the set of sponsorship options that we offer for meetings and training events. And, again, to continue looking for opportunities to enter into MoUs with other organisations of like mind.

And finally, the reason I'm standing here I guess is the former director of communications at APNIC, Anne Lord, a familiar face to most of you, has recently left us. She did an enormous amount of work in making APNIC what it is. She's just left us to move on to another phase of her life, but we may see her, you know, from time to time as we pass. I'm sure she'll pop up on the occasional mailing list. Again, maybe not.

That's all I have.

If there are any questions, I'd be happy to take them. Otherwise, I'll hand over to Son.

Thank you.

PAUL WILSON: It would be fine if anyone has questions at the time but I'll also give an opportunity in these reports for any other questions that any of you may have. The next is Son Tran, who is the manager of resource services, that is the hostmaster department.

SON TRAN: Good morning, everyone.

Going through my report, I would like you to meet the team. As a group, we're interacting with the members every day, so we recognise that it's very important to understand the cultures in the region and also be able to speak the language, so we spend a lot of time improving staff, you know, across the whole region. So you can see from the photos here that there are people from different economies within our region. And the languages that they speak.

The services and activities that we have tonne for the last six months - if we look at the helpdesk, we launched the chat service a few years ago and we've seen the increased demand in the use of this service. Also, to make the service available to our members, we also recently launched the Voice over IP service so that our members can contact us easily without the extra cost on their telephone. We also try to make the service available as much as possible to our members by working on some of the public holidays in Australia that are not being celebrated across the region.

With resource services, we are - our main focus is trying to provide the best service for our members. So we try to improve in many areas by looking at the procedures and processes. The recent activities that we have done is we improved the internal registry manager software for the host masters to manage the resource and also the launch of the IPv4 request form, which makes it easier for new members to request resources.

We are also very busy implementing policies that we have to do. One of the policies is the resource recovery policy. We have been doing this for the last 12 months. And also, because of some of the new policies affecting historical resources, we spent a lot of time doing this as well.

Let's look at the numbers that we have distributed for the last six years. The data for this one is for 2006, up to the 20th of July. So, as you can see, we almost distributed nearly two /8s to the end of July. So following this trend, we might reach the same level as 2005. IPv6 is almost the same trend as well. You can see the number of prefixes there. With ASNs, not much change either.

In response to one of the services that our members question to debogon the new /8 that we received from IANA because of routability problems some of our members have faced, before I go into detail, I wish to thank the RIPE NCC staff for their support to make this task happen. I don't think we can do it without them and we are looking forward to working with them more in the future.

Just to give a brief outline on how this one worked for those who are not familiar with the project, is that we're announcing a couple of prefixes from a known /8 that we know is routable as well as prefix from new /8 from Amsterdam Internet Exchange and we observed the route from beacons of different regions and compared the results and determined whether the new prefix is routable or not.

We also make the first host of each prefix available for ping or trace route so the community can also test.

In summary of the activities that we do for this task is, once we announce the prefix, we publish them on the website, then we announce that in the community across the globe so they know it's a project so they can, themselves, look at the result. We are also being proactive in contacting some of the ASNs that consistently might be filtering some of the prefix so advise them that they might like to check their filter.

We observed that the routability of the new prefix improved over time but they are not much different in terms of results, even if APNIC intervene.

In our future plan, we are also planning to extend the testing to IPv6 as well as historical resources that we have from the historical resource policies.

As Gerard mentioned, we have new version of ICONS website, which is very useful for the community. We continue to improve the features on the website so that it will benefit for the community and also for members.

Priorities and future outlook for resource service - we will continue reviewing our procedures and processes so that we can streamline the procedures and improve the service for our members. For helpdesk service, we will try to continue to improve the quality of the service, especially because we are dealing with quite a lot of historical resources so we need to improve the complaint handling and escalation process for the issues.

For the online service, we will continue trying to improve the ICONS website and make it more useful for the community. And for the MyAPNIC, we continue to add more features to make it more useful to the community.

That's all I have.

PAUL WILSON: Thank you, Son.

Next, Sanjaya is coming to present the technical report.

SANJAYA: Good morning, everyone. My name is Sanjaya, I'm the technical services manager. The technical services department's main work is development. We develop tools to support our operations. We also integrate - if we find a software that could help us do things better, then we would obtain that software and integrate it to our system. And we also operate all the APNIC technical infrastructure.

In a typical day, we have about four and a half people doing the developments, about three people doing integration work and about four and a half people doing the operations day to day.

In the past six months, in the development area, we've been pretty busy with the resource certification project. We have made a few reports this week as well about this project. Basically, we've completed the specification and we have developed some tools for issuing, validation and storing the certificates.

We also made a significant improvement in our resource management system. The primary tool that is being used by our host masters basically better inventory management. We manage resources - IPv4, IPv6 and ASN is our inventory and now we have a much better system to manage this inventory.

Also a very exciting project we have embarked on, that has been reported this week as well, is the reverse DNS web services. We see this web services technology as the future of our delivery service, online delivery to our members and we will start with one of the most critical services we have and that is in the reverse DNS management. At the moment, our existing update will take about roughly two hours from our members submitting an update before it gets reflected in our nameservers. With the new system, we are expecting it to be within one or two minutes.

And we have also developed various software tools like the billing reminder, which will probably be reported later by the finance team, and also the new IPv4 address form.

In the integration world, we have completely replaced our PABX system with a VoIP system. So with these two tasks you can use your VoIP software to call us. It's cheap.

Later on today, George will explain to you an exciting data analysis and charting tool. It's all O3. I have no idea what it stands for. It's actually from a company in Latin America. This software has been used by LACNIC and we like it so much that we adopted it in this region as well. You can basically analyse the growth of the IPv6 deployment in this region.

In the operations area, we've been busy upgrading our equipment. We completed US and Japan nodes in the past few months, basically to improve performance and service delivery. And we have also completed ip6.int deprecation, which is a globally coordinated work with other RIRs and NIRs.

It's with regret that, in the past year we actually have been facing some serious issues with our reverse DNS service. This is mainly caused by the complexity of a shared zone management policy that we implemented and our existing system turned out to be not that well designed to handle the shared zone management. So we ended up with a complex system with too many sources of data and points of failure and therefore a few problems happened in the past one year, probably six in total, caused by failures in monitoring critical problems. Whenever we found this, we would implement additional monitoring, so we keep on improving this system. Some of them were caused by data verification and validation errors and human errors as well. And for that, the whole APNIC technical team extends our sincerest apology to all affected parties.
But, in a more positive note, we are replacing the whole system with a much simpler and faster reverse DNS management system and we are looking forward to implement this new system in the future.

Right, for the next six months, in the development activities, we're thinking of deploying more web services functions, allowing you, the other members, to easily report their assignments and utilisation. We are also thinking of providing secondary DNS services, so using MyAPNIC you can just, if you want, nominate one of our nameservers to act as the secondary domain and of course we will continue to work on the resource certification. We would also still like to further simplify the forms - more customer-oriented services. We want it to be easier for people to request resources from APNIC. Of course, with the proper considerations. It's not like we are going to give away the resources, but I mean it should be more helpful to people so they can fill in the required information as needed.

And we will be doing preparatory work for MyAPNIC multilingual support.

In the integration world, we are looking at using a content management system software that you can find in the market plenty of them, so it's a matter of finding which one is most suitable for us. We are also thinking of getting a customer relationship management system so better capture the needs and wants of APNIC Members and other stakeholders.

In the operational priorities for the next six months, we will be doing audit on our network and systems. We are confident that our security is quite good but you can never tell until you actually hire someone else to have a go and see if they can find holes in our system. So that's what we are going to do after this meeting, with the aim of better protection of information that our members have entrusted to us, and making sure that our service is delivered to the right... or to the genuine user instead of a spammer.

We are also going to set up our second data centre in Brisbane, basically moving more systems out of APNIC's office to a data centre for seven-by-24 hours availability and redundancy. So hopefully you will see a better availability of APNIC services when we have deployed this data centre.

That is all from me. And the next will be finance update from Irene. Thank you.

IRENE CHAN: Hi. I'm Irene from APNIC. Good morning, everybody, I'm Irene Chan, finance manager of APNIC. I would like to update you on the finance status of APNIC for the first six months of 2006.

First of all, I would like you all to meet our finance team.

Some of the highlights from our Finance Department is we have implemented online payment systems, we accept payment via major credit cards online. Automated billing reminder system by tracking the overdue ageing accounts more closely. We have start sending invoice via e-mail. However, upon request, we also send out the hard copy of the invoice.

Financial status for the first half year of 2006 is we continuous have the membership growth, reaching 1,250 members as at 30th of June. You will see the status in the following slide as well. We maintained the financial activities conservatively. Our expenditure and revenue are below budget.

This is the membership status. You will notice that membership has grown quite steeply for the last few months of 2006, which we are reaching 1,250. We are now actually close over the 1,300, now reaching 1,306 members at the moment.

Here is the membership distribution across the economies. Majority of members are from Australia, consists of 24%, followed by India and Hong Kong.

Profit-and-loss statement. Here is the first six months of the financial status as compared to the budget. We are operating 15% below budget. In fact, quite a lot of our expenses actually are incurred for the last six months of the year.

As for the revenue, we are at 7% below budget before the impact of foreign exchange. After the impact of the foreign exchange, we will be 4%.

Overall, we are at the operating profit of $409,000 for the first six months of 2006. However, for the year - for the 2006 budget, we are budgeted for the loss position.

Here is the balance sheet as at 30th of June. We have 7.9% increase in total assets as compared from the year end of 2005. Having $11 million of total assets.

Our priorities is continuous improvement in our department, simplify the membership application, continuous improve our fees collection procedures so that we can reduce the ageing overdue accounts and we will maintain the financial stability of APNIC in consistence with the financial management principles which maintains at least a one-year operating reserve, to ensure the ongoing stability and ongoing stability of APNIC.

Thanks.

I'll pass on to Cecil, our training manager.

CECIL GOLDSTEIN: I'm not a Mac person.

Well, as you can see, I'm new to APNIC. I've got to get used to the technology as well. I'm a PC person. The transition to Mac is going a bit slowly.

As Paul and Gerard have already indicated, I'm Cecil Goldstein. I recently took up a position at APNIC. This is my first meeting and I'd like at the outset to say how much I enjoyed meeting many of you and I appreciate the feeling of welcome that I've been given and I hope I'll still have the opportunity to meet others. For me it's been a tremendous learning experience and will certainly help me in progressing with my work in APNIC.

