Transcript - AMM
Due to the difficulties capturing a live speaker's words, it is possible this transcript may contain errors and mistranslations. APNIC accepts no liability for any event or action resulting from the transcripts.
AMM (APNIC Member Meeting)
Thursday, 1 September 2011
11:00 (UTC +9)
Akinori Maemura: Members, I would like to inform you that the APNIC Members are asked to be seated in the central row, then if any APNIC Members are seated in side row, please kindly move to the central row. I'm sorry if it has not been advised.
Thank you very much for your cooperation. That is between the ropes, please.
Sunny Chendi: Welcome back to the APNIC Member Meeting and I really appreciate your support in giving us time to rearrange the room layout.
I would like to, once again, welcome all the APNIC Members, stakeholders and ladies and gentlemen. This is the APNIC Member Meeting and we'll have APNIC Secretariat reports in this session, as well as reports from the other sessions that we had during the last four days.
With that, I would like to invite Akinori, Chair of APNIC Executive Council, to give the welcome remarks.
Akinori Maemura: Thank you very much, Sunny.
Thank you very much. Thanks everyone for coming.
(Speaks Korean) My name is Akinori Maemura, I'm the Chair of the Executive Council of APNIC and thank you very much for your cooperation for the smooth proceeding of the APNIC Member Meeting.
This time, we have a lot of changes in the format of the APNIC Conference. You notice that we now call our meeting "Conference", APNIC Conference 32, in comparison with the APNIC "Meeting".
Also, we have the new logo system, so it's quite dynamic and that's a really interesting system for our new identity system. If you have a chance to have the multiple name cards from the APNIC staff and EC members, then please compare them. There is a lot of forms of the logos that will be enjoyable for you.
Also, we have, as I advised and asked you to do that, we have a change of the format of the Member Meeting.
We have been running the APNIC Member Meeting for the full day on the last day, which consisted of a lot of reports and some other information things, but we changed the format to have a lot of reports in the other sessions during the APNIC Conference and APNIC Member Meeting today to have more directly related matters for the APNIC Members and the APNIC operations.
The other thing is as I asked you, we try to have quite clearly distinguished seating, I mean that the APNIC Member Meeting is open to everyone, not only to the membership, but also the broader community, but we recently feel some need improvement to distinguish Members from other friends. So this time, this is the first trial to run this system. So right now, the APNIC Members are asked to be seated in the central row, between the ropes, and other friends kindly asked to sit in the side rows.
I don't want to push it too much, but if you agree with our idea, please do so, and then I think it would be benefiting in the better discussion. So we can hear which is the voice from the membership or which is the voice from our friends. It is still a trial to find something improved and whether we need to have some more improvement.
I would like to start the APNIC Member Meeting.
I would like to start our APNIC Member Meeting with Secretariat report. We will have Paul Wilson, who is the Director General of APNIC. Thank you, Paul.
Paul Wilson: Thanks very much, Akinori. Good morning, everyone. Thanks for being here in such nice numbers today.
I'm going to introduce the morning's reporting from the Secretariat just with a high-level overview of the reports that you are going to see this morning and a bit of big picture, if you like. Then I'll be followed by the senior managers from the APNIC staff who are going to take you through quite a bit of detail about what's happening, particularly in the various operational areas of APNIC.
There are a few changes on the senior team as well to announce to you, which I think is good news in every case.
Let me get into it.
We're running a more structured planning process at the Secretariat these days. I did report on this last time, but I would like to remind you that everything we do is driven by the Members.
The Members of APNIC who fund the organization, who invest considerably in a financial sense and invest a great deal of trust and faith in us at the APNIC head office, also under the management of the APNIC EC, of course.
On the left-hand side of this screen, the member survey is seen as the primary input into everything that follows.
As you may know, the last member survey was delivered in time for the last APNIC annual meeting in March of this year. We have been processing the Member survey, the EC's response to the survey and, let's say, the current environment that we're operating in to arrive with the EC at our strategy and activity plans directly related to the budget and then as well the operational plans.
The flow chart here goes left to right, starting with members, through the EC representing you and managing, finally the Secretariat in carrying everything out.
The last Member and Stakeholder Survey was just delivered recently. Since it was reported at the last meeting, the EC has provided a written response, a sort of endorsement of the results and an interpretation of the results that gives the Secretariat a little more to be going on, and I think it gives the membership and community a clearer idea of how the EC is interpreting what they have been told through the survey.
Just in brief, that EC response does endorse the ongoing act of promotion of IPv6, IPv6 deployment, IPv6 education, outreach and so on. This is not anything new to you. I am sure that IPv6 will stay on all of our agendas for a little while to come and it has been clearly recognized through the survey and by the EC.
We are being asked also -- and it is somewhat related -- to increase engagement with governments, not necessarily in any particular way yet, but I think across the board. We are working -- and you'll hear more about it -- more closely on a sort of bilateral basis with individual governments as we are invited to advise or to attend government meetings or functions that may have national policy or national industry relevance in particular economies in the region.
We are also working with various inter-governmental and multi-governmental bodies, whether that be the formal UN based inter-governmentals or the smaller regional independent organizations or structures like the government advisory committee within ICANN.
On IPv4 generally, we have hit the end of the available pool now, so we're in a sort of maintenance mode in terms of APNIC's allocations of IPv4 addresses under the last /8 policy. But the big issue here, which the EC has identified in the response and in their strategic discussions, is what happens with the ongoing distribution or redistribution of IPv4 and what is the level of reliance that we have on IPv4 addresses in this region. Since we have exhausted our normal supply of IPv4 for operational deployments, if our Members and communities require substantially more IPv4 addresses, then how will they be received and so on. This does feed directly into and feeds from policy discussions which have taken place.
In the sense of the last Member and Stakeholder Survey, we did ask for opinions on what the role of APNIC Secretariat should be in transfers. That's something that will be monitored ongoing in terms of what the expectations are.
At the moment, we're asked not to actually play an active role in transfers, but to be facilitating the information dissemination and policy development regarding transfers, which is exactly what I think we're doing, particularly in the recent past and at this meeting.
Both the IPv6 and the IPv4 situation, if you like, point back to APNIC as a registry organization, not just as a source of addresses, because in the case of IPv4 there aren't so many addresses left for us to allocate.
In the case of IPv6, there are many, many addresses available and the allocation system is really much easier and more straightforward than it has been with IPv4. But in both cases, whether it's v4 or v6 or the other resources that are managed under the APNIC system, the registry is still a very critical part of what we do.
As the Internet grows, as security becomes more and more a pressing issue at all levels of society, the registry function is something that we are responsible for and that we must maintain absolutely as a top priority.
That includes also the development of the registry through new mechanisms, global integration, the certification of registry records through the resource PKI system and so on and so forth.
But I think what the EC has recognized and stated quite clearly is that APNIC as a registry really has a critical ongoing function and one that does still have some challenges for us to meet.
Across the board and consistently in the member and stakeholder surveys, we have seen training, education outreach, development of the human resource capacity of the region, as a very important thing. It's a theme that repeats and it's something that I personally am quite dedicated to.
I'm dedicated also to increasing the reach of APNIC's training activities and the effect of our training activities through better collaboration and cooperation. We're not going to become a training institute as such, with a huge amount of activities across this vast region, but there's much that we can do in collaboration to gain some leverage and to cooperate more effectively with bodies around the region with whom we can work more effectively.
In terms of our meetings, the meetings are also a really important part of what we do and I welcome the large crowd that we have in the room today. I also, by the way, welcome the online participation that is currently going on. But in both cases we want to go on increasing the value and paying more attention to participation in these meetings.
One of the interesting things historically about the Member and Stakeholder survey is that the results have been delivered at the annual meeting, which is in the early part of the year, but it comes after we have actually done our budgeting and planning for that year.
Recognizing that, the EC has decided to be recalibrating or realigning the survey so that its result will be available immediately before the coming planning cycle.
In fact, the next survey is going to be not two years after the last, but it's going to be 18 months after the last. It will be launched in March 2012 at the Delhi meeting. It will be conducted over the following six months and reported to you in a year's time, next August.
Don't be surprised if the survey seems to come around a little more quickly this time, that's exactly what's happening, so that we can use the results more immediately, in this case for planning for 2013. Then, of course, from that point on, we'll be back onto a two-year cycle for the survey.
In terms of operational planning, you have seen this before, but by way of a reminder, we have defined four key practical outcomes that we are always aiming for and according to which we are organizing our operational planning.
We see ourselves as primarily needing to deliver value to members as a service organization. The members in particular, now seated very visibly in the middle part of this room, you are the ones who pay the salaries for APNIC, you're the ones, as I said before, who invest your resources and your trust in APNIC to do the job that we do. We are funded by you. We manage your resources in your mutual interest and so that's something that we are continually stressing and striving to improve as a service organization.
We're also, I think, since the beginning of APNIC, very interested in and equally dedicated, in fact, to the healthy development of the Internet in the Asia Pacific. That kind of means the healthy development globally, because a healthy Asia Pacific Internet in an unhealthy world doesn't really make much sense on the Internet, and vice versa neither.
So we really do need to look at and bear in mind what's the nature of the Internet that really has brought us to this point that we are in today. The way I have put it is that we support an open and mutual Internet, based on global addressability of all components, minimal barriers to global end-to-end reachability. It's an idealistic sort of a statement, but I sincerely believe that it's, as I say, what has brought us here today. It's also, of course, the goal that we have in the effective and healthy deployment of IPv6 across the Internet.
We are also involved really as an outcome of what we do in collaboration and communication. Not only is that a practical useful activity, sometimes a challenging activity, in terms of doing our work efficiently, but in fact the community of stakeholders, which is a global community now, is a community which I think if it's healthy, is open and cooperative. That openness and cooperation is really critical to APNIC's success and to the Internet itself.
On corporate support, at a purely practical level, we have an office, we have staff, we have a bunch of logistical and administrative and operational and practical things that we need to do, and we need to do that with professionalism, full accountability and so forth.
The point of revisiting those outcomes is that you will hear them referred to in the reports which are coming today. So we try to set the context or set every activity that we are undertaking, whether it's an ongoing activity or a project, we try to set those in the context of those outcome areas that we have recognized.
The main focus that we have at the moment, IPv4, the last /8, which we have passed, we have passed into and beyond that. You'll hear a lot about that today.
IPv6 deployment -- not just IPv6 services at APNIC, we have been providing those for a while now, but the education, outreach, support, also the analysis, the reporting to the community on IPv6 is definitely part of our role. It's something that is perceived to be a role of the Regional Internet Registries collectively. It's one that all the RIRs have taken on very deliberately and actively.
That brings me to global coordination and the idea that we are working in a global area, in a global field these days, both in v4 and v6. For different reasons, there are serious global factors involved and global coordination is required in order for us to do our work and we do a lot of that through the NRO, the Number Resource Organization, which unites all of the RIRs, but we also do it through numerous other, these days, quite varied technical, research and liaison activities.
The research and development area, which is led by Geoff Huston, Chief Scientist, is something that has been really active and has achieved a huge amount of profile just in the last six months with some groundbreaking work on IPv6 -- the monitoring, the reporting of practical IPv6 deployment at the very end points of the network.
My plan is to work with Geoff and George and the others who contribute to our R&D activities and re-cast it as APNIC Labs. It's a nice name. It's a name that's been creeping out into our reporting so far, but in the next year, you'll hear more from APNIC Labs and I hope the benefits of what has been done there will become much more visible to you. I think we'll be also very open to understanding what you, the community as a whole, members and others, need and expect and how we can help through this activity in really practical ways.
You'll hear various other words which reflect, I think, the increasing professionalism, seriousness, I suppose, with which we're doing our work at APNIC -- efficiency, agility, continuity, security. These, I hope, will be concepts that really stand out to you today.
To reiterate again, sort of a new era or a new future for APNIC, a number of changes which have happened environmentally and within, we have done this work on the new corporate identity, not just a logo, not just a family of about 16 logos, but actually a sort of a whole identity which should be pretty cohesive and I hope increasingly meaningful to you all as time goes on.
I mentioned the senior team at APNIC has been transforming. We have four existing Area Directors for four existing operational areas of the organization.
Services, Sanjaya will be reporting; Communications will be reported by German; Technical by Byron; and Business by Richard.
But there are now a couple of new Directors on the team, including Pablo Hinojosa, Director of Public Affairs and Louise Tromp, Director of Human Resources.
Pablo is not able to be with us this week, his wife and he are expecting a child any day now, and so congratulations very much to Pablo and Carmen, but that's why Pablo isn't here.
Paul Wilson: But he will, unless something happens in the next half an hour, be joining us on the webcast.
Louise Tromp, as the person responsible for a challenging and varied human resources department in APNIC, she's also not here, but she'll be joining us at the next meeting in Delhi.
There are some new additions as well. The Communications Area, under German Valdez, has included all of our training activities in the past, but I think we have had an incredible opportunity with the availability of Dr Philip Smith, who almost needs no introduction here, to direct what I have called the Learning and Development Area of APNIC.
That includes not just the operational activity of training, but generalizing into learning and also development in a sense reflects, I think, an approach of consultancy. Not only is Philip a consulting engineer by trade, but because the term "consulting" really does reflect what we are asked to do time and time again, particularly through our training and outreach activities, but we find that members and others of APNIC really need direct help, direct advice, more by way of really understanding needs directly. So learning and development is really all about that in APNIC and I really hope, although Philip started very recently and training will be reported today by German, I really hope that you'll see some future developments there.
Also, we are joined here by a new General Counsel, a staff legal position here in the form of Craig Ng, who has joined us here at the APNIC meeting for the first time. Craig will have a few words of self-introduction in a little while.
In case you can't see these individuals or in case you happen not to have seen them here during the week, in spite of most of them being around, the pictures are here.
That is all from me for now. I will be handing on to a series of these operational area reports. Please bear with us, we have a great deal of information to report to you, but I do hope it's going to be interesting and reflect the kind of range of activities and the range of services, the range of developments that are going on at the Secretariat.
Once again, thank you very much for your support and I hope you enjoy the rest of the meeting.
Akinori Maemura: Thank you very much, Paul.
The next report will be from services area.
Sanjaya, the Services Director, will deliver you his report.
Sanjaya: Thank you. I'm going to deliver the services area report, things that we have been busy with in the last six months between APRICOT meeting in Hong Kong to this meeting.
As the primary area that faces our Members, our focus is in delivering value and supporting Internet development and I'm going to go through my presentation in this order.
This is our team. We are very happy in delivering value to you all, especially to our Members.
Of course, we have been busy in the last six months with the IPv4 exhaustion. A more detailed report was given in the global report session earlier this week, so feel free to download my full report there on our last /8 implementation, but this is a summary.
So we are now in stage 3, as of 15 April 2011, and our last /8 block is 103 /8. So if anyone is still filtering that block -- hopefully not -- please open your filter.
The policy during this time will be each account holder may receive a maximum of a /22 from APNIC's last /8 space. From 15 April to just the end of last week, we made 583 delegations to 30 different economies from that block.
We have also implemented the addendum policy about the last /8 and that's return IPv4 address space will be redistributed under the last /8 policy. Every time we receive returns because an account is closed or voluntary return to us, then we will redistribute it under the last /8 policy. So because of that, APNIC's IPv4 addresses will be available in limited quantities for a very long time -- hopefully. More information can be seen on the URL.
This is what our IPv4 delegations look like in 2011, starting January. As you can see, there's a peak in March, and in April got cut by half, because by 15 April we reached our last /8. As you can see, from May, June, July, August, very little.
The total IPv4 delegated during this time so far this year is close to 105 million IPv4 addresses.
IPv6 continued its strong growth. As you can see here, by the end of August, we are more than half what we see in 2010. So basically I'm looking at, if not matching, then exceeding the 2010 level.
This is our monthly IPv6 delegation tracking in 2011. I'm happy to report that as of 26 August 2011, we have distributed more than 92 billion /56 worth of space to our community.
AS number delegations, steady growth. You can see in 2011, there is a bit of an anomaly there. It looks like it's stronger growth than the previous years, but the jump was actually caused by each of the six NIRs receiving 100 4-byte AS numbers for them to promote and distribute in their respective economies. If you take that out, then we are probably seeing roughly the same level of AS number consumptions as 2011.
Resource Quality Assurance is still a focus of the work in APNIC, particularly to make sure that, now that all IPv4 addresses are practically in play in APNIC, we want to make sure that they are all usable as little as it can be; put in the filter, on the bogon list. So there's a lot of communication that we need to go to the operator community to make sure that all IP addresses can be used. So our main campaign is basically all about responsible filtering.
Blocks that gets returned to APNIC are tested, so all those that are found usable then can be redeployed to our Members.
We had a network abuse BOF earlier this week, held on Monday, 29 August. It's sharing information on network, basically about RQA, with the emphasis on network abuse. It was a great turnout, 47 people attending, and we had speakers from this region as well as from other regions and global presentations as well.
More information -- I think there's some very good material there, so please feel free to visit the URL at the bottom, to download that presentation material.
Member Services, we're seeing a steady membership growth. As you can see, 2011 is already exceeding 2010, even though we are only in August. So there will be quite a significant increase over 2010.
The Member Services load, you can see on the right side, we're still analysing it, because the email workload seems to drop quite a lot. It could be because of less spam activity during the second quarter, but we are still looking at the data to see if we can find more information about that recent drop.
But phone, chat is pretty much flat. We see slightly more new Members coming in, after we hit the last /8, and also a little bit more in transfers, but not significantly more. But we are keeping close watch on this and we'll definitely report to our community should we see any anomalies.
In the Internet development stage, we have just implemented DNSSEC in MyAPNIC. On 3 May this year, we sent our DS records to IANA that allows DNSSEC validation to occur from the root zones down to our reverse zones. Now you can also submit your DS records to APNIC, so it can be validated all the way down to your zone. Single zone updates, you can update via the Whois domain objects and multiple zone updates, you can just update via a zone file upload facility within MyAPNIC.
Lastly, root server deployment, we are still receiving requests to deploy root servers throughout this region. The last ones were Bhutan, we installed I-root service called Bhutan Telecom. It's located in Thimphu and it was inaugurated on 14 April 2011. Now we are working with an F-root operator to install an F-root instance in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.
After this week, Peter Losher from IC will travel to Ulaanbaatar to install the F-root. Hopefully, by September this year we will see an additional root, the first root instance in Mongolia.
Thank you. That's all my presentation.
Akinori Maemura: Thank you very much, Sanjaya.
The next report is from the technical area, by Byron Ellacott, Technical Area Director.
Byron Ellacott: Good morning, everyone. I'm Byron Ellacott. Over the next 10 minutes or so, you'll hear a little bit about what the Technical Area has been up to over the last six months or so.
As Paul said, we'll focus on the four main areas of activity in APNIC. I'll be talking to you about a bunch of stuff that we have done in DNS. We have done quite a bit in DNS, so I'll spend quite a bit of time on DNS.
I'll talk to you also about some of the things that we have been doing for continuous improvement. We have done quite a bit of work on change management and on automated testing and so on and of course we also do a lot of support activities and in particular we have had quite a good accomplishment in the past six months supporting the R&D unit.
The other support we do is all in corporate support.
We provide all the software development activities for the services area and we have also been supporting the business operations of the organization with business modelling and process management.
So in DNS, we started serving e.in-addra.arpa and ipv6.arpa on the e label. You can see there that we have been serving it with some interesting variations in the traffic load, but what I would like you to note on this graph is actually just that we have quite a few servers running this at the moment.
We started doing this on 8 March, so just after the last APNIC meeting and we are now doing on average around 3,000 queries a second across all of those instances.
In response to the Japanese disaster, we started the third of those instances in Australia and we deployed that in about two weeks, which I think speaks very well about the technical group's ability to operationalize these services in short order. This was the third anycast node that we ran in Australia and is now taking some load, although most of the load is still coming out of Hong Kong.
As Sanjaya said, we submitted our delegation signer records to IANA and this completed the chain of trust from the root zone down through in-addra.arpa and into the delegations to APNIC. Now we have completed phase 3 of the DNSSEC, which is live in MyAPNIC, which means we now have a chain of trust down to Member zones should you wish to submit DS records to us.
We also added an anycast provider to take our delegations from IANA. You can see in the middle of that graph there, there is a drop. There is a cycle that makes it a little harder to see, but we dropped a fair bit and that's load being taken up by another service provider. That has given us a lot of additional reliability and redundancy and a little bit of protection against Denial of Service attacks as well.
Moving over to software, we have been implementing quite an aggressive schedule of improving our testing.
We have a target of 95 per cent code coverage by the end of the year and we have been doing a lot of work to track that and keep that on task.
We have been using a lot of new tools to help us with automated testing with another goal of continuous integration testing, so that's work that's proceeding quite well. In the Infrastructure Services unit, we have been improving and updating our change management practices in line with industry practices using systems engineering principles.
In software, as I said, with a lot of testing, we have following an Agile methodology. We have adopted this methodology now and it has been running for a while. We are seeing improvements in a lot of areas.
We are seeing improvements in the ability of us to report how we are going on work and how long it is going to take to achieve our goals.
We are also providing a lot more test driven developments. We are leading with the testing and we are getting a greater sense of certainty about what our software is doing. Of course, we are guided by our continuous integration principles.
This is the sort of reporting that we are getting out. This is telling us how we are doing in any particular two-week cycle. It's just very useful information for us to know how we are going and what sort of things are problems that we need to address.
We support APNIC Labs, we support R&D with remote measuring techniques, we provided software expertise to the labs group to help them with their broad based IPv6 measurements. This provides rich data on client capabilities. It's an extension of some work we did earlier that I think a lot of people have already seen, but it's worth highlighting again, which is that we have provided a tool for website operators to use Google Analytics to look at their own client based capabilities. This is available on labs.apnic.net. If you are a content provider, I suggest you take a look at it.
This is the sort of reporting that you will get out of it, nice pretty graphs. Google Analytics does a lot of wonderful things. And now you can also track IPv6 and dual stack capabilities through that.
As I said earlier, we have been doing a lot of modelling and process management work as well and this has been born out of a need to have a lot of the processes that we follow in the technical area documented and a recognition that this is a good value service for the wider organization. So we have expertise within the Technical Area on business process modelling, on documentation, on identifying bottlenecks and improving efficiency.
We are using a lot of industry standard process modelling, but particularly we have been using the BPM standard and I believe some of the presentations earlier this week included some of that information, just showing how we are using that sort of process management to keep our services in line.
That's all from me today, so thank you very much for your attention.
Akinori Maemura: Thank you, Byron.
The next is from the Communications Area. German Valdez, Communications Director, will deliver his report.
German Valdez: Thank you, Mr Chair. This is the Communications Area report.