Let me just again introduce the team. I know, again, Gerard has mentioned who are members of the training team because we're part of the communications group but this is a slightly enlarged picture so you can see them more closely. But I'd also like to mention that three of the trainers are here with us at the APNIC meeting. I'm sure many of you already know them and of them. Champika, Sall'ee and Amante and I would also invite you to take the opportunity to chat with them if you'd like to. Part of our role is to be aware of what our members need and this is an ideal opportunity for communications.

Miwa is back in Brisbane, so is Arth and Arth is a new member of the training team, although not a new member of APNIC. He's a part-time trainer and he will be shared between the hostmaster resource management group and training.

Well, highlights this year. A new manager appointment. I hope indeed that will be a highlight. As I indicated a moment ago, Arth has also been appointed as a part-time trainer. Part of our efforts is to improve our standard of training material and to ensure that our training material is current, up to date and in line with what is necessary out there in the industry.

So we are collaborating continuously with experts in the field and the work that we've been commencing, we've commenced this year has been collaborative development of material, particularly in IPv6 and in security. So we'll be launching in the very near future training modules focusing on those two areas and with the support of the experts in those areas.

We've also conducted a pilot webcast of APNIC training and this will be an area that we'll continue to use in the future. We've completed the eLearning pilot module. Some of you had the opportunity to look at the demonstration. The launch will be officially made shortly. Has been a major undertaking of the group and I would like to commend Sall'ee in our eLearning development office for the work she put in to getting this off the ground and going. It doesn't only involve the production of the eLearning module but also the integration of the eLearning software, the eLearning environment into our working environment. She's done a tremendous job and I would like to thank her.

Part of the training group's responsibility is also to ensure that our Secretariat staff are also aware of the items that - or the things that APNIC is involved with so we conduct induction training or orientation training for new staff members and this relates not only to matters pertaining to actually working in the Secretariat but also very definitely with regards to the technical areas that APNIC's involved in and also the various tasks that are involved in areas such as hostmaster and so on.

Of course, our core business is the delivery of training and to date at the end of August we have delivered had 24 training courses throughout the region and this has drawn the attendance of some 760 participants. We still have some 16 courses scheduled until the end of 2006 and we're already planning for the end of 2007. At this point I would like to invite those of you who feel you would like APNIC training in your area to speak to us. We try to be proactive but it's crucial for us to be aware of what your needs are and to hear from you when you need training so we can discuss with you when, how, what and so on.

Just to point out the locations where we've conducted training and we have until August conducted training in Mumbai, Perth, Wellington, Zhengzhou, Bangkok, Karachi, Delhi, Hyderabad, Manila, Surabaya, Kaohsiung and Apia and we've got training scheduled for Ulaan Baatar, Manila, Bangkok, Hong Kong, Singapore and Kuala Lumpur to go ahead this year.

Now, priorities and initiatives. We've got an ambitious plan and some those are more urgent than others and some of them will be put in place sooner than others. Again in this area, we invite your feedback, your comments. We did have a training BoF yesterday afternoon but this is a larger audience so again I'd like to reiterate that we do need your feedback. We want to develop a more structured and responsive curriculum, a curriculum which perhaps will flow from basic to the more advanced and will enable us to maintain contact with participants in our training in terms of updates, refresher courses, support and so on. When we talk about responsive curriculum, it will be adjusted to deal with changes in the technology, to deal with changes in the way APNIC operates within that environment.

We want to deliver more training for the APNIC member economies. This is important. It's a large region. We want to reach out to as many of our members as we can and we are trying to work on methods and methodologies to do this. Our focus in teaching and development of materials will be on understanding. We believe that, through understanding, you will be able to conduct your business more effectively, you will know what to do more accurately and you will be able to adopt the best current practices in that regard. The eLearning has been a major step forward in leading towards the development of a blended delivery environment. By that we mean integrating eLearning together with face-to-face training. I should stress here that our face-to-face courses are not disappearing.

ELearning is another methodology that we are integrating so that we can, a, make our training more accessible, more readily available and more widely available and also use various eLearning technologies and methods to integrate so that we can provide, as I said earlier on, a more structured and more continuous form of education.

In addition, we want to foster collaboration with educational and professional organisations. In this respect, we want to be able to work with them to ensure that the kinds of material, the kind of information that is passed on to students who are graduating or people who are involved in training is current and relevant, not only to what is happening out there in the Internet but what is happening within the local areas as well.

So our aim over the year is to inject or to help inject information, knowledge and to guide them and to work with them in being able to support and - support Internet operational matters and Internet development in their regions as well.

We want to build partnerships with members and associated groups to help advance Internet development, local learning. One of the mechanisms that has been suggested in this respect has been the training or the working together with local tutors, so collaboration with you is something which is important to us. Working with local knowledge can help us be more effective when we provide our training and when we plan our training, again, it points to the whole question of communication and, indeed, we do see it as very important to improve our feedback mechanisms. We will be working in this respect to be able to draw on your comments more readily, more often and to greater effect.

Our fee structure - when I talk about fee structure, I'm not referring to the APNIC member fee structure but rather to the training fee structure - is something which is under constant revision. We do want to examine this to ensure that, when we do deliver training, the fee structure is relevant and appropriate and reasonable for those areas where we will be going and, once more, in this respect, we do need your advice and your guidance.

Timely, we believe that for participants to come into training and participate in a training event and then disappear and remain static is not possibly the best outcome and we do want to encourage course participants to continue with their professional development and once again contact with us and the utilisation of our eLearning environment will be a major component in this effort.

That's really all that I wish to comment on. Thank you for your attention and if there are any questions...

PAUL WILSON: OK. Thanks very much, Cecil.

We're moving on-to-now to a set of reports about specific services and activities. I think Gerard is taking his laptop here so I'll take the opportunity to say thanks to Gerard, Son, Sanjaya, Irene and Cecil. Also welcome to Cecil as the training manager at APNIC. I think he's made a great start. Training has always been an area through membership surveys and other feedback mechanisms that we have, it's always been an area that is seen as important as an area that we need to keep developing. So it's great to have the training area in such good hands these days. Of course we're going to continue here with - on the training theme, introducing another relatively new staff member at APNIC, Sall'ee, who's been appointed as the eLearning officer and has done some work which is going to be demonstrated.

The eLearning corner has been set up as a demonstration area for those of you who are interested. I've always felt that possibly the people who would be most interested in eLearning are not likely to be in this room, because we're trying with eLearning service to be able to reach out to people who are not quite as easily able to travel and to make APNIC training and education available, well, to make it, as the slide here says, to make it ready when you are. So once again to those people on the webcast, I'd encourage you to also make use of this online facility to improve your understanding of and your interaction with, APNIC. Sall'ee.

SALL'EE RYMAN: Thanks, Paul. My name is Sall'ee Ryman and I'm the eLearning developer for APNIC.

And I'm just following on from some of the things Cecil's been talking about developing a blended learning environment.

Firstly, it's important to understand that training is fundamental, is a fundamental service to our members. And, as Cecil has mentioned, it helped develop a number of capabilities. ELearning is an extension of that and we'll be able to reach more members and make our training services more accessible by more people.

Alright, why did eLearning come about? There was the issue of making training more accessible to more people but, in December 2005, there was a remote access survey where 86% of respondents supported the development of eLearning. However, only 31 had attended online courses previously, so part of our job is also to teach people how to use eLearning and what eLearning is.

As Cecil has already stressed, it won't replace face-to-face training. It is designed to complement face-to-face training. At this point, we're looking at providing eLearning as basic skills that people can learn before they actually attend a face-to-face seminar and learn more practical skills.

Why use eLearning? It's currently free of charge. It's more accessible. It allows you to manage your own learning. So you can choose what you want to learn, which skills you would like to acquire and do them in your own time.

It also will give you virtual access to trainers and one of the key ingredients of eLearning is actually building a social - a learning society, if you like, a learning community. And one of our aims is to build learning communities where we facilitate people who come together to learn and to discuss issues and we will be asking member s and people from the APNIC community to perhaps sponsor some of those learning societies.

Currently available is the Using eLearning, which will show you how to navigate the lessons and the ISP Address Why request, which has been released in conjunction with the new form for requesting IPv4 address space. And it will be help you build an application. Now one of the key ingredients of eLearning is that if you are doing an eLearning course, you should be coming out with something that is useful to you. So in this particular one, you will be receiving assistance in building your request.

Now, most important is your feedback. Because we want to facilitate these learning communities, it's really important that we get feedback as to what you quo like to see happening in eLearning. We're trying to be as responsive as we can to your needs.

Alright, so who is eLearning for? It's for member organisations and other interested people, new staff of member organisations and anyone who is wanting to update or refresh their knowledge of Internet operational technologies or APNIC procedures and policies.

What can you expect in the future from eLearning? It will be integrated into the training environment, as we've mentioned. We will be developing a blended learning approach, building learning communities and the learning communities will be built around those electronic modules that are currently available. It will incorporate webcast events. It will incorporate forums and live web seminars. And it will also be used to develop material that can be used in face-to-face training.

Right, so how do we access eLearning? If go to the APNIC website, there is, in fact, a link on the homepage. When you get to the homepage, there is a 'using eLearning' module that you can do straight away just off the page, which I will show you in a minute. This will show you how to enter and register in eLearning. And once you have entered and registered, you are then ready to do whichever of the modules that you choose to do.

Right, if we have a look at the webpage, the eLearning webpage - the first thing up is the 'using eLearning module', which, as I just mentioned, shows you how to enter eLearning. There is an eLearning calendar on the webpage and this will show you what modules are available. Some modules will be available all the time. Some modules will run for only a short period of time. This is to help motivate people to actually complete those modules. If you know there is a deadline by which you need to complete that module, then it will be done and it will help keep people on track.

If you click on the links for those modules that are available, it will take you to a page that explains what that module is about, what skills can be gained from completing that module, what the key topics are, if you should be doing that module, if it's right for you and is it a prerequisite for face-to-face training.

The incorporation of learning communities will involve a number of live events. Now, those live events will be advertised in eLearning news giving a date and a time and also information on how to access that live event. It will also give you information as to the purpose of that event, what is it that you are going to get out of attending that event.

And then lastly is the 'enter eLearning' button and this will take you to the eLearning learner management system.

Right, to register, it's very easy. You create a user, you create your own user name and your own password that is unique to you. And this can be anything so long as you can remember it. Once you click that button, it's fairly self-explanatory, it will guide you through what you need to do.

Alright, when navigating eLearning, this is just a quick look at what the lessons actually look like themselves. Down the bottom is the navigation tool so, that will take you forwards and backwards through the lesson, it will give you a menu of topics within that lesson so you can go back and look at specific things that you would like to know more about.