The presentation is based on the key aspects of the operational plan. I will talk briefly about the education effort in the last six months, policy discussions, some work we have done with the APNIC Conferences, the communication work that we did behind the implementation of the final /8, some achievement in the last month with the APNIC IPv6 program and corporate projects that have been implemented to support our corporate activities.
In the last six months, in February to August, we have conducted 30 courses, including tutorials and workshops, in 15 economies with more than 900 participants. These are our face-to-face training activities which can be considered traditional training activities.
Also it is important to mention that the Training team is the one responsible for organizing the remote hub participation. If you remember well, yesterday we had a remote hub in Cambodia. The Training team is the one to conduct training activities, but at the same time, they brief about the policy development process in advance of the policy discussions and also help the interaction between the remote hub and the Policy SIG discussions.
In addition to the traditional training activities, also the Training team has been supporting outreach activities by making presentations in every operation group and also in some events in coordination with other organizations, like ISOC that organize INET meetings across the region. We also conduct training and also the Training team conducts presentations in those meetings.
As I reported in Hong Kong, we are pushing very hard in eLearning activities. Right now, we have eLearning courses that are deployed every two weeks, on a fortnightly basis. These are three sessions of one hour, each of them. We target different time zones.
That's why the duration of each session is one hour. So far we have delivered 42 modules for 441 participants.
I would like to show you the media room. We have a dedicated media room as part of the facilities that we have in the new building and when we were discussing about the space distribution, we identified that a dedicated media room for the training team to deliver eLearning sessions was very important. So this is a picture of where all eLearning sessions are webcast and also it's an excellent way to allow APNIC to participate in those meetings that we cannot physically be there, so we also organize remote presentations.
For now on, the training activities will be reported by Philip. I think this is a clear response to the answers that we had received in the Member survey.
I think the training activity will have an exciting boost made by Philip.
My last slide that I will present, we have the training team which is related to the training lab. We conducted an upgrade to the training lab, so it's fully IPv6 and ASN 4-byte capable. This allows us to conduct high-level technical workshops and also allows us to run parallel sessions when we need it.
We started this year with various policy discussions. In Hong Kong, we received 11 proposals to be discussed in Hong Kong. In the mailing list, I think, if my memory is not wrong, we had 15 policy proposals. Not all of them were presented in Hong Kong, but in Hong Kong we reached consensus on six policy proposals.
I won't go into details about what is the meaning of all these proposals. It was broadly discussed in the previous meeting. But I can report that all the policies that were discussed and reached consensus in Hong Kong have already been implemented, with the exception of the global policy that of course needs to go to other RIR communities for discussion.
There was one policy, prop-096, that was returned to the list and discussed here in Busan, and that will be about the last development in the policy discussions.
Talking about the APNIC meetings, APNIC 31 represented a high-level number of attendees. We had 436 delegates representing 48 economies and 60 APNIC Members. So it was quite good numbers, it was a reflection as well of a good level of attendees in APRICOT. We had around 1,400 participants and it was a great meeting in Hong Kong.
As was reported by the Director General, we are investing heavily in improving our remote participation.
I will talk more about that in my next slide, but we had 33 participants in remote hubs. This time it was Papua New Guinea and Indonesia. And also we reported 353 people that participated online. These are unique IP addresses that were collected along the meeting hub in Hong Kong and we are discussing with the on-site participants.
So from now on, starting with this meeting, that the APNIC event will be run as a Conference. This is part of the continual improvement plan that we conduct after every meeting. We run extensive debrief sessions internally with the staff, also we deploy survey for the participants of the event. Also, we are investing in various webcast equipment. We also develop and improve the interface for remote participation and also we are having early site visits to the venues where the meeting will be conducted. This allows more time for planning and for the preparation of the meeting as well.
APNIC Conferences are not the only ones that the events team are busy organizing. Also we participate with other conferences, and I will give you an example.
CommunicAsia is perhaps the best one we can present in this presentation. This is perhaps one of the most important exhibitions and ITC related events in the area.
This is conducted annually in Singapore and we organize annually a stand there in conjunction with DotAsia and APIA.
This allows us to promote the APNIC meetings, APRICOT meetings, but at this particular time, the timing of the communication was just a few weeks after the implementation of final /8, so it was a great opportunity to be in contact with members and potential members about the situation of the distribution IPv4 resources and the importance of IPv6 deployment in the region.
Talking about the communications part of the implementation of the final /8, we conducted a thorough review of the communications at that time. We conducted press releases, we keep a close communication with our members in order to avoid any misinformation on certainty in the market.
Also, it's worth mentioning that we keep a close communication with the NIRs. The NIRs are very important stakeholders. They help us to communicate with their own communities in their own languages. We understand the necessity of the NIRs by keeping in close communication. We share with them the main topics, the messages and also the timing of the release of the information by the time of the implementation of the final /8.
The APNIC IPv6 program has perhaps been busier than ever, given the interesting time that we are living in this region.
Just in this year, the IPv6 program has presented or has helped other to present IPv6 content in more than 30 events during this year. We highlight just a few of them, the APRICOT-APAN Conference we organized IPv6 transition day, it was very successful, we had more than 600 participants.
Also, we organized, in conjunction with ICANN and IANA, an IPv6 session at the last ICANN meeting in Singapore and also we presented an IPv6 presentation in the inaugural session of the Singaporean NOG operational group.
Also, it's important to remind you that APNIC right now is running the Secretariat of the Asia Pacific IPv6 Task Force, so we organize meetings for this group during the APNIC Conferences.
I will not mention in detail about the intense coordination and cooperation that the IPv6 program, led by Miwa, is having currently with the public affairs director. That will be reported later today. But IPv6 is very important content at the moment that we deal with inter-governmental organizations.
As it was presented by Paul, we have a new corporate identity. APNIC is a very different organization now than it was 10 years ago when the old logo was presented.
The new corporate identity is trying to highlight some important aspects that are happening right now in the region and perhaps represent the challenges and characteristics as well of the community that we represent.
So the new logo, the new image generally incorporates the IPv6 world that we are living in right now. We highlight the importance of the dynamic and diversity of the community and the collaborative work we do with the community and will represent a new image for a new era. It's important also to mention that the APNIC wording has bold on the "AP", which is highlighting the focus that we have for the community.
I know that sometimes it may be a little confusing to see a different form of icons. The APNIC word remains the same, this is the real logo, the icon represents the diversity. But in terms of avoiding any confusion, even though we are a dynamic organization, we also have a formal use of the logo. This is the formal use, this is the one that you receive in the most important communications, official communications from APNIC, and also will be part of the invoice as well. So formal use of the logo is going to be in this way.
Finally, as part of the internal improvement in APNIC, the website is perhaps the more important communication tool. The information that we have there is the reference for many organizations and people that are looking for information about IP addresses.
The organization has grown a lot, so we have distributed the ownership for the content across the organization. This BCMS implementation allows the owners and the specialists of the information to load the information directly onto the website, avoiding all bottlenecks, from the publication team. This allows more dynamic information and also to guarantee the accuracy of the information that we are providing on the website.
Of course, the editors are still able to provide support in editorial aspects or provide such Internet training to allow the content owners to upload the information.
That will be my presentation for today.
Akinori Maemura: Thank you very much, German.
The next speaker is Richard Brown, who is the business area director, to deliver his presentation for the reporting. Thank you.
Richard Brown: Than you, Akinori. For those of who you don't know me, my name is Richard Brown. I look after the business area in APNIC and I welcome the opportunity today to give you an update on some of the great work that the business area in particular has been doing.
First of all, I would like to introduce some new members to the APNIC team. The image up here shows the business area team as they stand today.
Tian on the end has been with APNIC for nearly two weeks now, so he's the newest member of the team. We have Irene, of course, whom many of you know, who has been with APNIC for a long time now. I'm not going to say how long, but she has been out at the reception desk and many of you would have had conversations with her during this meeting.
Natalia, next in line, is our new office manager.
She's been with us for around three months. We have Yoshiko and May, who provide great support to Irene and her finance team. We also have Emma at the back there who is new to APNIC, been around for a couple of months, particularly helping out with the logistics for this meeting in regards to travel.
We also have Ira at the front, who is assisting in HR and office, and also Alvin, whom many of you will know.
I will address under the banner of corporate support, the key functions that the business area looks after and give you an update of what's been happening.
I'll begin with looking at our facilities and office management. I'll then continue with commercial and financial management activities, then lead on to operational planning, some of the work we are doing around continuous improvement and of course an update on our business continuity planning.
The new office facilities. The meeting in Hong Kong was an opportunity for us to advise the membership of the status of the project in relation to relocating to the new office. In December last year, we moved the Secretariat from the premises in Park Road in Milton to the new fitted out facility in South Brisbane.
It's been an interesting project to be involved in and I thank everyone in the Secretariat who is engaged in that project. I'm very pleased to say that the final wash up of that project, which we have worked our way through with all the final payments to the contractors and the consultants, is that we managed to deliver that project on time and within budget. That's a great achievement and I think the facility is proving to be very good for the Secretariat and the staff are enjoying working in it.
We recognized when we moved to the new building, that we had some existing lease commitments in the old premises. I advised the member meeting in Hong Kong that we had reached an agreement to surrender 60 per cent of that lease space and that went ahead beginning on 1 March.
We are currently negotiating with a party for some of the remaining space and we're working with our commercial real estate agents to market the remaining space and we're hoping we can get some resolution there soon.
It's been a very difficult environment to lease commercial property in the current economic circumstances.
I would like to move on to travel management. This is becoming a big part of the APNIC business area activity. We provide all the support in relation to travel bookings to support the Secretariat in their training, global and regional liaison activity and of course all the travel related to these types of meetings.
If I look at the number of trips we are likely to do in 2011, I see that it's probably going to increase by around 70 per cent on the level of travel we were doing only a few years ago in 2008. Along with that increased activity comes increased costs. So that requires us to be very prudent in our management of our travel services, so we work very closely with our travel providers and the airlines to ensure that we are getting best value for our money.
I move on to commercial management. The EC asked the Secretariat to undertake a couple of major projects this year and I'll talk to these in more detail.
Initially, we submitted the budget for 2011 based on some high-level assumptions. The EC approved that budget, but asked us to come back halfway through the year to really verify those assumptions, to verify that the assumptions we made around revenue and membership growth were realistic and whether our expense forecasts were actually going to occur in the way that we expected.
There was a lot of uncertainty around when the last /8 policy would be enacted and what the effect would be on membership, so we did take a very conservative approach to forecasting particularly membership revenue and initial application fees.
That report was submitted to the EC at the July EC meeting and, as the treasurer will report later, the finances are in good shape for 2011. The last /8 policy has provided us with a greater level of revenue than we had expected initially and expenses are down, primarily because we had, at the time of developing the budget, included an allowance for rent commitments in the old premises. When we went through the final financial accounts at the end of last year, the auditors required us to bring forward all costs related to the payment of leases for the old building. So all those costs were recognized in 2010, so we don't have any of those rent and outgoing commitments going forward.
The other project was to undertake a detailed review of APNIC's insurances. We engaged, after some consideration, a global risk consultancy to provide us with some support in this activity. We ran a workshop for the key staff from APNIC with this consultant to develop a comprehensive risk register. In that process, we identified and qualified the risks. We looked at what sort of risks the Secretariat comes across in its activities and we provided the consultant with a lot of information about how APNIC works. The consultant has at this stage provided us with a draft report identifying where they think there are gaps between the level of insurance that we have and the types of risks that occur in our environment.
I think, more importantly, now that we have done this work around developing a risk register, it's an ongoing risk management program for us. So each year we can review that risk register and advise the EC of where we see any changes required in relation to insurance and risk management.
Operational planning. Paul talked about the operational planning process. What I'm talking about here is the detailed implementation of that. That's a responsibility of my team.
2011 is the year where we go through the full planning process again, so it starts almost immediately after this meeting. We take the findings from the last member survey, we take direction from the EC strategy, we do a lot of detailed analysis of our external environment and we do very complex analysis of our internal operational environment too. So we engage all our staff to really find out what their views are on the organization, how we can do things better and where we need to enact changes as part of the planning process.
All that work helps us develop our activity plan for 2012. The 2012 operational plan sets the priorities for the Secretariat.
One of the things we did last year was to align all staff salaries to common review dates. So now we can really take these high-level objectives, we can drill them down by area, by unit and down to staff and we can actually roll deliverables into individual staff performance. At the half year and end of year, they're judged against real criteria that help us deliver our operational plan. This, of course, becomes fundamental to the development of the 2012 budget submission.
Continuous improvement. One of the areas that we have been working on for over 12 months now is sourcing an enterprise resource management system. We want a system that's going to help us align our strategies, our processes, the people in the organization, the technology we use and of course all the knowledge we have in house.
What are our high-level requirements? Well, we want something that's web based. So we can work in a very dynamic way. We have different platforms, some of us use Mac, some of us use Windows, there's continual arguments about what's better, so I would like something that can work across as many platforms as we can. We want to be able to use iPhones and iPads and all that sort of stuff.
We want something that's web based. We want a high level of integration and redundancy. We want a strong automated workflow and audit trail underpinning this system, so that it's robust and we can maintain control as the organization has grown to around 70 people now.
The organization has evolved. We have close to 4,000 accounts now, so the volume of our transactions is increasing and the complexity of those transactions continues to increase as well. We also want to build in redundancy of our operational systems.
The new ERM system selection process, I would just like to explain to you all how we have gone about this.
Byron talked about the introduction of the Agile methodology, so we are leveraging off the skills we have in house with that now. We made that a key process of our project team, so we followed the Agile methodology.
We selected an initial team from the business and the technical teams to leverage off that knowledge. We didn't start looking at solutions, we started looking at what our requirements are, so we spent a lot of time early on in the process identifying our system requirements.
We then shortlisted and analysed a whole range of potential solutions. We think we have one that's going to do the job, but we are doing our final due diligence on that at the moment, but it's an exciting opportunity to really move APNIC into a much more integrated operating environment, as far as all our internal systems. The final due diligence is currently under way. The project plan is currently being finalized and we're hoping to begin implementation in quarter 4.
What functionality are we expecting to be supported by this new system? We want HR and payroll, we want our full accounting suite, we want travel and expense management to be included. It's really critical that we have these things built with the workflow and the approval processes and audit trails built in. It's going to make the management of all these things so much simpler.
We want management and financial reporting. We want to try and have dashboard reporting, we want to make our monthly and annual reporting a much simpler process. We want to build in our project and activity based costing into this system. Of course, we have to interface with our key APNIC internal systems, ARMS and MyAPNIC.
Business continuity planning. I gave an update at the Hong Kong meeting about our response to the flood in Brisbane in January, that business continuity planning is just a part of what we do at APNIC now. We are currently going through our regular update of our manuals, we are 95 per cent complete through that process at the moment, we are planning on having the BCP documents and processes audited in Q4.
We have regular meetings where we run through scenario testing. We have regular and ongoing review of all the processes in that documentation, based on what we find in our meetings from the regular testing. Of course, what we have tried to do is build the BCP thinking into all our business decisions. So people are always aware that the BCP is a very important part of what the Secretariat does, so all management decisions should consider their effect on our levels of redundancy and more generally our BCP.
Finally, Sylvia has asked me to give you a quick update on the ISIF program. If you don't know the ISIF program, there's a brochure in your delegate bag that has some more information. Essentially, it's the Information Society Innovation Fund. It's a small grants program aimed at stimulating creative solutions to ICT development needs in the Asia Pacific region.
The highlights are there are 19 projects from 10 Asia Pacific economies showcasing innovation, cooperation and technical knowledge. Final reports from the 2010 grant recipients are now available for download.
The ISIF award was launched in July. The winners have been announced and they will be attending the IGF meeting and stay tuned for some changes to the ISIF program in 2012.
Thank you very much.
Akinori Maemura: Thank you very much.
The next speaker is Pablo Hinojosa. I think many people notice that Pablo is not here, but he will deliver his report remotely.
Pablo, are you ready?
Pablo Hinojosa: Can you hear me?
Akinori Maemura: Yeah, we can hear you pretty well.
Please go ahead with your report.
Pablo Hinojosa: OK. Hello, everybody. I apologize for not being in Busan. I would like to present a short report about the public affairs activities.
Since the February meeting in Hong Kong, there has been a lot of movement in public affairs in both the region and at the global sphere.
In the last six months, APNIC has strengthened its links with different organizations and has participated in a number of important meetings. This summary of activities will talk about the different fora where APNIC has participated and the approach taken.
There are three approaches that we have used. The ones that are on the slides, the first one is representation, where APNIC staff has attended a meeting. The second approach, the one that has characterized most of the activities, is collaboration.
APNIC has increased its levels of collaboration, for example, with Internet Governance Forum, the IGF process, supporting two regional meetings, the Pacific one in New Caledonia where APNIC provided logistical support and the website for the meeting and another IGF in the region, the Asia one in Singapore.
APNIC has continued its collaboration with the APEC TEL, the telecommunications working group, and with the Asia Pacific Telecommunity as well. An important step in collaboration has been the content that APNIC developed for ITU meetings globally and regionally, specifically on the subject of IPv6.
These activities with ITU are positively leaning towards a stronger partnership in the area of capacity building and IPv6, with particular emphasis in developing economies.
In the spirit of collaboration, a three-week training program was designed and delivered to four technical professionals from NIXI. This program shared with them comprehensively all APNIC operations, processes and procedures.
The training program provided a view of how an RIR works in support for NIXI to develop technical and operational readiness for their NIR in India.
The third and last approach that we undertook in public affairs activities is coordination. Most of the activities with this approach had to do with NRO, the Number Resource Organization. This is the mechanism in which the five RIRs coordinate.
Just recently, in a retreat for the five CEOs, they agreed to create a public affairs coordination group.
I look forward to working with staff from other RIRs on this group.
IPv6 is a topic of much consideration lately and there has been a strong outreach from APNIC on this subject. APNIC has received multiple requests also from governments and inter-governmental organizations to provide content and technical expertise.
Many of the activities that are listed in this report, you can see them on the slide, the APT, APEC TEL and the joint collaboration that we have started with the ITU, in particular the ITU regional office for the Asia Pacific, they have been working together with Miwa Fujii who currently manages the APNIC IPv6 program.
I have been very fortunate and privileged to be able to work with Miwa and to bring along some parts of the IPv6 program into public affairs related issues.
Outreach activities and the IPv6 program are part of a communications area led by German and also I have worked a lot with different areas of APNIC. The coms area has provided resources, human and financial and a lot of support to execute many of these activities.
I said before, the Secretariat of APNIC has collaborated with NIXI in support of developing operational readiness for the NIR in India. Such is the case of the three week long training that I reported before, but in addition, APNIC had the honour to receive high-level officials from the Government of India, including the CEO of NIXI, Dr Govind, who I know is present at the meeting in Busan, and also Mr Agarwal, both were here in Brisbane.
As a final note, APNIC, as a member of ITAC, the Internet Technical Advisory Committee of the OECD, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, participated in June in a high-level meeting about the Internet economy. Paul Wilson and Geoff Huston carried the APNIC flag at such an important event.
The next slide has a few snapshots and highlights of the activities of the last month, a meeting with the ITU Secretary General and APNIC occurred in Singapore in June. A memorandum of understanding was signed between APNIC and the Secretariat of the Pacific Community cooperating activities related with IP deployment in the Pacific and below is a picture of the authorities from NIXI and the Government of India during their visit to the APNIC office.
I leave a last slide for the record and this is the reference and links that you can visit to see more details on these activities.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Bye bye, everybody.
Akinori Maemura: Thank you very much, Pablo.
It is now lunchtime. We can now break for lunch and the afternoon session will resume at 2 pm, starting with Craig's report.
Thank you very much.
AMM (APNIC Member Meeting)
Thursday, 1 September 2011
14:00 (UTC +9)
Maemura Akinori: Welcome back, everyone.
The afternoon session of the APNIC Member Meeting is starting. We will have Craig Ng, who is the General Counsel, who was recently appointed.
Craig Ng: Thanks, Akinori.
Good afternoon, my name is Craig Ng, I'm the newly appointed general counsel for APNIC. For those of you who are not familiar with the term, the term General Counsel normally refers to the head of legal in an organization.
Thank you very much for this opportunity for me to tell you a little bit about myself and to let you know what I'll be doing at APNIC.
First, just a little bit about me. Although I'm new to the APNIC world, I'm not new to the world of Internet addressing.
I come from the dark side of domain names regulation and the world of CCNSO and GNSO and I'm getting very excited following the progress within the ASO world.
Until recently and for about 15 years I was a partner in a large law firm called Maddocks. I'm a corporate lawyer and I've been admitted to practice in both Australia and in the High Court of Malaysia.
I practice mainly in cross-border transactions, working across merger acquisition deals, capital raising and, of course, more relevantly here, intellectual property and ICT law.
For the past 12 years or so I've been the principal lawyer acting on behalf of AuDA. As you might know, AuDA is a ccTLD manager for .au domain name space.
I've been involved in all aspects of AuDA, including drafting all the industry documentation and advising the board on all their policy decisions.
Through representing AuDA, I've been obviously involved in the ICANN world. I was involved in the formation of the APTLD and I have participated in many, many -- I think some would say too many -- ICANN meetings and CCNSO meetings. So I'm very familiar with the bottom-up consensus forming process in the ICANN world under the ICANN umbrella.
I was on the organizing committee and a sponsor of the ICANN meetings in Melbourne in March 2001. I'm not sure how many of you guys were around at that time; in Sydney in 2009 as well.
So I'm new to the IP address space but not the Internet address space more broadly.
Within APNIC, I will be taking on the responsibility of recent compliance. I will be having an oversight role over all corporate governance matters and all legal matters within APNIC. I will have oversight over all agreements that APNIC enters into and I will also be reviewing all processes and procedures within APNIC, to make sure that its corporate governance obligations are met.
I look forward to working with you, our members and our community. Thank you.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you, Craig.
The last part of the Secretariat reports is from Geoff Huston, our Chief Scientist. It is impressive.
We are doing the same thing. We'd like to call the Secretariat to tell us about the APNIC Labs.
Geoff Huston: I wish you could see my slides, but they are somewhere in the ether, so there you go.
I am Geoff Houston, the Chief Scientist at APNIC, and I work with the support from George Michaelson in particular, but also a fair deal of support from Byron Ellacott and the technical team, in working on areas around research.
You have seen this week two of the major topics I have been looking at in recent times. One is to understand a lot about IPv4 exhaustion and what it means and how and why and when it happens.
As you heard earlier this week, it's still not over and there's still much to understand about the ongoing saga.