Into each eLearning lesson will be incorporated three key activities. The first one is the option to view a demonstration of whatever it is that you're learning about. So, for instance, the ISP address request module will show you the form and it will provide a demonstration of how that form is filled in. The second key activity will be an exploration activity, where you will be able to explore the object that you are learning about, you will be able to interact with it, click on it to get definitions, click on it to get more information, click on it to get help and assistance. The third key activity is to actually do it yourself so there will be an option where you can actually practise that skill.

These buttons over on the right-hand side of the screen are the ones that are actually - more general buttons. The first one is a help button and it will show you how to get help and that is your access to the trainers. That might be through forums, it might be through e-mail. Your choice. You will be given a number of choices to access the trainers. This button is the discussion. This is the entry way to the learning community where you may discuss what you are learning with other participants and trainers will also be involved in those communities. And lastly the home button which takes you back to the beginning of the lesson.

Alright, we did have an eLearning corner happening this week. There will be a winner announced this afternoon who will win a bluetooth headset and I think that's at the end of the meeting this afternoon.

Alright, if you haven't already had a look, please go and have a look at eLearning and please send us any feedback so we can use that information that you give us to help us develop our future modules. Thank you.

PAUL WILSON: Thank you, Sall'ee.

Are there any questions before the next presentation is set up?

Thank you. George Michaelson is going to be presenting the O3 service, the online interactive statistical reporting service, which is based on the O3 software. It's also based on a service that was developed at LACNIC, using software that comes from Latin America that is quite unique and powerful and I'd like to say thanks to LACNIC for the support that we got from them in putting together this new service.

GEORGE MICHAELSON: Hello, everyone.

OK, I'm going to present on a new service we're actively doing which we're calling the APNIC statistics portal.

So this activity was driven by something that was put into the APNIC strategic plan. We've been aware that we do a lot of reporting of information on utilisation of resources, aspects of membership and process, but we wanted to try and improve this and get more information out to the community. Something we thought of was to find a way to expose the information structures inside our databases and let you construct views of this data that were more useful for you. We wanted that to be as consistent as possible for stakeholders, for us doing internal process and also for the general public.

So it's aiming at a graphical interface, but we are aware that there are people who need to get the data downloaded into their own computer, perhaps to do further analysis or to drive research projects or planning or inputs to the policy process.

The implementation is based on a product called 03, which is a development of a company in Uruguay called Ideasoft. This was deployed in LACNIC, I think it was about two years ago, Paul, or three? It's a very deployment that they did and for some time we've been talking to them about the ideas behind the deployment, how this worked in practice. This was the Siari project. You may well have seen demonstrations by members of LACNIC community at our meetings or perhaps at their meetings. It's a java-developed web service using the JBOSS web server. Now, this does have quite a large overhead. We have dedicated a rack-mounted server to this project and it has a large memory footprint, so you do have to put some resources behind it. But, having done this, it's a very nice self-managed system. It was extremely easy to install. It's quite a good example of the things that Sanjaya was mentioning that we're now quite actively looking at external packages that are complete and can provide solutions in accessing our technical solutions for the community.

This uses the JDBC to make a bridge over to MySQL and that let's us access the MySQL database inside APNIC. It's a web portal so when the service is made publicly available you're going to see things through the web browser. You can do menu pulldowns and stuff to see the queries we're making available.

Sorry, the text is fuzzy here. When I go into the actual download, it might be easier to read I mope hope.

The basic views is a left-hand bar that let's you construct different aspects of the view, perhaps change the arithmetic of the view, what's on the X axis or on the Y axis. You can select different criteria from a men-up of choices available and then you have a view window that shows you the data. But you can see the data as the law figures. If you want to do something to look at the tabular information that lies behind the graphs. You can change from 3 D presentation to say a stacked view and get a different sense. You can do selections of data to measure. You can do selection of resources. So, for instance, I can just trivially make an ASN-only count. Now this is fairly similar to a graph that you will have seen Son Tran presenting in the summary of resource allocations over the year. Previously, you would only see this information by downloading our power point slides and maybe extracting it but you've now got an opportunity to construct a view of this data for yourself.

You can also do refinements by economy. So this is an instance of graphing Taiwan and China together to provide an overview. Or you could provide a subregional view. This is an approximation of the Indian subregion as it's defined by the UN. It gives you a sense of the community. You can see it includes a sum column so you can do aggregated views of the total amount of resource.

A very nice feature is that this thing will actually do a direct export to spread sheet so you can get all of that tabular data into your own presentation material and then represent these graphs in a way that suits you for using in power point or off site or maybe doing pdf documents.

So the it next steps are that we're going to try and extend coverage, work out more aspect of APNIC data to expose. Perhaps we might put up data on attendance at APNIC meetings or training. If you have ideas of data you would like to see presented, please let us know. We'd love to hear from you. If you're interested in using this facility when we do make it visibly publicly on the network, you can contact our helpdesk line and register interest and when it's deployed there will be a URL in the public APNIC webpage. It's likely to be the bottom URL of the stats post but we're still engineering some specifics about how this will be exposed. Before I go to the demo, I would like to thank LACNIC for help with this, for guidance with the ideas behind it and liaison with the commercial supplier and Ideasoft who have been very helpful with the deployment. They're a very nice, innovative company. They've been supportive with licensing. The graphing, data modelling, ongoing analysis and management and deployment has been done by Frank Salanitri of the technical group.

So if I just shift to the browser window. Sorry about the small font size. That might be - I might be able to put that up, actually. I'm not sure if this will work!

OK, so you can drill down from some prestored queries. For example, this is a stored view of ASN allocation history. I'll dial that down again. OK, so this is one of the stored queries that we've made available and it's possible to specify changes to the graphing style. I'll make this into a stack bar chart. And this does an on-the-fly redraw of the data and then you can just tune around with it, select different presentations. I've actually stored here a particular graph I was interested in so this is an overview of allocation date into the greater China economy region. So it's China, Macau, Hong Kong and Taiwan presented as a historical bar chart with a sum column and this is showing that the total amount of IPv4 /8s is approaching six /8s in this region. That might be something of interest in a similar way for other people.

Previously, you'd have had to extract that from raw data held in APNIC but now we're giving you a tool that let's you construct these views for yourself.

That's it, Paul. Thank you.

PAUL WILSON: Did you tell us when it will be available.

GEORGE MICHAELSON: We don't have a fixed deadline for release. I'm hoping it will be done by the end of the year. That's plausible, Sanjaya? Yeah, end of year.

PAUL WILSON: We just have one more project report. Nurani is going to talk about eco-APNIC.

NURANI NIMPUNO: Good morning, everybody.

My name is Nurani Nimpuno.

I'm here to give a report from APNIC Eco group.

Like I said, this is a report from the Eco group at APNIC. Some of you might have seen the posters outside and some of the recycling stations we have. You might wonder what that is all about.

So eco-APNIC started with Paul raising it in one of the staff meetings that maybe we should think about making APNIC, the APNIC Secretariat, a little bit more environmentally friendly and thinking about how we can reduce our ecological footprint.

So it's a staff-driven project. There were quite a few volunteers who were interested in looking at the day-to-day operations of the Secretariat. So what we're doing is we're identifying ways where we can be more environmentally friendly without compromising the services we give to the community and the membership.

So why are we doing this? Well, as a lot of you might be aware, there's a raised awareness of environmental concerns by the scientific community and as an organisation, we think it's our responsibility to work in a sustainable manner.

So what are we doing? Well, we're looking at a few different areas - travel, energy efficiency, recycling and wastage.

So, as you know, quite a few of the APNIC staff travel a lot to various conferences, obviously to the APNIC meetings. We give a lot of training courses. So it's unavoidable to do as much travel as we can. But we're investigating offsetting carbon emissions. It's possible for organisations to invest in various projects that look at saving or reabsorbing carbon emissions, so renewable energy production or reforestation for example. We're looking into ways of encouraging carpooling, cycle and public transport. So that also saves costs and reduces pollution. And it keeps us all fit. I've committed to start cycling to work. So we'll see how that goes.

So recycling and wastage is another one. We're looking at both recycling the papers that we're using for example, but also, like Gerard said, we're now moving to using more and more recycled paper.

Electronic wastage is also a very serious environmental problem today. So we are look at how we can recycle electronic wastage but also electronic equipment that is still working that we can pass on to other organisations or individuals that might need it more than we do.

And then also reducing wastage. When we look at how much waste we produce as an organisation, we realise that there are a lot of areas where we can improve, both reducing the amount of paper we use, minimising wrapping, recycling toners and things like that.

And the last there is energy efficiency. When we looked at all the things we could do as an organisation, we found that there are very big things we can do but also very small initiatives, simple things like turning off equipment actually has a huge impact. There's a great misconception that if you turn off the equipment, the power surge when turning back on the equipment sort of cancels out of the power you save. But that's actually not true. Just a simple thing like a monitor that's on standby all night uses a third of what it uses when it's turned on. So a lot of small things like that that we can do.

And we're also looking into the use of natural light and airflow and things like that. We found we're looking around the office, the air conditioning keeps everyone so sold so some people have little heaters to counteract the cold. So instead of sort of doing those things, we're looking into creating a better environment without using a lot of energy.

So, a few of the things that you can do. There are a lot of small things but also a lot of bigger things you can do individually and as an organisation.

We have just now embarked on this project so we're still learning a lot and still finding out a lot of facts and seeing what really has an impact. We've also written an article in Apster that should be in your meeting packs. But we've enlarged it and printed it out so, if you're interested in that, you can read that on the notice board.

OK. Stay tuned. Like I said, we have recycling stations outside so if you're not going to use your lanyards or badges or meeting equipment, meeting packs, feel tree to recycle them. We'll keep you up to date in Apster, we'll have a regular Eco section there. We'll have more information on the website and we'll keep you posted at these APNIC meetings.

And that's it from me. Any questions?

PAUL WILSON: OK. Thanks, Nurani. That's the end of a series of reports about activities at APNIC departments and some new services and projects. Our thanks to all of the individuals who presented those reports. I'm particularly grateful because if I had to present those reports myself, I don't think I'd be talking any more. Just at the moment, I'm sure you can hear me coughing and spluttering up here. But, if there are any questions, now is the time to ask.

We'll be breaking in a few minutes for morning tea and if there are no questions, I'd just like to mention again the NRO Number Council election, which is under way right at the moment. So every individual who is in the room has an entitlement to vote using one of these forms and if you don't have a form or you didn't receive one for any reason, then please see the Secretariat staff out the front.

We have four candidates and this election is to select one of the candidates to sit on the Number Council. As you probably know, by sitting on the NRO Number Council, that person becomes a member of the Address Council within the ICANN structure and so that's the structure which provides the policy advice on IP addressing to ICANN and which is directly involved in the process of establishing global policies within the ICANN framework for IP addressing. Now we have four candidates. I'd like to provide the opportunity for any of those candidates to speak to the audience prior to the vote. So let's see if I can bring those up on the screen. We have anyone in the room who would like to speak. It's quite traditional that you have the opportunity to do so here at the meeting. So Hyun-Joon.