The other area that has taken up much of our time has been in looking at IPv6 and its current deployment and the phenomenal speed at which folk are deploying IPv6 all over the Internet. We have been doing a fair deal of work in trying to measure this in quite precise terms, both in terms of its uptake and in terms of its relative performance and the behaviour of clients. Most of those reports, as I said, form part of what's been happening this week and also online.
As well as that, I've been doing a fair deal of work measuring BGP, its scaling properties and the issues around its security and how and why the dynamic properties of BGP still appear to work 20 years later, with no apparent problem. Again, much of that work is online and again much of that work is looking at massive data sets and understanding long-term trend behaviour with the routing system.
Last but not least, we do a fair deal of work also in DNS, predominantly with George Michaelson. APNIC certainly runs some of the cores of the DNS reverse service, in other words the reverse zones that map addresses back into names, and looking at their dynamic behaviour, particularly lately, as we have introduced DNSSEC into those zones and introduced key signing into that and the impact of key signing and key changes in those zones have of some interest.
We are moving to a new home in APNIC. We are relatively diverse, and you can find us on all kinds of websites. We have been trying to coalesce all of that into labs.apnic.net. As you go there from time to time, hopefully you will find some new, fascinating and intriguing bits of things that we have found interesting ourselves.
Thank you. By all means, if you have any interesting issues or wish to chat with myself or George, please send us an email. Thank you.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much.
That is all for the Secretariat reports.
I think we should take some questions and comments, if you have any.
We will have Geoff's slides, they will soon be published.
Q and A? No.
Moving on, our next presentation is the report of the Executive Council. Before that, I would like to invite to the stage Judith Vazquez for PHCOLO, because she needs to depart from this venue.
Before that, I would like to invite her to address on sponsorship. I think you are reporting about Women in ICT.
Judith Duavit Vazquez: I was invited by Paul to say a few words about Women in ICT, an event we had last night, as well as basically to give a brief introduction of my role as a member of the ICANN board. I was informed that I am the first female Asian elected by the Nom Com to ICANN.
Judith Duavit Vazquez: Cut me open, I'm APNIC all the way.
Briefly, we had a most engaging evening. 120 women, dressed beautifully, they looked like butterflies, were at the dinner last night. Where are they, I ask myself?
I'm wearing rubber shoes, to fit in with you.
To be honest, I have yet to hire a female in my network operations centre. I make no apologies for this. But last night Hee Jong Kim, the President of KISA, spoke about the importance of women in ICT.
So I would like to quote a few lines from her. She described ICT as an industry that requires expertise, position and cooperative work. The question being, how do women fall into the demands of the challenging role of networking 24/7?
She mentioned something that was extremely striking to me. She said that women prefer action to competition and women work best in horizontal rather than hierarchical organizations.
To sum it up simply, women complement men. We invite you to capitalize on female strengths within your organization.
Like Craig Ng, I come from the dark side -- layer 1 and layer 2, from the broadcast, radio content development industries in the Philippines. It is for these very reasons that the Nom Com believed I would complement the other members of the board.
We are facing a lot of interest from governments and regulators, and I come from a highly regulated and territorial-minded world. Moving forward in ICANN, what ICANN aims to do is not only promote the names and the numbers or the ecosystem which makes the global Internet possible but to ensure that we work harmoniously and with an understanding across the different interests of governments and nations, the business sector across the world.
With that, I say thank you very much. I'm honored to represent Asia.
Paul Wilson: I would like to repeat that personal thanks to Judith for her involvement and her support of the APNIC meetings for quite some years now. Thanks very much for cooperating by giving that very interesting speech at very short notice as well, and sincere congratulations on your recent appointment to the ICANN board. Thanks.
Maemura Akinori: Any questions or comments before moving forward?
Let's move on to the next part, which is the report from the Executive Council.
Again, my name is Akinori Maemura, the Chair of the APNIC Executive Council. Here I deliver my report from the APNIC EC for the recent six months activity.
This is the current APNIC EC composition. You see them on the stage. I would like to have each EC member introduce themselves.
James Spenceley: James Spenceley, I'm an APNIC EC member for three years now and treasurer.
Ma Yan: Ma Yan. I would like to really cooperate with all of you, so if anybody would like to consult with APNIC on business and facilitate Internet development in our region, please come to me. Thank you.
Wendy Zhao: Wei Zhao, new EC member. Thank you.
Gaurab Raj Upadhaya: I'm Gaurab Raj Upadhaya, EC member.
Kenny Huang: My name is Kenny Huang, new EC member.
Che-Hoo Cheng: I'm Che-Hoo Cheng from Hong Kong.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much.
This year, 2011, we have three newcomers on the Executive Council and we have a really good composition of fresh people and experienced people, I think.
Of course, Paul Wilson, who is our Director General, is a full member of the Executive Council in an ex officio capacity.
The functions of the APNIC EC, as it is read, but largely the APNIC Executive Council is overseeing the APNIC Secretariat's operations and setting the fees and setting the budget cap, and another big job for us is to endorse the policy consensus towards implementation.
We have monthly meetings largely by teleconference and we have five meetings up to this week for the most recent six months. All the EC meetings minutes can be found on the EC website, which is very easy to remember, www.apnic.net/ec.
Once the meeting minutes are approved, they are published on the EC website.
We have taken considerable time for our discussions for the strategic planning. Strategic planning was first reported to you in the Hong Kong meeting, which was identifying the strategic issues and challenges and preparing potential responses and positions.
We also had a strategic planning session at the APNIC Meeting this week, and we have three points which are our major concern. Number 1 is the NIR structure.
Right now we are in the process of the recognition of the Indian NIR and we had some possible candidates for the National Internet Registry.
Having a National Internet Registry has quite a significant influence for the APNIC operations. That's why we are keen to consider that.
The second thing we are concerned about is the medium-term financial outlook for APNIC. We have already run out of IPv4 space and the influence has already been there, but we will have a lot of other influences from now on. We need to have a careful look at the financial thing for the near future, to secure the stable operation of APNIC.
As I said, IPv4 addresses are already exhausted, and as you see this week, we have IPv6 full day plenary.
IPv6 deployment in this region and moreover globally is one of our important jobs, and also we have some influence on IPv4 address exhaustion, which is the emergence of the IPv4 transfer. They are quite new things which we have not had in the past. That's the focal point of our strategic planning.
The Indian NIR, there is a brief history.
In-principle approval was granted in late 2009, and there are implementation plans pending. Planning is now under way and right now we are concerned about hosting the technical services from APNIC to the forthcoming National Internet Registry.
We had a training program for three weeks for NIXI staff in Brisbane, which is hands-on training for them to understand the work and jobs in the Internet registries. We had a high-level visit from the NIXI executives to Brisbane in July, which I also participated in remotely from Tokyo.
We still have some training for the Hostmaster, which is being planned.
Overall, I can say that we are in the process of the NIR recognition and we expect that it will be completed in the near future.
Member and stakeholder survey for the year 2011, this was already mentioned by the Director General. We have some findings from the survey, which will be itemized, like focused on improving rather than expanding, and the membership and the stakeholders want more training, more localized initiatives and more support for IPv6 deployment.
These findings from the survey are included in the future planning for APNIC, our activities of the Executive Council.
The next survey is to be scheduled in mid-2012, which is a bit earlier than usual, but we think that that is needed for the first year of integration of the survey outcomes into APNIC's activities.
If you are interested in our response, how the Executive Council has accepted the survey, please visit the URL on the bottom line, if you so wish.
Executive Council is representing the members to oversee APNIC's operations, and we are also serving you, and we are happy to have your feedback, opinions, questions, any input, findings. Please come to any of the Executive Council members for this kind of occasion.
Also, we can do that online. In that case, the firstname.lastname@example.org is the window for you to submit such feedback.
Thank you very much. (Speaks Korean) I tried my Korean at the beginning part of this APNIC Member Meeting, but I think it was not so good. I think this (Speaks Korean) can be largely understood by you, which of course means "thank you". Thank you very much.
James Spenceley: This one will be pretty short. It's an interim report, so we will do the longer one at the shared APRICOT Meeting, as the financial year for APNIC is a January to December financial year, so the APRICOT Meeting times with effectively the full-year results.
The key, we have continued to implement the change to the fee structure, as previously outlined a number of meetings ago. The key big change now is we have implemented the new non-member fee schedule, which is for the few organizations who have obtained IP resources without membership.The financial status for year to date 30 June, which is effectively six months, we had a reported surplus of AUD 1.4 million on revenue of AUD 7.4 million. 7.4 minus 1.4 is an expenditure of AUD 6 million.
As you can see, the surplus there is quite high. In some cases, there is a little bit of timing differences, where we end up with more revenue being accrued or more expenses being expensed in the first six months, so we don't expect the surplus to be that high at the end of the year.
Key membership stats, there were 242 Members in the first half of 2011, up significantly, giving APNIC a total of 2,763 Members at 30 June. You can see there is a good increase in membership numbers.The forecast surplus for the full year should be close to AUD 1 million, on forecast revenues of AUD 15 million, which is 4.5 per cent ahead of the budget the EC adopted. That is again due to membership growth.Our forecast expenditure will be AUD 14 million, which is 1 per cent below our budget of AUD 4.2 million. So Paul and the team and Richard and the team have been doing a great job of keeping expenses under control.In the first column, the budget, we expected to have a AUD 200,000 surplus for the year 2011. We are now increasing that, due to the increase in revenues and decrease in costs, to just under AUD 1 million to AU$991,000.
The APNIC EC took a mid-year review of the budget.Our initial budget presented to the EC was for a break-even budget as opposed to the AUD 200,000 surplus. At our face-to-face meeting in December we made a number of changes to the budget and postponed the enterprise resource management project that Richard talked about and we deferred the staff in-house general counsel position. The revised budget was then a surplus of AUD 200,000.
At the time, we noted the uncertainty of IPv4 exhaustion on revenues and just a general conservative nature that the APNIC EC and I as treasurer are keen to take.
We postponed both of those until the mid-year review and the great news was that revenues are up and costs down, so we could progress with both those projects.
I'm telling you this to show that the APNIC EC is taking a diligent goal to financial management of APNIC in what are certainly uncertain times ahead.
The balance sheet position, there are a lot of current assets, which is cash, cash equivalents, investment grade investments, and non-cash assets, which is predominantly made up of obviously the APNIC offices in Brisbane.
This graph which we keep showing you at every meeting, the green section is the purchase at cost of the APNIC building. That building is expected to increase in value over time, however we keep that on the books at the purchase price. Red is financial assets, long-term investments and the blue is cash reserves.
Certainly the EC is looking at the cash reserves position and within the next few meetings we will come up with a policy on exactly the right level of cash reserves to have, compared to operating costs.
That's it for my presentation. Does anyone have any questions?
Finances are riveting stuff. No questions?
I will give a more formal and detailed presentation of the full-year results for 2011 at APNIC 33.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much, James.
This part was the reports from the Executive Council. If you have any questions or comments for the EC part, we are happy to hear.
Then let's move on to the next part, which is the SIG report. We will have the Policy SIG report from Andy Linton, the Chair of the Policy SIG.
Sunny Chendi: Can I show one slide from Geoff's presentation, which we couldn't show, because I received it very late. I want to show one slide, with your permission.
Maemura Akinori: All right.
Sunny Chendi: It is very interesting, which is why I want to put it up.
That is the R&D team of APNIC. Sorry, GGM.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you. Thank you, Andy, for your patience. We appreciate your hard work, Andy, thank you.
Andy Linton: I will never dare not have my slides here on time again.
I would like to give you the report on the Policy SIG and our activities yesterday.
Before I go to the slide that talks about our process -- I'm the new Policy SIG Chair and I have two new Policy SIG Co-chairs, who I think are both here -- Masato is here. Skeeve is not here at the moment.
Yesterday was my first full day at the Policy SIG, and I would like to thank Adam for his help and support.
Just to remind you all, the Policy SIG development process, this is an extract from our process. We have a process where we put policies up and then at this meeting we have face-to-face discussions in the SIG sessions, and those policies that we can put to the meeting and gauge that we have reached consensus on, we move on to the next stage of the process.
Yesterday, we had some policy proposals which did gain consensus and some which didn't. I am going to report on all of those for you.
It's important to note that the next stage of the process is, for those that did reach consensus, we report these to you now. That's what the slide says "We are here." You are required again to endorse that proposal, anything that has got consensus, and signify that we should continue. So these are checks and balances to make sure we do a good job on this.
I will talk about the policy proposals in a moment.
Before we got to the meeting, I posted on the mailing list saying I thought there were some things we were looking at where we needed to do a review of IPv6 policy. We are now in stage 3 of IPv4 exhaustion. We are in the last /8. IPv6 policy is now the main area of interest, or it should be anyway. I think that was indicated by our policy work yesterday, we were talking about v6, we weren't talking about v4 very much.
One of the things I asked from the meeting was could we begin to think about some high-level review of this.
Adam has signalled there's some work to do from the administrative side of looking at all the policies, tidying them up and making them coherent, because they are a bit piecemeal and scattered. He will do that.
There is work for the members of the Policy SIG Community to look at these other things and think firmly and hard about what we want to do, where we want to go.
We are planning for way down the track in the future, we are going into uncharted territory and it would be good for us to do that.
I asked the meeting if we should look at that stuff.
I talked with my Co-chairs and we will put together exactly what we mean by that and come back to the Policy SIG Mailing List. You can subscribe, if you are not already subscribed, and I hope to see us promote discussion on the list, which gets us to the point where we think about some ideas that we could form policies with and perhaps bring them to Delhi and so on.
I say "we" as a community, rather than the chairs.
The items we had to deal with, the first one on the table was global policy prop-069. For people who have been at meetings for a long time, they will think, we dealt with this a long time ago. Actually, you did, and this was a proposal which has been pending approval at each of the remaining stages of the policy development process.
It is about the global policy for the allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries from IANA.
This policy is one that has got orphaned. We passed this policy, it came through this process, it went to the final call on the mailing list and eventually went to the EC, who then endorsed that policy. Unfortunately it can't proceed because all the other RIRs didn't agree to the same wording. We are now in the position where this is on the books but it doesn't make any sense, because prop-097 that we passed at the last meeting supersedes it.
So I asked the meeting to recognize that and we put the motion to them that the membership of the Policy SIG recognize this and that we think that prop-069 should be abandoned.
The process we decided to follow was that it would come to the group, we would ask for consensus, we would ask you for consensus and then we will push it up through the EC and actually take it out of the business in the same way as we put it into action.
At this stage, I ask you all can we reach consensus on this policy that we actually abandon this prop-069?
At this point, I would like you to signify if you are in favour of that. Please put your hands up. This is not just APNIC Members.
Anybody against us doing that, abandoning, apart from the troublemakers in the middle? OK.
I am happy that we have reached consensus. It's sort of an informal consensus because it's not really a full proposal but I think it's good for us to go through the mechanisms. Thank you.
We had four more normal proposals, proposals that we would normally deal with at the Policy SIG, yesterday.
Prop-096 talked about maintaining demonstrated needs requirement in transfer policy in the final /8 phase policy. We had a proposal about optimizing IPv6 allocation strategies, and we had one about IPv6 reservation for large networks and another proposal about a national IP address plan, an allocation of country-wide IP address blocks. I will talk a little about each of them in more detail.
Prop-096, maintaining demonstrated needs. In summary, the problems this proposal aims to address are that APNIC is the only RIR that does not have a required demonstrated need for transfers. All the other RIRs have this.
Other RIRs are reluctant to recognize any inter-RIR transfer policy with APNIC. That's kind of a problem for us because we don't have any addresses and they do.
So this is what this policy addresses.
The proposed solution was that recipients of transfers be required to justify their need for IPv4 address space. We reached consensus on this in the meeting and we need to do it again.
I am going to lock the doors now and get you to reach consensus. We need to do this. This is all part of our process. Those people in favour of passing this proposal to the next stage, please put your hands up.
Those who are not in favour of passing that?
Jonny, do you have your hand up?
Jonny Martin: I do.
Andy Linton: That is not significant -- not because it's you, Jonny. That confirms the decision we made yesterday and is probably more forceful than the decision we reached yesterday.
The next stage of this is that we put it back to the mailing list for the last call, then it will go on to the EC for endorsement.
We had three other proposals, prop-098, optimizing IPv6 allocation strategies. This deals with a number of issues, so I will quickly go through them, the problems the proposal aims to address: LIRs feel they must fit their entire subscriber base into a single /32. Network outages caused by bit math errors will lead to disaggregation. The engineers know that's really bad, and everybody else, you have to trust us, it's really bad.
The HD-ratio leaves much to be desired as an address administration tool.
The proposed solution, utilization be measured in provider allocation units, the smallest reassignment unit, and 75 per cent or more of utilization or in other circumstances one or more facilities has reached a 90 per cent utilization, that would be the measure the block has been used.
The solution then goes on to consider to allow LIRs to request nibble-aligned blocks. That means that blocks would be assigned as /32, /28, /24, /20, /16.
That would be the sizes we would see. The default minimum would be /32, which lines up with our current policy.
The maximum to accommodate here would be five years, and the subordinate LIR block count -- when you hand blocks out to an LIR, they are deemed to be fully utilized.
When you fill up your /32, you come back and do not get a /31 but you would get a /28 if you meet all the criteria. The allocation would not be bigger than a /16 but a provider could have more than one /16 if they needed it.
We didn't reach consensus on this, so we don't have to take any action here. We have put it back to the mailing list for further discussion. The author may decide that a rewrite is required or the list may come up with other ideas.
Prop-099 is IPv6 reservation for large networks.
The proposed solution here was -- there is a typo on the slide, proposed solution. I can see the picture appearing for getting it wrong. Reservation request for projected network growth up to 10 years with long-term network plans and environmental factors included.
Large economies, like China and India -- and others of course, but they have the very large population -- see themselves growing to very large numbers. We are increasingly seeing that people are interested in knowing what their future is, where they are going to be in five years, rather than just two and so on.
One of the parts of this would be that the reservation expired after two years unless it was rejustified. Even though you predicted 10 years of growth, after two years you would look again and say, "How well did we gaze into the crystal ball?"
Again, this one didn't reach consensus but there was some interest in the meeting that we would actually continue to discuss this. This is not a problem that's going away. I think what we agreed probably was that we haven't found the right solution to this, rather than that the problem doesn't exist.
Similarly, there was a proposal from India that they were looking to -- let's talk about the problem. They see that APNIC policy does not allow address blocks to be allocated at the economy level. We have never done that in the past. The proposal called for adequate IPv6 address space per economy to be reserved for future allocations to organizations and stakeholders in that economy.
When they talked about their proposal, they saw that prop-099 was like a subset of what they were after or what they were interested in, but they did challenge us to think about analysis and projection of requirements, and that the reservation of IPv6 address space for different economies in APNIC would be a good thing.
Again, we didn't reach consensus. We have gone back to the mailing list with this. In a sense, the last three proposals are different viewpoints on the somewhat similar problem. We are not ready to make those decisions yet, I think we are still talking about that.
That's all I have for you.
Any questions? No. Thank you.
Maemura Akinori: The next speaker is Izumi Okutani.
Izumi Okutani: My name is Izumi Okutani, I would like to briefly introduce what we discussed in NIR SIG for this meeting. We had the session the first thing in the morning for an hour and a half and attending were roughly 30 people, mostly NIRs, but it was also open to non-NIRs as well, so we had a few non-NIR attendees as well.
The main purpose of the SIG is to exchange operational issues or activity of NIRs. This time, we had four presentations, which are listed here, and also election of Chair and Co-chair positions.
The election was very smooth because we just had one candidate for each position. As the Chair, myself from JPNIC, was re-elected. The Co-chair, Jessica Shen, who is not in the meeting right now, but has replaced Wendy Zhao, as the Co-chair position. I would like to thank Wendy for serving as Co-chair until today.
The current Chair and Co-chairs are, in addition to these two Chair and Co-chairs, we have Ji-Young Lee from KISA.
We mainly had an update on activities of NIRs, which I have listed here.
One was there was an introduction on how World IPv6 Day went in Taiwan, and this is the photo of the day, and you can see the really friendly and cooperative atmosphere. Apparently, 14 organizations participated and basically it was a success that they were able to find issues about IPv6 connectivity, that they had some routing optimization to be revised and backbone bandwidth.
VNNIC has given us some updates on how IPv6 deployment is going in Vietnam, that they are providing a national v6 testing network for their ISPs to be able to join.
Lastly, they have given us an update on a new DNS service for the Internet of Things, so it's not just limited to the switching off of IP address and domain names but also for URL, RFID and the other things that are beyond our current use of DNS.
Anyone who is interested to join the research that CNNIC is conducting, you are very welcome to contact Terence, whose email is listed here.
We also had a discussion to review how the NIR SIG itself should be running, because we usually have updates from each NIR, but then it might be useful to have a more focused topic on the discussions and information exchanges and also some form of continual information exchanges and collaboration outside the bi-annual meetings we had, so we had some brainstorming discussions.
After some more discussions, we hope to come up with a proposal on how we can make the SIG more useful by the next meeting.
That is all from me, and you can see more details on the materials on the URL listed here. Thank you.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you, Izumi.
Any questions or comments for the SIG report part?
We are running smoothly.
We had two SIG sessions, and one session which was chaired by the two working groups. Next we will invite the WG Chairs to report to us about their working groups.
The first of these two is the Voting Rights WG.
To make use of this time, if you have any questions, we are happy to hear them.
Desi Valli: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Desi Valli, I'm one of the Co-chairs of the Membership Voting Rights Working Group and I'm here to report to you the findings of the working group in the last six months.
I wanted to make it a little more colourful than the usual black and white I've mostly seen in APNIC, so I thought of putting some graphics into it, nothing beyond that.
I just wanted to give the background of this working group. As we all know, the Executive Council is an elected body and members are expected to vote and elect EC members. We know about this. I'm just giving the background about the reason for forming this working group.
Currently, APNIC follows a proportional voting system and the proportional voting system is as follows: we have seven tiers and each tier has a different number of votes based on the number of IP addresses that they have been allocated, and that's the practice that has been practised in our community. Even though there is a change in the number of tiers, this practice has been there almost from the day APNIC was formed.
The proposal was placed by Mr Pavan Duggal on the Gold Coast at APNIC 30. The problem cited by the proposer was that a large section of the membership community is being run down due to the proportional voting system. The opinion placed by the proposer was that many of the members are not able to be part of these -- because they have been run down, as some of the sections of the people have a lot more votes than other sections of the people. It's an opinion of the proposer, and the proposal was placed to introduce equal voting rights for all members in APNIC.
That means it is a one member one vote system.
Generally, instead of having the variations in the number of votes per peer, the proposer has proposed that we will have only one vote per member. That means that if the number of vacancies for EC is more than one, the member will have vote one each, depending on the vacancies of the EC.