HYUN-JOON KWON: Thank you, Paul. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Hyun-joon Kwon from the National Internet Development Agency in Korea. Actually, I joined this Internet community, like, five years ago and I started my career from the Korea Network Information Center as a manager. At that time, I worked on the service and also I managed all their procedures and after that, I joined the international peerage team to involve the ICANN activities. So I know so many stuffs over the Internet governance and domain issues. So currently I'm the manager of the IP management team of the Korea Network Information Center.

So here I am standing again and I want to be elected to the NC. And then, if I am elected, I will do a sincere job for the Asia Pacific community. And then, I will try to transfer Asia Pacific's voice to the global policy. So I am here and thank you for listening and thank you very much.

APPLAUSE

PAUL WILSON: Thank you.

There are three other candidates who appear not to be in the room.

I'm showing here on the screen the Number Council election webpage which is easily accessible from the meeting website. And so that biographical details and nomination details on each of those candidates is there on the website for you to review.

As the instructions on the form, on the ballot paper indicate, you are asked to pick just a single candidate by placing a single X in the chosen box.

And please don't select more than one and try to avoid any ambiguous markings or anything that might make that vote ineligible. The voting will be closing, I believe, at the end of lunchtime, so you have between now and 2 pm to think about your vote and to cast the vote. There should be a ballot box outside the room where you can deposit the vote. I'll mention as well that there is online voting going on as well which I believe is still open until 2 pm. It's just been pointed out to me that the ballot box at the moment is at the front of the room in this big red perspex box here.

What we will need when the ballot closes is a small group of scrutineers, independent of APNIC staff of course, who can volunteer to help with that. So if you're interested, I'll call for those volunteers when we come back from lunch and ask you to assemble. In fact, I'll call for those volunteers, I'm sorry, before lunch, and ask you to assemble during lunch to consider how to go about the vote counting and you can get started on doing that during the afternoon and I do hope we have enough volunteers just to make that an easy task. Are there any questions about the voting procedure?

Any questions about anything that I've mentioned here?

OK, then. As I mentioned, the APNIC staff are willing and available to help if you do have any questions about this matter or anything else of course during the day and I think it's time now that we break for our morning tea for the next half an hour and, according to the agenda, we should be back in the room here by 11am please for the next round of reports so thank you very much and have a pleasant morning tea.

Annual Member Meeting - Session Two
11:00-12:30


PAUL WILSON: Okay, let's get back into it. The next report is from the APNIC Executive Council, then the Address Council and then some reports back from the sessions during the last few days. The election ballot box has been moved to the front of the room, so this is where you drop your ballot papers and you can vote now, any time up until 2p.m. at the latest. I will hand directly over to Akinori Maemura for his accounts report.

AKINORI MAEMURA: Good morning, my name is Akinori Maemura, I'm the chair for the APNIC Executive Council. I'm bring you the APNIC EC report. This gentlemans are the current EC members. Gentlemen, please stand up to present your faces to the members. I'm Akinori Maemura from Japan, Che-Hoo Cheng, the secretary, Kuo-Wei Wu, the treasurer, Billy Moo-Ho Choen from Korea, Mr Ma Yan from China, Vinh Ngo from Vietnam. In case of the name - Cheng is the first name. If you have any questions or comments for the APNIC and, especially for the policies issues or some business issues, please come to the members and the EC members are willing to answers the questions or comments.

Main functions of APNIC EC is the listed here. Interim decisions between membership meetings. Oversight of the activities of APNIC. We concerned about the policy issues and the APNIC strategy. Also, establish the basis of the budget for the membership approval. Also endorse the policy consensus towards implementation.

We have six EC meetings since March 2006 when we have the previous APNIC meeting. Actually, we missed one member, one monthly meeting in June due to the schedule of the EC members' schedule. They met in the one date, so we skipped it. We had six meetings consequently from that since previous meeting. The minutes are available on the APNIC web, so if you have any concerns or interested in the topics we are discussions about, please visit the APNIC web to browse it.

Financial status. Every EC monthly conference we have the financial reports from the Secretariat, Irene and Paul. We monthly monitor expenses and cashflow and also the asset status. This year, 2006, we are running quite balanced budget, which is presented in the previous APNIC meeting. The current financial status quite good. We have the less expenses than expected. Also, a bit less revenue than expected. But the total revenue and expenses surplus is a bit more than expected so far. We think it is quite stable situation. So we have membership fee discussion and, of course, APNIC issue is quite concerned about that. Originally, the membership fee issue was an issue for the NIRs. NIRs have to pay the fee on allocation to members. Currently we have bigger and bigger allocation size to pass to the NIRs. The fees are extraordinarily big per month, so it has a very big problem. We started to think long term and a better-fit solution. Finally, the membership fee discussion included the membership fee change and the modification also for the ordinary membership.

Right now, the mailing list at wg-apnic-fees@apnic.net. We invite you to join the mailing list to have your voice included in discussions for the fees. We are still, the discussion is still ongoing. We don't have any quite finalised proposal. So in this membership meeting, in this APNIC member meeting, later we have the fee discussion session to introduce you and present you some proposals and discussion status. So you can have the status of the fee discussion. So please don't hesitate to present your opinion. Then that opinion will be included in the discussions.

Okay, the policy endorsement is the one of the major functions of the APNIC EC. We have one policy proposal to reach consensus, which is prop-032-v002. It was reached in March, it was confirmed as a consensus and we, APNIC, endorsed the proposal in July.

ICANN/NRO status. The contract between ICANN and NRO is ongoing. Also, NRO incorporation is ongoing. Regarding the NRO, we have the coordination between ICANN AC and council, which is also member council. Every time we have APNIC meetings, we have the onsite meeting between EC and ICANN. Also we have joint mailing list for that communication. As you may know, EC appoints one council member out of three. This time, Mao Wei from CNNIC is the EC appointment for the entire 2006.

On-line voting. We already approved to go with the on-line voting and on-line voting is already in use from the previous meeting. This time, on-line voting is used for NRO and NC election from the APNIC members who are not here. Still, the number of the electronic vote is not so big so we encourage APNIC members to use on-line voting more.

Okay, APNIC 23. It is conducted with APRICOT 2007. It is to be held from February 27 to March 2 in Bali, Indonesia. So I reported in the previous meeting that Bali has the little bit of security alert, as in the case of Japan may be, as in other countries. So that is a concern for the EC members. So to ask you for your participation, because in some cases, if the security alert is raised, then business trips are not to be approved. But right now, APNIC is concerned about that with the Secretariat. APNIC Secretariat with APIA board went to Bali for the on-site check for the security situation. We have already had a report from them about that issue. Then we know that security enhancement is quite good in the meeting venue and we are now getting more and more confident for that issue. So, we will keep you informed, so please come to APRICOT 2007. APNIC 24 is to be held in September 2007 after the APRICOT 2007. Hosting city is to be announced later today. We have already determined where that is held.

Member survey. APNIC sometimes conducts the membership survey and it is, again, time for conducting another membership survey. It is agreed to do it on a regular basis. Membership survey. It is present after this. Thank you very.

I recall, I have important thing missed. Finally, we have the VoIP teleconference system for the EC meetings. That was used for the first time in August. So it is working for reducing the cost for the conferences because EC telephone conference needs to call between Brisbane, Australia to China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan, and so on. So that costs much for such an international call, but VoIP IP telephone conference eliminates the costs. So it is very good. It is a very good news for APNIC business. Thank you.

So if you have any questions, I'm ready to answer.

PAUL WILSON: Okay, thank you very much. While Kenny is coming up, I would just like to say thank you, and present you with a small gift. Thank you very much. So the next report is Kenny Huang with the ASO AC report. The list of reports from now on is on the screen here. I would ask the speakers to be ready. I'll change the order here and Kenny can stay on.

KENNY HUANG: Okay, good morning. My name is Kenny Huang. I'm the representative from Asia Pacific for address council member. Mao Wie is not here. Hyun-joon Kwon from Korea and myself.

Who is the Address Council? It is the Number Resource Policy Advisory Body.

How is it organised? We have 15 members, three from each region. Two elected at large, one appointed by RIR board. RIR and ICANN observers. Terms of office in two years is staggered.

What does it do? Including advise ICANN board, select ICANN board members and also elect ICANN non-committee member. We have regular telephone conference meeting every month and also we conduct two physical meetings every year. This year including one in Istanbul and another in December in San Paolo. There are the five members from the regions, you can check it from the web site.

Some key issues including the global policy allocation of IPv6 address space. The document describes policy governing the allocation of IPv6 address space from the IANA to the regional Internet registries. The main points of proposal are the unit of IPv6 allocation. The IANA will allocate sufficient IPv6 address space to the RIRs to support their registration needs for at least an 18-month period. The IANA allow for the RIRs to apply their own respective allocation strategies. RIR have adopted a second 4 of this proposal.

Last one, in June 2006, it was submitted to the ASOAC by EC and adopted by ASOAC on 12 July 2006. It was submitted to ICANN for comments. Regarding this proposal, address council opinion is well crafted policy that fulfils the real need to govern IPv6 address allocation at the very highest level in a manner that ensures sufficient space will be allocated to all regions. Right now it is process of decision making and hopefully it will be good news to announce later.

Another key issue is to select ICANN board member in compliance with the ASOMO, RU and ICANN bylaws, the address council hereby called for nominations to the ICANN board to fill the ASO seat in 2000 TWIX. So on 3 May, ASOAC selected David Wodelet to serve a three-year term to begin in June 2006.

ASOAC procedure for processing global policy. This document specifies the procedures to be used by the ASO address council. It will guide ASOAS to deal with proposals. It has been finished. The ASOAC recommends that the NRO accepts it as a region. Other activities of ASO can be referred to the web site.

Thank you, I'm happy to answer any questions.

AXEL PAWLIK: I have read my mail this morning and David has sent a mail to the EC that the board has adopted the policy.

KENNY HUANG: Congratulations.

PAUL WILSON: Thank you, that's good news. Okay, while we are - if there are no other questions or other good news, then the next session is for the reporting back from the sessions of the meeting APOPS, SIG and BoF report. Since Kenny is here we will take the order slightly differently and start talking about the policy SIG. Sorry, Philip. But this, since Kenny is up here we will do this.

KENNY HUANG: That's fine, I can come back in.

PAUL WILSON: Well, it's a longish report.