The working group was formed during the same APNIC 30, and myself and Dr Kenny Huang were made Co-chairs for the working group. The objective given was to discuss possible changes to APNIC membership voting rights and report back.
The discussion is still ongoing. In fact, it was supposed to be reported in APNIC 32 finally, but we could not finish off with the work the working group is doing as of now.
In the working group we have 67 members and the number of postings online was 225, as of last night.
The number of active participants is around 27. What I mean by "27" is members who have posted at least one comment in the working group.
An in-progress report was produced to members during APNIC 31 in Hong Kong, when we gave an in-progress report. In fact, even this report is an in-progress report.
Members were called for a meeting at APNIC 32. We decided to have a face-to-face meeting with interested parties, so the members were called for a meeting at APNIC 32, which happened the day before yesterday.
Around 40 to 45 members participated in that.
We announced the resignation of Dr Kenny Huang -- in fact, he resigned in the month of May as he was elected as one of the EC members and he didn't want to continue as the Co-chair of this Working Group, so he resigned from this responsibility. This was announced.
Skeeve Stevens was nominated as the new Co-chair, and he will be working along with me in developing the new processes, if any.
Members who oppose, support and also those who wanted to propose new formats were asked to deliberate their views. We had a detailed discussion face-to-face for more than one and a half hours. Members were expressing their views, different views.
The summary of the discussions -- the summary is in totality, which is based on what has happened over the email as well as the expressions which were given by the members at the site. Also, this includes the information or comments which were made by members before the APNIC 31. So it's a combined summary, it is not only for the last six months.
Members have expressed that issues in the current system are not explicit. What they felt is that the proposal doesn't carry any explicit reasoning for the current proposal, except one reason. So many of the members felt that it is not explicit, not all issues are discussed yet.
It is deliberated that the issues be derived out of a detailed analysis. Many members feel that we need more and more information to understand what kind of issues exist in the current system and are there really any issues existing in the system, before even proposing a new proposal.
Many members feel that even if you are coming out with a proposal, it is important that we have enough data to analyse, so there is no such conflict of interest or such issues which are coming up in the new proposal, which could be made by the Working Group later on.
There are views that the proposal may not be good enough to fix the issues that may prevail now. What it means is that the current proposal which is placed by the proposer, there are views that it may not be good enough, even though there may be some issues or may not be some issues, but this may not solve all the problems that people perceive as a problem.
There were debates about the implications on NIR, because the proposal does not recommend anything for the NIR, whether the voting rights of the NIR will change or the voting rights of the members of the NIR will change.
It's not been recommended by the proposer, even though there were recommendations by the members in the Working Group Forums, there was no such proposal given by the proposer in the proposal itself. So it is supposed to be clarified.
There were a few people who had given some datum to prove that -- there were lots of Excel sheets and tables that were exchanged in the forum, which were saying that the change recommended by the proposer will not bring any shift in the balance of regions, which was highlighted by the proposer.
One of the reasons for the proposer to propose the new proposal is to have a balance between regions, but there were some data given that stated that even after change this may not bring in a shift in the balance of regions.
It has also been referred that the counterparts like ARIN, RIPE NCC follow the proposed method, so that is what the proposer has proposed. Not all RIRs follow this, but some RIRs are following this voting structure.
It is viewed that the voting be restricted only through online methods. Some current members of the committee have proposed that it be completely online, so that there may not be cartelization of votes.
Over and above the debates and discussions which happened through this forum, there are three more proposals which were placed. One is to recommend to maintain the status quo. There was a proposal, an official proposal in the format as recommended by APNIC that was placed to continue with the current model of voting tiers. There was one more proposal which was placed, which is about a nomination committee being created to put forward suitably qualified candidates, for the various EC positions, each APNIC member be provided with at most two votes in each election, one vote if they are an APNIC member and one additional vote if they hold APNIC or NIR resources, and a proposal to change voting strengths from 1 to 64 to 1 to 4. Instead of having the gap between 1 and 64, it was proposed that we continue with the tier system but have the tier between 1 and 4.
We found that there is general agreement that there is a need for more and more analysis to come out with any change in the current model. This is one broad agreement which most of the members in the community have agreed.
Also, there is an agreement that there is a need for more ideas, because this may not be the only solution.
There could be many more models which could be analyzed and the pros and cons of those models could be understood before finalizing a concrete model. That's how members feel. Members feel that there should be more and more debate on various options.
Also, it has been recommended during the face-to-face meeting that not only the members who are in the Working Group but such proposals may be placed by members who are not part of the Working Group. So it is recommended that such communications shall be sent to APNIC too.
The final agreement we have is that more options should be delivered among members, so that a model can be built after understanding the merits and demerits of each model, so we choose the best out of the models we have.
There is a submission placed to the EC by a few of the members. The members have asked for data that provides a census report on any of the past elections that helps to gather the information regarding participating tiers, so obviously it has to be provided by the Secretariat, but the submission is to the EC. A member has asked for data on different censuses, based on some of the past elections.
Another report which was asked for is the current member data on various tiers of every economy by the Secretariat.
What are the number of members, what is the tier structure of these members in every economy? So that this can be used for analyzing problems, if any.
Finally, the submission to the members is that, as expressed, please post more ideas, thoughts and views to help the Working Group to make the recommendations. The details of the Working Group and the archives of the discussion can be found in this link.
Finally, and I haven't put this in text in the presentation, my personal request to the members is that, even though I'm not from a native English speaking country, I think there is a fine line difference between debate and argument. In the emails, I recommend that we keep the debate going while dropping the argumentative approach. Thank you very much.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you, Desi, for your effort.
For your information, Desi pointed to the Working Group web page and you can find the objective of the Working Groups to discuss possible changes to APNIC membership voting rights and to report back at APNIC 32.
APNIC 32 is this time, and that is why Desi delivered the report for us. Thank you very much for that, and I thank him very much. There was a lot of discussion there.
Now I need to invite the next speaker, who is Naveen Tandon. He is reporting about the Government Advisory Council Working Group.
Naveen Tandon: Honourable members of the Executive Council and members of the community, good afternoon to everyone. My name is Naveen Tandon and I'm the Chair for the Working Group to discuss the proposal on the involvement of government.
Before I begin, I would like to mention two more Co-chairs are part of the Working Group, Mr Shyam Nair, who is with us in the room and Mr Yi Lee from TWNIC. We have not been formally informed whether he is part of the working group since he has left TWNIC, but since we have not received any communication, we continue to welcome him as a Co-chair of the group.
Some of the facts about the Working Group, for the benefit of the community members, this was first formed at APNIC 30 in August 2010 at the Gold Coast. The original charter which was proposed by the proposer, Mr Rajesh Chharia, was to discuss specific proposals in which governments can further develop their involvement and report back at APNIC 32. As Chairs, we have initiated the discussions, so as per the latest statistics, the present strength of the Working Group subscribers is 63. As Chairs, we have used different modes of initiating and steering the discussions.
The online discussions in the Working Group to the mailing groups, an in-progress report was presented by the Working Group at APNIC 31 in Hong Kong and then we had a face-to-face meeting with members here in Busan on 29 August.
Based on the comments received to the original proposal, the proposal was slightly revised and circulated for the community views initially. I would like to take you to the summary of the revised proposal.
The name of the proposal has been mentioned as public policy advisory committee because the community members suggested that only government would not be appropriate, since the aim of the proposal is to have a multi-stakeholder engagement. We named it Public Policy Advisory Committee in APNIC, and it is supposed to be a multi-stakeholder formal advisory body comprising industry, community participants and some government representatives.
The committee will be a framework to institutionalize the private/public engagement within APNIC on matters relating to public policies encompassing all the facets of the Internet.
I would like to inform that this committee in no way, as per the proposal, tries to create conflict with the existing set-up, whereas there are broader rules and issues to be discussed on the Internet and that's what it likes to proactively work upon.
The role of the committee will be to work with APNIC on matters related to public policy issues for the development of the Internet in the region and will proactively advise APNIC on new policies and emerging developments in the respective regions. It will also provide APNIC an opportunity to participate in the policy development processes of respective member companies. It aims to provide an interface with appropriate government organizations on matters related to the Internet community and will also advise all stakeholders to propose ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in their respective regions.
It will also discuss public policy issues to foster sustainability, security, stability and development of the Internet.
Being a multi-stakeholder engagement platform, it will certainly facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, as will be provided by respected members. It will strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing and/or future Internet policy developments.
It will also identify emerging issues and bring them to the attention of the APNIC community also.
It will attempt to work as an advocacy group to help the government and industry make informed decisions in the overall interest in the growth of the Internet.
We had discussions through various means and the summary of discussions is that opinions were expressed by community members on the role and importance of government in the growth of the Internet. Support was extended finally to the revised proposal of engaging multi-stakeholders for the body. It was suggested that further deliberation to operationalize needs firming up, requiring more input. In summary, the queries were relating to understanding how the proposed committee will function.
Here is the report that we would like to submit to the EC. The report is based on the discussions and face-to-face meetings. We feel that consensus is achieved in the community to constitute the advisory body at APNIC. As for the recommendations, we request the Executive Council to initiate steps to operationalize the body, the body be named Public Policy Advisory Committee. Discussions will be required to continue amongst the community members to work on the fine print and structure of how the committee will work.
The conclusive framework of the committee will be presented at APNIC 33 in New Delhi.
Here are the useful links, and I would encourage all my community members to join the Working Group and keep on sending their suggestions on how best to operationalize this committee for the growth of the Internet. Thank you.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you, Naveen.
Thank you for the hard work of the WG. The EC will consider these reports and consider the next step in the next EC meeting.
This is quite significant for the entire membership, and we will need some input from the membership, and such kind of public comment period should be done before our consideration, so I would seek your cooperation and your input for that. Do you have any questions, comments or clarification on this?
Thank you very much.
It is now time for our tea break.
Sunny Chendi: I have one announcement to make before we go to the tea break.
This is regarding the closing dinner tonight. Those who have tickets, which were given for the closing dinner, if you have a ticket, please meet us in the foyer of the hotel at 5:45 pm. The restaurant is at Ocean Tower on level 3, which is close to the Busan Aquarium. Please be on time, because we have booked the restaurant from 6:15 or so onwards and it is limited to 70 or 76 persons only. That's why we have announced and we have requested the delegates to nominate the choice if they wish to attend the closing dinner at the time of registration. We will see you at 5:45 for that in the lobby of this hotel. Thank you.
Let's take a tea break and we will resume the session at 4 o'clock.
AMM (APNIC Member Meeting)
Thursday, 1 September 2011
16:00 (UTC +9)
Maemura Akinori: It is 4:00 pm sharp. We will resume the APNIC Member Meeting. This is the final session for today and the entire week of the APNIC 32 Conference.
Having the working groups report done, we have the open microphone part of the session. You are encouraged to go up to the microphone, if you have any input, questions, comments, everything is OK.
First of all, I would like to invite Raimundo Beca, please. He is serving for the ASO review, ASO is one of the ICANN supporting organizations for the IP addresses.
He is seeking input from the community. Please, Raimundo.
Raimundo Beca: Thanks very much. This is the third time in this meeting when I invite the attendees to this APNIC 32 Meeting to please fill in the survey. I would like it if you could do it before leaving town, but if not, you can do it at home also, but it's very important for us to receive feedback from the community. We are going to be preparing a report and we want this report to represent what the people in the community think. By this morning, I don't know where we are now, but by this morning we had received only seven answers to the survey, which is very poor, but I hope that we will have more than that at the end of the day.