KENNY HUANG: Okay, Kenny Huang again, I'm the chair of policy SIG. We are running the 14th policy SIG report. Basically here is the some basic introduction regarding the policy, you can check it from the web site and here just very brief introduction. Basically we have a discussion and go to the public forum for discussion. Once we have consensus, is it what we are doing right now, if we have consensus from the AMN we will call for discussion for an eight-week period. After that, it was endorsed by the council and it will be adopted by APNIC within three months. That is the policy process. So that's a list for the whole history that we run in the policy SIG. We are going to 14 policy SIGs.

Address policy SIG agenda. Starting from review action items and we have policy update and proposal-037, depreciation of e-mail updates and database. And proposal-033, modified lame DNS policy. 0-39, a proposal to improve reachability of the IANA blocks. Proposal -035, and -034, IPv6 portable assignment for end-user organisation. 0-36, proposal to allow end sites to receive IPv6 allocations. 0-33, end-site assignment policy for IPv6. -031, assignment size to critical infrastructure. Large-space IPv4 trial usage program for future IPv6 development activities update. And the last one is experiment assignment for byte AS numbers. We have 17 in Jabber chat. Total together, we have eight policy proposal that, really a lot of policy proposal and we have for four informational presentation.

We start from proposal 0-37, depreciation of e-mail updates for APNIC registry and Whois data presented by Terry Manderson. Basically, it covers the secretariat to phase out e-mail updates of registry and data. Unfortunately, they didn't reach consensus at the OPM and proposed an alternative compromise. The secretariat to call for the formation of a working group. Shin Yamasaki volunteered to chair the group.

Next one, 0-38, modified lame DNA policy proposal also presented by Manderson man. The proposal to make an editorial update to the definition of lameness for the APNIC lame.

Next one, 0-39. A proposal to improve reachability of new IANA blocks presentated by Tomoya Yoshida. Consensus reached to have the debogonising pilot project. The costs will require further investigation of the APNIC staff. The proposal covers four components, four sub-proposals, the first one making the rule on IPv6 and we didn't reach consensus of the proposal. The second, applying for IPv6 as well as v4, we have consensus. More collaboration between RIRs and ISPs, we reached consensus.

Last one, sharing the information for all RIRs, we also reached consensus. The chair to refer the relevant parts of proposal to 0-39 to reach consensus.

Proposal 035, IPv6 portable assignment for multihoming and this proposal presented by Tomama-san and we also have another very similar proposal, proposal 0-34 IPv6 portable assignment for end-user organisations presented by Jordi Palet. There are a lot of places quite similar so we just discussed together. We do have consensus for APNIC to have IPv6 portable assignment for multihoming purpose.

Starting for 035, IPv6 portable assignment for multihoming including assignment to multi homed end sites and assignment size /48.

Regarding 034, IPv6 portable assignment for end-user organisation, assignment size through, assigned to end sites, the proposal did not reach consensus.

036, proposal to allow end sites to receive allocations. The proposal to allow for end-site allocation, remove the need to have a plan to make 248 in two years. It did not consensus.

Proposal 033, end-site assignment policy for IPv6. Including end-site assignment is a matter for LIRISP to determine. If they want to continue to use only /48s, that is their decision. HD ratio is based on 56 unit equivalents. The proposal reached consensus.

Last proposal, 031, IPv6 assignment size to critical infrastructure presented by Save Vocea. Amend text of existing IPv6 policy document. Modify the statement to maximum assignment made is 0/32 per operators. The proposal reached consensus at OPM.

We have four informational presentations. Sorry, too many proposals. The first one comment from JP on end-site allocation policy for IPv6 proposal 033. Feedback from the community about these issues.

Second, IP policy update, comparative status in all RIR regions.

Third one, large space IPv4 trial usage program for future IPv6 deployment activities. Presented by Takashi-san from council in Japan.

The last presentation, experimental assignment for 4-byte AS numbers presented by Maemura-san. We have two actions, the action one, chair to refer proposal 037 to mailing list for further discussion.

Action two, Secretariat to call for the formation of a working group to further discussion proposal 033. Shin Yamasaki volunteered to chair the working group. We have two action items.

So, next step, we need to seek consensus from AMM.

PAUL WILSON: Just before we go straight into that, I will mention, as I generally do at this point, the role of the members meeting in the policy process is to accept by consensus the decisions or recommendations of the individual policy SIGs. This is a chance to review and accept, or not, the consensuses of the SIGs. So what we will do is go through each of these proposals and seek consensus.

Now there should also be an opportunity, if there is an opportunity now for questions or discussion about any of these, and I think the thing to do would be to go through them in order with any discussion, any questions and then the step of, in each case, endorsing the proposal or not, as the case may be, by consensus of this meeting.

I think we should start with the top, start at the top and that is proposal -038, which is modified lame DNS policy proposal. If Kenny - if you would like to comment on this or if there are any questions, then please let's have them.

KENNY HUANG: Actually, I have the slide, can go back to previous slide, or if have previous we can just ask question.

PAUL WILSON: In that case, can I ask for an indication of those who support the SIG on this policy proposal. The consensus was to accept the modified lame DNA policy proposal. Could you please raise your hand if you will accept and support the consensus decision on this proposal?

I would like to ask you to raise your hand quite high, if you are raising your hand just so the committee can see.

Is there anyone who will, who opposes the policy proposal?

I think we have a consensus, but not an overwhelming one, though.

So, is it possible that something about the process is not clear? Kenny, maybe we should go back to the policy process slide.

RICHARD JIMMERSON: Paul, this is Richard Jimmerson. There are a number of people in the room who are not allowed to vote as part of the membership. There is a portion of the people in the room who cannot vote, including myself, as an RIR member.

PAUL WILSON: RIR members and staff generally don't participate in the consensus decisions or our RIR meetings. Because this is the member meeting, there is a general expectation that members who are passing judgments in these cases, although I'm not sure if we have ever said that others in this meeting are not allowed to vote. I don't think it is in the rule book actually, but Richard, thanks for raising the point. The diagram here on the screen shows the steps in the policy process. Would you like to explain them again, Kenny?

KENNY HUANG: Okay, we start from the beginning. Once we have proposal policy or amendment, then we can have some discussion. We do have face-to-face discussion in the public forum. Okay. So that's how we did it yesterday. Once we have consensus, we report the SIG to the AMM and once we reach consensus, as we are doing now, call for public comment for eight weeks. So if you don't have time or you don't have comment to make right now, you have eight weeks for public comment. After eight weeks, the chair and co-chair will decide a consensus reached or not reached in the mailing list. Moving to the EC, and EC will ratify the final proposal. Once we decide the policy, it will implement by APNIC in three months.

PAUL WILSON: Thanks, Kenny. As Kenny mentioned, we are at the point, having had detailed discussions in the SIG meetings this week, the results of those meetings have been presented back to the APNIC membership for endorsement by the membership, this is your chance as APNIC members to raise any problem if you see a particular membership-related problem, a business problem, something that might not have been considered, it is your opportunity to raise that issue or otherwise to support the consensus of the SIG, which has addressed the issue in detail. As Kenny said, there is a further opportunity for members and members of the broad community to review and discuss the policy proposals as the time goes on over eight weeks before the final result is determined. I hope that is clear.

What we have is a small number of people who supported the consensus, indicated their agreement with the consensus at the SIG on the lame DNA policy and no-one in opposition. So I would suggest we have a consensus here on that particular question.

We should move on to the next policy proposal. The next one is proposal -039 which is the proposal to improve reachability of the new IANA blocks, the debogonising activity which has been under way at the Secretariat.

This was something that was agreed by consensus at the policy SIGs. Could I ask the meeting to show support by raising your hand. Thank you very much.

If you oppose the decision, please raise your hand. Thank you very much, that is clear.

The next proposal which was approved by consensus of the policy SIG was -035, the IPv6 portable assignment policy for multihoming. Are there any questions or comments about that proposal?

KAZU YAMAMOTO: If we have progress, routable increasing, I like to make expiration date for this proposal, three years or so and we don't know, we do not survey multihoming at this moment, so I would like to review this proposal after, you know, for example, three years or so.

PAUL WILSON: Okay, thank you, the suggestion was the proposal should be reviewed after three years. This is not in my mind, this is not proposing an alteration to the policy, it is proposing that some time down the track that the policy would be reviewed. I suggest that is something that happens within the normal policy process so we can continue to consider this as a policy proposal for endorsement here. Take that as a future step. It is difficult if there are actually modifications to policy proposals presented here because those modifications should really come up during the detailed discussions with the SIGs.

Sam, I trust we have not having any comments or discussions from web?

Okay, so this proposal was approved by consensus of the SIG for portable assignment for IPv6 sites. I would like you to raise your hand if you supported the consensus of the SIG. Thank you very much. If you oppose that consensus? Thank you, that is clear as well.

Moving along, proposal -033 was for the end-site allocation or assignment to be policy for IPv6 presented by Geoff Huston and Randy Bush. Are there any comments or questions about this one? This was the policy to allow ISPs to choose to make longer assignments if they wished to, longer prefixed assignments, that is, a smaller assignment than the standard /48.

Okay, could I ask you to raise your hand if you support the consensus of the SIG? Thank you very much. If you oppose this consensus of the SIG? That one also is approved. Thank you.

The final proposal, I think, unless there is another page, the last one, is to do with IPv6, the size of IPv6 assignments to critical structure, this was presented by Save. It was passed by consensus of the SIG. Would you please raise your hand if you support the policy? Thank you very much. If you oppose the consensus of the SIG on this question? Okay, thank you very much.

That means that we have, in every case of these policy proposals, they have been passed by consensus of the member meeting in addition to the SIG and they will now go to the eight-week comment period on. Consensus of this meeting can be overturned by substantial objections or problems raised on the mailing list. It is up to the chair of the SIG and the EC after that eight-week comment period to assess any discussions or objections and determine whether or not the consensus on the policy proposals in each cases stands.

So, thank you, I think that is the end of the report for the policy SIG.

So thanks to Kenny. I would like to comment that this was a very busy policy SIG agenda. We were all concerned, as it had done in the past, it would run overtime with so many proposals and so many policies to consider, but, it ran very well on track, it had some interesting discussion and in every case, and I think it was chaired extremely well by the chair. So, thanks very much to Kenny and to the co-chairs of the policy SIG.

Now Philip, it is your turn to report from the APOPS session. APOPS was given a special new role in the APNIC 22 meeting this year, it was a much longer session than usual and it contained all the operational content.

PHILIP SMITH: OK. Not quite afternoon yet. Good morning, everybody. I'm Philip Smith. I'm basically reporting here about the activities of the APOPS session, which formed part of the APNIC program.

APOPS - a little bit of background - is the Asia Pacific Operators Forum. It started off as a mailing list many, many years ago, has been a BoF session as part of recent APNIC meetings and APRICOT conferences, probably for about the last three years or so. And as an experiment, we thought we would try and include it as part of the main APNIC conference program, the idea being that we would take operational or generally interesting operational content from the different special interest groups and combine it into a single-track program which everybody could listen to.

Some of the feedback that certainly some of us had got as SIG chairs was that the conflicts between the SIGs, between the parallel sessions, meant that people couldn't go and listen to everything they wanted to go and listen to.

So to try and help with solving this, we had this suggestion of setting up a kind of single track, which covered all the operational content.

So we had basically three sessions which were the result of this merger. Before - I should say when the call for the conference went out, for the APNIC meeting went out, we did a general call for contributions to participate in the APOPS forum. Rather than Hideo Ishii, my co-chair, and myself sitting down and working through the contributions, actually the whole group of the SIG chairs participated in the search for content, looking at the abstracts for contributions and so forth. So it was very much a group effort to try and pull this event together.

As a result of APOPS happening this week, the routing, IX, DNS and database SIGs didn't actually meet and some people have expressed concern over the last two or three months that, oh, well, maybe these SIGs don't exist any more. I will assure you that the SIGs very much do exist and they will meet at the next APNIC meeting, which is part of APRICOT, in February.

But, as I say, this one was very much an experiment to see what would happen and how it would work.

So on Wednesday, the first session was pretty much an introduction with me giving the same explanation that I've given now.

Then we had three presentations on redundant Internet service provision from Kae Hsu of Seednet. Then we had a presentation from China Telecom, Shengyong Ding, about building an IP network management system for the next-generation network. We then had a look at the effects of Botnets, specifically from SoftbankBB's point of view and the impact on their infrastructure in Japan.

In the afternoon, we had another experiment. One of the things that the APNIC Secretariat and the SIG chairs have been looking at is how to improve participation from across the region and SEAMEWE-4 was a very, very big event for Bangladesh. This was a new fibre system that was installed last year. Bangladesh up to now had only had satellite Internet access and for those of you who know what that means, you can appreciate the difference that having fibre access for the first time ever will make.

So Sumon couldn't actually make it to come to here in Taiwan so we suggested that he might like to give his presentation over video. So, in fact, we pre-recorded the presentation along with the slide show and the merged result, thanks to the APNIC Secretariat, is what we presented as the first presentation on Wednesday afternoon. And I think it went pretty well. I think it was a successful experiment. And hopefully, in future APNIC meetings, we'll see other people take the opportunity of - even if they cannot physically attend, they can record their presentation for display as part of the APOPS and other sessions.

After Sumon, we had an update from Amante basically describing activities of getting a Philippines network operations group going as well as the first, I suppose, free public Internet Exchange point in the Philippines.

After Amante, Gaurab presented work that he and a including had been doing looking at AS paths or at least some of the interesting aspects of AS paths from their view of the different routing tables that they receive. Some anomalies were pointed out. I was happy to see that one of the anomalies pointed out was fixed there and then and that's an indicator to me that this is actually a useful tool for the industry. So we look forward to better things happening coming out of this research work.

Merike finished off the second session of APOPS, basically taking a walk through IPv6, having a look to see what does and what doesn't quite work yet from the perspective of an existing service provider operator, so looking at the things that are still required from an operational network point of view to make v6 deployment a reality.

The final session in the afternoon, we started off with having a look at the routing system again, so the routing certification project update from Geoff, followed by a route origination authorisation project looking at the IRR from Taiji Kimura of JPNIC. Then back into security. The morning session about Botnets drew a huge amount of question and answer - I was actually quite happy to see that. At these meetings, traditionally people are quite quiet, happy to just listen to presentations. The Botnet presentation produced a lot of discussion. I was hoping for the same thing with the final two presentations but I guess the long day had made people really tired. Merike's presentation about current ISP security practices, again, was fascinating, but nobody had any questions for her. So I guess everybody knows what she was talking about and is doing everything as she has suggested.

The time presentation about preventing denial of service attacks using IP source address spoofing from Yoshinobu Matsuzaki from IIJ, again a very interesting and useful presentation for service providers to consider.

So that was actually quite a long day for us, three sessions in a row. And from a suggestion from the floor - of course, we had a break after the APOPS before we headed into the lightning talks prior to the social event and in that break, we actually used the opportunity to have a small community discussion.

We found that, from the floor, we actually had quite good support for the new format. Everybody who stood up at the microphone appreciated what they had seen, thought it was a really good thing to carry on. Nobody said, "This was a really, really bad idea." So I'm actually quite encouraged that we made a good move with this experiment. So I'm actually hoping that this - the member meeting here will allow us to carry on with this particular format. And maybe we can use this as sombre development for the future APNIC meetings.

Some of the statistics - the first session we had 100 attendees. The second session, after lunch, we saw 60 attendees. Clearly the lunches here are very, very good, so good that people can't actually make it back into the room.

APPLAUSE

So we had that drop in attendees. 60, I guess, was the average number. The third session, we were almost back up to our morning number, with 90 attendees. And we had a total of 25 different participants on Jabber as well, which was encouraging to see also.

So that was the APOPS portion.

We then had lightning talks. This was another experiment. This meeting has been full of experiments. Are there any experiments today, Paul? I'm sure we should do some more, because we've had lots.

So this is the lightning talks. This was an experiment, as I said. The idea behind a lightning talk was to allow participants in the meeting to come up, have some time to talk about, I suppose, the hot news or some really recent things they've been working on or interesting things they've been working on that missed the APNIC conference call deadline. The deadline closed, I think, it was 8th of August. I mean that's - if you're working in the operational community, that's what? A good month before the actual APNIC meeting. But if something has happened between then and now and you want to talk about it with your peers, you've no opportunity, really, to do so. So the lightning talks is an opportunity for people with these late subjects to come and discuss them.

The presentations are short. I mean 'lightning' tends to mean 'fast'. So they're short presentations on current issues. Generally what we did for this one we said maximum of ten minutes including Q&A. Nobody used up their ten minutes. The longest presentation was six, the shortest was three. So the speakers certainly fitted into the concept.

We had said at the start no slides were needed, but people did actually produce slides and some of the feedback we had afterwards was that slides would actually be greatly preferred because we have such a mixture of native and non-native English speakers here so reading the slides would be a lot simpler. Looking at the talks we had.

Ryan Connolly from Team Cymru presented what Team Cymru get up to.

Akinori Maemura talked about the JANOG activities.

Shinji Morikawa talked about the traffic trends in JPNAP.

Xing Li talked about the IPv6 source address validation architecture that he is organising.

Gaurab gave a summary of the last SANOG conference held in Pakistan.

We had 60 participants in the room. One thing you notice about the title - it says 17:45 to 18:15. We started the lightning talks right after we had the community discussion and that's why we had 60 participants because pretty much everyone stayed on after the end of the APOPS session. That caught some people out, I do apologise, because the agenda said six o'clock and we finished about 6:15. I'm sorry about that but given everyone was here and very few people had left, we thought we'd carry on. And it gave people more time to prepare for the social event.

There were six people on the Jabber chatroom for the duration of the lightning talks.

When the talks had finished, we had a short discussion. Again, the feedback from the floor was that people were happy about this. They thought it was a good idea. I think we should probably try and do this again. Certainly from an APRICOT point of view, we intend to do this for APRICOT.

A bit of background - lightning talks were presented by NZNOG. There they are incredibly informal. People go out of the room, get a beer, come back and have a chat about something. It is highly informal. I'm not quite sure we can be quite as informal as this but I don't know - I am open to suggestions.

We also had a suggestion that it might be a good idea if the stenographers stay with us to help with the lightning talks. One of the advantages of the main meeting is the slides are all prepared beforehand. But when people have one slide and talk for ten minutes, it's probably not useful for the non-native English-speakers which most of you are. So I agree with that comment. I'd like the stenographers to be available the next time around.

And that's my report. Thank you.

PAUL WILSON: Thanks, Philip.

Any questions or comments about APOPS, particularly about the new program?

I think judging by the numbers, it could be considered a resounding success. So unless we hear otherwise, I think we will entrust the program committee of this meeting - that is Philip as one of the SIG chairs and the other SIG chairs - with continuing to develop this sort of operational session, the operational content of the APNIC meeting. And continuing this success.

Thank you, Philip.

Before you go... (presents gift to Philip)

Next we have Izumi to talk about the NIR SIG. After Izumi, we'll have Kazu to talk about IPv6 and then Cecil to talk about the training and education BoF. If there were any other BoFs that happened during the week and anyone would like to report on those - I know there was a whisky BoF at one point. That was an informal event. I don't think anyone will report on that. I think there's been a regular Hello Kitty BoF up in Samantha's room on a regular basis. I don't know if you'll report on that, Sam? No? OK.

OK so it's NIR, IPv6 and then training and education. Thanks, Izumi.

IZUMI OKUTANI: Good morning. My name is Izumi Okutani and I'm going to report about what we discussed in NIR SIG which was held yesterday afternoon. And I chair this session with David Chen from TWNIC.

And for those of you who are not very aware of what our SIG is about, it actually initially started as a BoF to discuss about NIR-related matters and it used to be participants used to be close to NIRs as well as APNIC. But some people mentioned that they might be interested to, you know, participate in these kind of sessions, even if they're not NIRs, so it became a SIG and so the name itself might hake it sound as though it's specialised for NIRs, but it's actually open to everybody.

And just to give you an overview. It was initially planned for - the session was initially planned for 1.5 hours, but we always have really intense discussions and it was extended for 30 minutes. So we had the session for two hours.

The attendees was roughly 35 people. It was quite small and a nice number to discuss. It would have been nice if we had more participants this time because we discussed about NIR activities as well as APNIC - as well as the review on the APNIC fee structure. So the agenda this time was three updates from NIRs on their activities and four presentations on the review of APNIC fee structure. And you can see the detailed agenda on the URL listed here.

To introduce how the updates were - we had updates from CNNIC, TWNIC and IDNIC and CNNIC provided some statistics on their membership and the allocations they make within China and also regarding the ERX historical address space. They are starting to take this procedure to transfer the membership from APNIC into CNNIC to, you know, make the management of those historical address space better. And also because of the trends in IPv4 address exhaustion, CNNIC has made some estimations on how much address space would be needed in China in the near future. And, according to the estimates, they expect it to require about 10 to 15 - oh, sorry. Somehow I've listed /15 here, but it's supposed to be /8s by the end of 2012. It's a quite huge number.

And then we move on to an update from TWNIC. And TWNIC introduced that there are two new staff in IP department and David Chen, who had been working in IP department, has now moved to - became the director of international department, but he will continue to be with us and chair the SIG. And TWNIC also introduced about their own Open Policy Meeting, which was held in June this year. And they - it consists from the policy SIG and routing SIG.