Thank you very much.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much, Raimundo.
Any other comments, questions, advertisement of your activity; anything which should be good for the community to share?
All right. Let's move on to the next part, which is the announcement about the next meeting.
Still we have some other reports. The first for the last session will be delivered by Raphael Ho. He's reporting about APIX.
Raphael Ho: Thank you very much, everybody.
I would like to give a quick report on the APIX meeting number four. Unfortunately our chair has left for Japan, so I'm stepping in on his behalf.
Basically, just a quick introduction to what is the APIX forum. It's basically an offshoot of the SIG IX and it's the association of Internet exchange providers in the Asia Pacific region. Our goals and objectives are to share information about technical, operational and business issues and solutions regarding Internet exchange and basically it's an experience sharing forum for the Internet exchange community.
This is the fourth meeting and we have 12 ISPs that were part of this meeting, as you can see up there.
Also, we had Euro-IX and AMS-IX remotely participating in our meeting.
Basically, we had a good meeting, we talked about some of the technical issues, we talked about the 100-gig interoperability experience sharing and also some of the impact of the World IPv6 Day on Internet exchange providers.
We also talked about some of the administrative topics, the incorporation of the forum and also we talked about the financials and also membership fees, et cetera.
Basically, the meeting was, again, as I said, successful and we will continue the discussion of this.
Basically, the key message here is if you guys have an Internet exchange in your country that will be relevant to join this, please let me and the other co-chairs know. I will be happy to invite you guys to our next meeting, which will be in New Delhi, collocating with the APRICOT/APNIC meetings.
We would like to thank APNIC for allowing us to host the event here, with the rest of the APNIC community.
This is the current co-chair team, so if there are any questions, please let us know.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much for that.
Maemura Akinori: Next is the SIG and PC report, which will be handled by Sunny.
Sunny Chendi: This is APNIC program committee and SIG chair's report. We met this afternoon during the lunchtime and we discussed a number of SIGs that exist in the APNIC community and we discussed the future of those SIGs and the future of the program committee.
I'm presenting the report on behalf of all the program committee and the SIG chairs here.
APNIC SIG, as you are aware, may have outlived its purpose. That includes a lack of discussion on the mailing list, there is a number of SIGs that there is no activity on the mailing list for the last two years.
There is lack of response or presentations at SIG sessions. Actually, we haven't had any SIG sessions in the last two-over years in APNIC Conference, apart from the NIR SIG and Policy SIG. Also, the low attendance at the SIG. These are the criteria for outliving as SIG.
As per the SIG guidelines, a SIG may be dissolved if the members of the SIG decide that it's an appropriate course of action. This recommendation is approved by the AMM, in the sense on this floor here, in this meeting now.
If a SIG is dissolved, all the associated mailing lists will be closed for subscription, but the public archives will remain on the APNIC website and the APNIC Secretariat will notify the subscribers of the actions taken from this floor now here.
We have a database SIG, we have DNS operation SIG, we have IPv6 technical SIG, Internet exchange SIG, routing SIG, apart from NIR and Policy SIG.
These SIGs were not active for the last two years or so and the PC, the program committee, and the SIG chairs decided that these SIGs will be closed and the mailing list will be closed as well, but the Secretariat will maintain the archives of the SIGs and then allow the SIGs to take part in APOPS, APIX and APRICOT peering forum respectively.
So if there is any interest on this mailing list or there is any interest in the SIGs, they can discuss at APOPS for any operational content and at APIX for any Internet exchange related material and at peering forum as well as any Internet exchange related forum.
Alongside, we also have a program committee that voluntarily works for putting together content for these conferences. As some of you probably know, we have program committee for APRICOT, a program committee for APNIC as well.
In the meeting, it was decided that we maintain one program committee for both the conferences. It does really make sense, because some of the people are the same people that are there on both committees.
So from APRICOT 2012, there is some action items for Philip Smith here to take consensus or agreement from the APIA board, whether we move forward with having one committee and calling for volunteers once for two conferences for one year.
These are pending. We'll report back to the mailing list, the appropriate mailing list, of the course of action.
So I would like to now seek consensus from this floor to close database SIG, IX SIG, DNS operations SIG and routing SIG. How many of you agree with this decision made by the SIG chairs and the program committee? Please raise your hands.
Is there anyone here who does not agree with the decision?
I see the consensus, so these listed SIGs will be closed. The archives will be maintained. Subscriptions will be notified of the course of action from this floor. Thank you very much for supporting the APNIC community for all these years and we look forward to your support for the APOPS, APIX and APRICOT peering forum in future. Thank you.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much. I would like to extend at this opportunity to appreciate all SIG chairs and co-chairs and contributors for the SIG who have been making the APNIC community rich and more productive.
Thank you very much. Also I would like to again express appreciation for the WGs, for their effort and the service received by the Executive Council.
Thank you very much.
The next part will be APNIC 33, Rajesh.
Rajesh Chharia will introduce you to our next meeting, APNIC 33, APRICOT in New Delhi.
Rajesh Chharia: Thank you, Mr Akinori. Ladies and gentlemen, these five days have been very educative to me and all of us sitting over here.
I wish to thank the host, KISA, Mr Paul Wilson and his admirable team for the entire event.
Thanks once again to APIA board, APNIC, SANOG and APTLD organization for showing their confidence in India for hosting APRICOT 2012. The good news is that the APTLD is also coming along with APRICOT 2012.
We would like to welcome again all the APNIC members to come to APRICOT 2012 meeting at Delhi in February 2012.
It will be our pleasure to be the host. We have learned a lot from the meeting here at Busan, as well as from the previous meetings, and hope that we will make it a memorable visit to Delhi for you all.
Rajesh Chharia: Thank you very much.
Rajesh Chharia: Now I will request Dr Govind, CEO of NIXI, as a co-host of the event, to please come on stage, along with the other members of the Indian delegation on stage.
This is our traditional style, that we are inviting our guests with the whole family. Right now, I cannot say that the whole family is all here; part of the family is along with me.
While you stay in Delhi, during the event, if you require any support, let me introduce the team, who will be taking care of you.
First, Ms Natasha. She is the Event Director of ISPAI.
Rajesh Chharia: Mr SP Jerath, a very energetic and very experienced man, Secretary ISPAI.
Rajesh Chharia: At the same time, a very young dynamic Mr Shamanayar, Financial Secretary, ISPAI.
Rajesh Chharia: Mr DC Jain, who is heading the event into ISPAI.
Rajesh Chharia: Mr Lalit Mathur, who is a part of the Event Committee.
Rajesh Chharia: Mr Desi Valli -- sorry, he is also not here.
Mr Naveen Tandon -- APPLAUSE
Rajesh Chharia: -- and Mr KB Narayanan, Advisor NIXI.
I think he's also not here.
That is all from my side. We all welcome you to Delhi for APRICOT 2012 and APTLD.
Now from the host side, ISPAI, I would like to welcome Mr Akinori Maemura with a small gift.
Rajesh Chharia: Mr Paul Wilson, DG, APNIC.
Rajesh Chharia: Thank you once again and we all welcome you to Delhi. Thank you.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much, Rajesh. It is really fantastic for us to go to India, after our previous meeting there in 2008.
Let's move on to the last part of APNIC Member Meeting which is delivered by Paul Wilson. But before that, from my side, I would like to appreciate all the contributors who made this APNIC 32 Conference happen, especially I would like to send our warmest appreciation for the host, KISA, Korea Internet and Security Association, that is because I failed to mention that in social event at the aquarium. That was very fantastic.
The remaining part of this vote of thanks is run by Paul Wilson, because his language is much clearer than mine for delivering that appreciation.
Paul Wilson: Thank you, Akinori. I wouldn't say so, but thanks.
This is the time when we really need to give a heartfelt thanks to everyone who has helped to make this meeting a success this time and of course, I'll start with the sponsors. APNIC 32 has a range of sponsors whose support is absolutely vital to the success of this meeting and so we do need to thank them.
The Gold Sponsors are NIXI and SK Telecom. I would like to invite a representative of NIXI to receive a gift of thanks.
I think we don't have SK Telecom here, but let's give both NIXI and SK Telecom a big round of applause.
Paul Wilson: The Silver Sponsors are Google and KT.
I think neither are in the room but, once again, silver sponsorship is a pretty substantial contribution and I would like us all to say thanks very much to Google and to KT.
Paul Wilson: A whole handful of Bronze Sponsors here: Samsung, Samsung SDS, Korea Tourism Organization, Busan CVB, TWNIC, CNNIC, JPNIC, SK Broadband again, LG.
I think we have Jimmy from TWNIC, Wendy from CNNIC, Izumi from JPNIC, would you come up, please.
Paul Wilson: The social event sponsor, PHCOLO, we have thanked Judith already. Judith is a repeat sponsor for quite some time, so thanks Judith, if you're still here.
Paul Wilson: The remote hub sponsor and let's not forget the remote hub and the people who have been there for the day-to-day. It's MekongNet in Phnom Penh in Cambodia. Is there anyone here still from MekongNet?
OK. We may see them again.
More thanks. SIG chairs, co-chairs, moderators, Izumi, Wendy, Ji-Young, Andy, Terence and Skeeve.
Thanks very much for your help with the SIGs as chairs, moderators and generally keeping things running smoothly.
Thanks to the APNIC Program Committee, quite a few people who are involved there in helping with the content. I think we had for the main part really good content at this meeting.
APNIC EC RIR colleagues and other speakers, too many to list here. I would like to call out APNIC staff in particular who are here again in quite some numbers.
Thanks very much to all the APNIC staff here in Busan.
Of course, some may be watching back in Brisbane, but we do have not everyone from APNIC here, it sometimes looks like it must be everyone, but there is still a crowd back in Brisbane keeping things running while we're all here in Busan, so thanks to all of those people and from me in particular, APNIC staff.
Paul Wilson: The stenocaptioners, they are not robotic computer programs doing this stuff by magic. There are two people, Nicky and Helen, down here in the second row who have been doing this for the last few days.
It must be really exhausting work. Thanks very much for that.
Paul Wilson: And to all of you, everyone who came here, all the way to Busan, some of the flight schedules were a little bit tough, it wasn't so easy to get here, but I think once we have all been here for the week, we have had a fantastic time. It's a brilliant location. It's been a really successful meeting, I think, so most of all, last but certainly not least is the thanks to the local host, KISA.
Paul Wilson: Mr See Yun-ji to receive a gift, thank you.
Paul Wilson: Finally, we have all heard about it, the next Conference, APNIC 33 will be in Delhi, in India, combined with APRICOT 2012, hosted by ISPAI and NIXI.
There are details going up on the website now. You can see it there. You can see the dates. I do hope that we'll see all of you back with, in fact, many more for a bigger event in Delhi next February.
Here is the time to announce also the upcoming Conference, the next one after Delhi, APNIC 34 has been chosen. It's in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. It's 27 to 31 August 2012. It's being hosted by MekongNet. As I said, we will be seeing MekongNet again in about a year's time. It will be our first meeting in Cambodia and the first in that part of the region for quite some time. That's something to really look forward to.
So I think that's all from me. I'll look forward to seeing you all in Delhi, in India, next year and I'll hand it back to Akinori. Thanks.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much. Sunny, do you have any housekeeping?
So that's all for the APNIC 32 Conference in the fantastic city of Busan. I would like to adjourn this meeting. Thank you very much. See you in New Delhi.