And then IDNIC introduced that they have changed their name from APJII to IDNIC and then introduced about their OPM which they have held five times so far. And also they are planing to start an agent service for small multihomed assignments.

Then we moved on to the discussion on the review of the APNIC fee structure. The discussion was based on what's been - well, it's not a formal proposal but the proposal document from the APNIC Secretariat. 'APNIC Membership Fee Structure Proposal version 1.1' which is posted on the agenda. And each NIRs have presented their positions, comments, questions, for this paper. And in addition to this, two other alternative models of fee structure other than this one presented by the APNIC Secretariat has been presented. One is an idea from APNIC Executive Council and the second one was from JPNIC. And I believe the details will be discussed later in this session on the fee structure - APNIC fee structure discussions at AMM, so I won't go too much into details here.

But the major comments we received on the floor regarding the fee structure was that a consideration for the discount on the developing countries which was mentioned on the mailing list. And if the discount will be applied, to what extent? As a lot of the economies in the AP region will be categorised as 'developing' economies. So if we give too much discount to all those economies, then, you know, we need to balance out the revenue of APNIC. So this will be an issue to be considered.

And then, the second point was that one of the reasons for fee revision this time was to take into consideration fluctuations in exchange rates and inflations and a suggestion was made that the new fee structure should be somehow able to absorb these changes and that should be reflected into the fee structure. Otherwise, we will probably need a revision in the fee structure in a few years again.

And the third point was that - I think this was a comment for one of the slides that was introduced at the session, comparing the expenses - no, what NIRs pay to APNIC compared to the regular members and the address holdings of NIRs and the APNIC members as a whole. And it seemed to reflect that NIRs pay a smaller portion of the fee than the APNIC members, while they hold quite a large portion of address space. And it was pointed out that NIRs' operational cost is not reflected in this graph, so this should be taken into consideration when designing the fee model.

And the third point was that - maybe this is a little bit too much into details for the rest of you, but NIRs' pool and NIR members' pool is categorised separately in APNIC, what's been drafted, so that shouldn't be considered separately and it should be combined together as the same fee category.

And the outcome of the discussions were that, since they were not formal proposals, they from were just discussion papers for, you know, for the sake of discussions, and several models were presented, so no conclusion in particular to support a single model. So we will try to continue discussions on the mailing list. And there was a comment that, although we do already have a fee working group mailing list, there's no-one to chair and drive the discussions. So a suggestion was made to call for the volunteer at AMM later today to chair for a fee working group for the fee working group. So APNIC Secretariat will call for this later. And that's an action item from our SIG.

That's all.

And then, although this was not presented in the SIG, I felt that, you know, we had discussion in NIR SIG but in the last APNIC meeting, we had a BoF called 'special session for APNIC fee review' or something like that. So it might be good to have some continual BoF or session in the next meeting, specialised for the fee session so that people will be easier to participate, rather than NIRs. That's just an idea.

And that's all from me and, well, thank you very much for all the presenters at the SIG and those who participated in the discussions.

PAUL WILSON: Thanks, Izumi. Are there any questions?

There is a special session about the fee structure after lunch so there'll be some more time for questions and discussion if you'd like to think about it between now and then. I'm sure your contributions would be welcome. And thanks, Izumi, for the SIG chairing.

APPLAUSE

Next we have the IPv6 SIG.

KAZU YAMAMOTO: Hello. This is Kazu Yamamoto.

Since my notebook is broken, it randomly shut down, so I asked Fujisaki-san to use his laptop. OK?

Now, the APOPS committee received many presentation proposals on IPv6 and some of them are purely informational, so we decided to have IPv6 Technical SIG.

Let me present what happened yesterday.

First, statistics - about 50 attendance and eight people in the chatroom, OK? And we have no action items. And we had six informational presentations.

OK. First presentation was from George Kuo, APNIC. This is a semi-annual report from APNIC and he showed us statistics and IPv6 allocation keeps growing. That is very good. And also this time he provided a new survey from APNIC members of what are the obstacles against IPv6 deployment. And one of the answers is there is no application as we can guess.

The second presentation from Geoff Huston. He talked about phasing out of the 6Bone. Roughly speaking, 6Bone phaseout succeeded but some routing information still remains, unfortunately.

Next two presentations were about the multi-prefix environment. Marla talked about multi-prefix, multi-linked environment. And she is looking for solutions and she needs input from the community. So if you have any solutions for multi-homing, please send a message to her. Probably the things we discussed in the Policy SIG could be a solution.

Next presentation from Kanayama-san. He talked about multi-prefix but single-link environment. And he showed a solution for this environment which, you know, showed a source address section and next-hop search and that is very good.

Well, last two presentations is about deployment status, one is in Japan and one is in Taiwan. And in both countries, there is good applications are coming, so that is very good news.

OK. That's it.

PAUL WILSON: Thanks, Kazu.

That's the end of the SIG reports. And I think we appear to have just one BoF report and Cecil will be talking about that. It was a special training and education BoF for those of us at this meeting interested in that particular topic.

CECIL GOLDSTEIN: Better luck with a PC.

OK, at this meeting, we thought that it might be a good idea to hold a session where we could essentially discuss training and training needs. And the most appropriate forum that seemed available for this was to hold a BoF.

The background to this is that our objectives were essentially to communicate, to present training proposals and initiatives and receive feedback and discussion and of course also to use the opportunity to demonstrate our eLearning and to go into more detail and then we might have had the launch in other forums as well.

Unfortunately, I think the BoF suffered from the problem of being scheduled at 8.00 to 9.00 on the Thursday evening, by which stage I think most participants were fairly worn out. Participation was low. However, I do appreciate the effort that those people who made to attend did make and I hope that they benefit from the discussion, even though there wasn't a great deal of perhaps interaction, I think part of that was due to the fact that we held it in a very large venue with a small number of people.

However, as I said, there were questions. And they raised some concerns, which we will hopefully be able to explain and to allay.

The timing of online teaching events was queried, bearing in mind that there are time differences and of course in this respect we are aware of it and we will time any eye vents to coincide with the appropriate time period at the venue or the location where this is intended for. If we were to deliver at a number of venues simultaneously, we would obviously look for an optimal time that suited most people. This might be relatively inconvenient for us but that's all part of the service.

The availability of APNIC introductory information was asked about from a new member and that reflected, "Where can I find information about APNIC processes? About APNIC itself?" and we were able to point them in the right direction, also to point out that one of our core units or one of our core course that is we deliver is in Internet resource management which covers to a large extent what APNIC does and how APNIC does it.

There was a question with regards to any fees that might be levied for eLearning and, at the moment, there are no fees that are going to be levied and, again, as Sall'ee mentioned earlier on, it might be revised depending on the direction that we take.

I'll say more about this in a moment, because it was also some suggestions were raised from the floor with respect to this.

People want today get a little bit more information go how to access eLearning forums in particular, that is the online live events and online live events that are available through eLearning. And there was also a request regarding what needs to be done in order to obtain training from APNIC. And we, obviously, explained the process, which is really one of communication with us letting us know what you need and hearing from us what we can provide.

Now, again, the meeting was fairly low-key, I would have to say. We did have the opportunity to go into detail as far as our proposals go. Immediate response was not perhaps given at the actual BoF itself but in one-to-one conversations and in subsequent and prior discussions, there was a lot of interest expressed in collaborative projects and we will respond to those because I think people are very interested in working more closely with us in serving their particular communities. A common request was for more training events and again this is one of our intentions to the extent that we can provide this. There was also a suggestion that we could help particularly ISPs and NIRs in supporting their clients, which means in trying to work with them in providing some guidance as how to they - as to how they might, sort of, provide information, configuration information, best practice information to their clients.

And the eLearning options that is not really the models that would be available on eLearning but also the concept of web classes, web forums and so on were also raised. One suggestion came up was that access to eLearning should be restricted to members for advanced modules. In other words, we should not go to a great deal of effort and expense to make these facilities available and then have it open to everybody. The suggestion was somewhat moderated in so much as that general modules, modules that reflect what APNIC does and who APNIC is should be generally open and more available but the more advanced modules that focus on technological access should be restricted to access by APNIC members only.

In conclusion, I strongly feel that a meeting of this nature is an ideal forum for communicating and getting some information, feedback, knowledge about what goes on with - in member areas and what members need and what they might request. Perhaps the BoF in this structure is not the most appropriate means. Maybe we should consider a smaller forum which would provide us with a greater level of interaction, perhaps some level of preparation in advance could be of help. Some people would come with ideas and know what ideas we were going to be discussing and how they might be able to respond to this.

So, once again, I do wish to extend my appreciation to the members of the training group who were present and the participating and to everyone else who participated and who have spoken to me about training and their training needs and I sincerely hope that we will be able to respond.

Thank you.

PAUL WILSON: Thank you, Cecil. That's very interesting.

I'm sorry that I wasn't able to come to the BoF but I have to assure you that 20 people at a BoF is pretty good. It's rare they get bigger than that, actually. So I think it's a good start.

CECIL GOLDSTEIN: Well, I'm glad to hear that. Thank you.

PAUL WILSON: On the agenda for this morning there was one more item which is to do with the APNIC member survey. However, we have just hit lunchtime so I think we've got some slack time this afternoon. Perhaps after afternoon tea, to present just very briefly about the APNIC member survey, particularly the next survey that's being conducted. So this time, it seems we're at lunchtime and so I think we can break for lunch now and resume here at 2pm. I'd like to remind you again about voting that it will close sharp at 2pm today so please come to the front desk here where there'll be APNIC staff looking after this red voting box and put your ballot papers in here before it closes at 2 pm. The - I'm thinking allowed here but we also need to have some scrutineers for the vote counting so just before breaking, could I possibly ask for some volunteers, please, to do the counting of the votes for the NC election?

Axel, thank you. Ed, thanks. And Richard. That's ample, I think. You'll have a printout from our online voting system to reconcile and a number of votes here. It shouldn't take too long.

OK, so let's break. I'd suggest that you scrutineers get together outside the door at the beginning of lunch just to work out how you're going to proceed. Let APNIC staff know if you've got any questions and we'll see you back here at 2pm.

Thank you.

Annual Member Meeting - Session Three
14:00-15:30


PAUL WILSON: The election, you last chance to deposit your paper if you haven't put it into the box. If it is now 2pm, then the ballot is now closed.

I'll start off again just with an announcement and some details about the dinner tonight. I know the closing dinner, the informal closing dinner has become a regular feature of APNIC meetings and it is happening tonight as usual. It is an informal event open to anyone. There is cost and if you don't have a ticket you can see APNIC staff for tickets. It is at the Ambassador Hotel. Meet in the lobby at 6.50pm, and there will be a whole batch of taxies to take people to the Ambassador Hotel. The taxies have been paid for already, there is no need for you to pay your taxi fare, unless you need to get it from somewhere else. Please, if you are joining the dinner, please be sure to have a ticket and meet in the lobby at 6.50pm. I'm sorry, I won't be able to attend the dinner, I will be returning home, but I'm sure it will be enjoyable.

For the rest of the afternoon, as discussed, the fee structure session structure session is going to proceed for the next hour, including a proposal regarding allocations to non-member service fees. Then I'll be presenting, again, the proposal about the APNIC membership structure. It is a proposal for discussion, not a proposal for voting.

It was quite consciously brought to the meeting as a possible proposal that might be presented in future but not for voting at this meeting. The reason for presenting it is to look at the types of models we could choose for the next fee structure. Maemura-san will be sharing the session. Then we will have a report about the coming APNIC member survey and, of course, announcements of the election results, a couple of prize draws and things before we close, hopefully prior to 5.30 this afternoon.

There is an open-mic session at the end of the day. But please, feel free to make any contribution and, particularly, the session coming up on the APNIC fee structure is one that should encourage some discussion.

I would like to hand the chair over to Maemura-san.

AKINORI MAEMURA: I have been asked for joining this session. As the program says, first we have Save Vocea to present his proposal for proposition 040, which is for the non-member account management something.

SAVE VOCEA: Hello, my name is Save Vocea. The proposal has been a combined effort of the resource manager and the finance manager, dealing with experiences from handling this account holders.

The motivation is for APNIC to adopt a clearer - to make clearer the service fee interpretations for future requests from the non-network account holders and to reduce the secretariat staff workload administering the non-member accounts.

By definition, non-member account, they could be organisations that have allocation from APNIC but not wanting to join as a member.

Also, as a resource historical resource holders, they do justify the historical resource holders, they sign the statutory declaration and a non-member agreement. By historical resource we mean IPv4 space, ASNs originally obtained from registries such as InterNIC, AUNIC. The registration of these resources have now been transferred and managed by APNIC. There are some who are in the category of having received resource distributed by APNIC before any form of agreement was in place before 1997.

So what was the problem here? Inconsistent fees were charged to non-member account holders, increased staff time administering the billing of 500 plus accounts, and these accounts are increasing. There have been various interpretations on how we will apply the fees. The area of fee collection, if you are offering a service you like to collect fees. There have been insufficient penalties to deter those who are defaulting.

It became a time-consuming process for both the people dealing with the accounts, like the finance department, and also variable bank fees because of the regions, different banks sending in the fees, there were deductions made on that. There was no rewards for early payers of the fees. For some non-member account holders, they received it historically.

There should be some consistent fees applied.

Under the existing framework - we have three columns here. A column for historical resource holders, service and APNIC resource. Currently, the account maintenance to historical resource holders is $100 a year. For the APNIC resource holders it is free because it is part of the IPv4 address maintenance. The ASN maintenance currently charged for historical is $100 year, per maintainer. If they are an APNIC resource holders, it is $50 ASN per year.

Under the IPv4 address maintenance, historical resource holders did not have to pay for any account maintenance, but for APNIC resource holders they pay $819.20. There is another component of the fee, which is the reverse DNS delegation. It has never been applied but we had $50 per zone entry.

What the proposal - what we want to propose is to introduce consistent fees. We have free services on account maintenance if you're historical resource holder pay $50 a year, and for APNIC resource, they also pay $50. It could be settled by credit card and also MyAPNIC access to all accounts. For the service of IPv4 address maintenance, historical resource charged $50 and no charge for APNIC resource. Also, the fee including DNS reversed delegated, historical, $50 per assignment and no charge for APNIC resource. What we propose is no longer have new assignments of new assignments to non-members. The service will be gone.

Another component is to revoke and reclaim resources from defaulters. It is currently done for members if the member doesn't have an opportunity to reclaim the resources.

Effect on APNIC members: no direct effect to them. In the implementation stage, if this is does receive consensus, we would like to implement this as soon as practical, if possible, once endorsed by the executive council. It will also mean modifying the fee level specified in the current level for historical Internet resources. To summarise: the secretariat seeks endorsement to introduce the consistent fee structure in incorporating account keeping and a fee for resources and revoke and reclaim resources from defaulters who do not pay. That is my proposal.

AKINORI MAEMURA: Thank you. Any comments?

GEOFF HUSTON: Did I hear you correctly? No fees to allocations to non-members? In the past, I certainly recall the fact we had services to non-members because, at times, the agency or entity requesting resources was not in a position to execute a membership contract. It was quite willing to abide by the terms conditions and so on of holding a resource under an APNIC allocation, but formally executing a membership agreement was beyond what they could do. This typically applied to agencies inside government spheres. I was wondering if the constraints had disappeared in the interim? It seems a subtle shift, but I'm not sure you can accommodate such agencies in the future if you have an over-arching rule that says non-members don't get new allocations.

PAUL WILSON: The change that is included within this proposal is to do IP addresses only. We have, and will continue, to provide services to non-members and the primary non-member service that is frequently used mostly for the reasons you mentioned is the ASN allocation or assignment service. The IP address assignment service is one that has a rather strange and bizarre fee structure which is rarely, if ever, used at the moment. It is quite out of step with the current approach to non-members. Within, speaking optimistically now, if we are able to establish a new membership fee structure, that makes sense in this regard, then I would suggest that non-member allocations can be made under the same fee structure, but we really do have substantial problems at the moment with consistency across the board of the non-member fee structure that we have. At the moment, it seems easier to defer or to disallow a non-member.

GEOFF HUSTON: Could I point out a bit of history: in making a privileged position in this region of being the address distributor, there is, I believe, an obligation to be able to service requests from anyone under agreed terms and conditions.

The real question here is that even in the interim, where the membership is an onerous constraint that would, in effect, preclude the ability of some parties from obtaining address resources they otherwise could have. I'm just slightly concerned and, again, it is an historical concern, but also a concern about APNIC in this region that approving of a policy that precludes, even in the interim, allocation of resources on the basis they cannot execute membership might be less than wise, and we should carefully consider if there are alternatives, even in the interim, that will allow it.

AKINORI MAEMURA: Thank you very much. Any other comments? No?

I like to make sure that this my first, this is the first time to have proposal in AMM. Is this proposal should - should this proposal follow the policy process for other proposals to the SIGs.

PAUL WILSON: Not the first time a proposal has come to the AMM member meeting. It has been, a precedent was previously for fee-and-membership-agreement-related proposals to come directly to this meeting. But they are still presented with the same leave time in accordance with policy process. This proposal was submitted to the mailing list to have the appropriate comment period.

KUO-WEI WU: I think it is also basically affect the membership interest. I would suggest it still need to go through the whole process. I think it would be better for more discussion issues.

PAUL WILSON: It has done, and will go through the process.

AKINORI MAEMURA: Should they ask for show of hands?

TOSHIYUKI HOSAKA: Toshiyuki Hosaka from JPNIC. Can I a question to you? Can I understand that APNIC is going to charge all addresses in the APNIC database, is that correct?

SAVE VOCEA: That is the intention. Yes.

TOSHIYUKI HOSAKA: Okay, that means if the organisation, if APNIC cannot, the organisation has address resources, what are you going to do? Okay, if you can't contact the organisation who has the historic address resources, what are you going to do? Can you charge the organisation?

SAVE VOCEA: If we haven't been able to contact them at all, then there is no framework within APNIC, as yet, because once the historical resource holder comes to APNIC to seek service, then only there is some process in there that enables them to sign declaration and then we can provide service. But as of now, existing, if they haven't made contact with APNIC or where APNIC has not been able to contact them, kind of in limbo.

PAUL WILSON: I would also point out, Toshiyuki, that we have had a policy in place for some time that is being pursued for reclamation of unused space. Any address, which is historical, some is unused, we are actively pursuing recovery. The question of chasing up historical addresses for which we don't have contacts will applies to addresses which are in use. It would be possible for us to pursue the address holders via the upstreams which are routing their address base, for instance. We are not currently doing that and, I think, I would suggest it is a business decision as to the efficiency of doing that and the cost of doing that with relative success. We should start the process of trying to contact address holders for who we don't have Whois or other contact details for that mechanism, trying to update the records and internal APNIC records and also in the process apply the policy.

SAVE VOCEA: Thank you for your clarification.

MING-CHENG LIANG: I just have a question, because in this proposal you have, for the existing framework, it seems to me, can you go back

to that page. It seems like for existing holding historical resource or holding APNIC resources, pay a certain amounts, you propose why - why is it proposed something like this? The third item, say, 800 something, but the new proposal is completely free. Is that correct?

SAVE VOCEA: In the proposal, there is going to be no change to that amount. I think what I need to clarify here is that the $819.20 is for the non-members or for the organisations that do come to APNIC to apply for resources but do not want to take the formal membership of APNIC, they opt to take non-member account because they just choose not to join APNIC as a member.

AKINORI MAEMURA: Any questions or comments?

AHMAD ALKAZIMY: Can you move to the proposal? About the months of the historical resource, one-time fee charge or will it be annual?

SAVE VOCEA: These are the annual service fees.

AHMAD ALKAZIMY: All of them, APNIC resource will be annual?

SAVE VOCEA: That's right.

AHMAD ALKAZIMY: Thank you very much.

AKINORI MAEMURA: Any other questions or comments? Okay, I would like, I ask you for show of hands. Those who support this proposal please raise your hands.

Those who support the proposal, please raise your hand.

Those who support this proposal, please raise your hand.

Okay. Let me try from support. My "support" should be heard as "opposed". That's completely different. Okay, again, I am asking you for raise your hand if you supporting this proposal. Please raise your hand. Who is in favour?

Higher, please. Sorry.

Okay. Thank you very much. People who are, who do not support this proposal, please raise your hand. People who oppose the proposal, please raise your hand. Thank you very much.

What do you think about it?

Can I have a number for the supporters?

RANDY BUSH: Randy Bush IIJ. May I suggest what we see is the need for more Discussion, and not a decision.

AKINORI MAEMURA: I would like to ask you again to raise your hand if you think this proposal needs some more discussions?

RANDY BUSH: I guessed right.

AKINORI MAEMURA: Thank you very much. So needs -

JOHN SIHAR SIMANJUNTAK: I have another opinion. Could we just maybe, since we have also the same problem in IDNIC, the allocation, my question is that are we able to make a determination, maybe we can invite them to join and to make some discussions with them.

AKINORI MAEMURA: Thank you very much. So, now, I like to move on to the fee structure discussion. I ask Paul to present his proposal and also the summary of the discussion yesterday, we had in our SIG.

PAUL WILSON: I'm, excuse me - I'm quite able to present the memb