PAUL WILSON: We'll start again in a minute or two. It would be a good time now or in the next session to fill in your website feedback survey. Those forms need to be in by the coffee break this afternoon so that the draw can be done so please help us out by giving some feedback on the APNIC website and filling in the form before the coffee break. As Gerard mentioned before, there'll be some kind of fantastic prize. There are forms, website forms, here if anyone would like to pick one up. We might leave them by the tables at the side. OK, we'll get started again. The SIG and BOF reports are being done now and the order of the reports has been changed a little bit with the consent of the SIG Chairs. Arano-san will be up first with the Address policy SIG report. That's the - the Address policy SIG is the one, as I mentioned earlier, which involves most of the policy proposals that need to be reviewed by this meeting. So I'd ask you all to please pay some attention to Arano-san's report and be prepared to vote in favour of or against acceptance of any particular policy proposals. I'd also note that, under the policy development process that has been in place since last year, the policy proposals which are accepted by this meeting will then go out for a final call, a 2-month period where there can be any further discussions, clarifications etc on the mailing list so there are ample opportunities for any of these policies to be reviewed for any problems to be spotted, etc, and that was - that change was made to give some sense of comfort to those who may not be at this meeting, who may not have - or who may not have been able to attend the SIGs - that there is a final chance to ensure that the policy is not going to cause anyone any major problems. After that 2-month period, by the way, providing there are no substantial objections or problems with the policy that have been identified, then the APNIC EC, on behalf of the APNIC membership and community, will accept the consensus of this meeting and, at that point, which would be two months from today, the policies would be regarded as accepted. We are now ready for Arano-san's report. OK, thank you very much Arano-san. TAKASHI ARANO: Thank you, Paul for introduction. This is the 9th Address policy SIG. My name is Arano, the Chair of Address policy SIG and Kenny helps me as a Co-chair. Overview - we have 11 topics in three sessions, including six proposals. The attendance was quite good. First session - 98. Second session - 88. And last session - the second day, 73. My observation that the size and shape of room was quite appropriate for discussion this time. Let me explain the proposals one by one. First proposal was multiple discreet networks. The proposal was to allow multiple APNIC accounts which have discreet networks to be merged into one. And the proposer explained the details. During the discussion, there are many questions about this policy and finally the result that the proposer agreed to resubmit this proposal. They will resubmit a modified version of the proposal to the mailing list. The rewritten proposal will define the multiple discreet network and consider the HD-Ratio for sub-allocating address blocks. That's the new action item. The next proposal is IPv4 minimum allocation size. Actually, this proposal was to lower minimum allocation to /21 with lower eligibility criteria, such as immediate need of /23 and a detailed plan for /22 in a year. The discussion result was that the consensus reached to proceed to AMM and mailing list. The action item at this time is that, pending approval at each remaining stage of the policy proposal process, Secretariat to implement the proposal to reduce the minimum initial allocation size to /21 and to lower the criteria for an initial allocation to demonstrate an immediate need for a /23 and the use of a /22 within one year. Paul, do you want to make - decide one by one here? PAUL WILSON: I think we normally do that to avoid going back. So the thing that we need to do now is to look at this consensus decision from policy SIG about this particular policy proposal and to approve or endorse the consensus that has been reached in the policy SIG. And if the policy is approved in this way, as I mentioned, there is another two months in which any final discussion clarification objections can take place before the policy is committed, finally, to acceptance. So we'll go, as Arano-san describes each of these proposals, we'll go, we'll take each one and consider it and see if it reaches the consensus approval of this meeting. So the first one is the proposal to lower the minimum allocation to /21 with lower eligibility criteria, that is, an immediate need for a /23 and a detailed plan for a /22 in a year. And that has been accepted by the policy SIG. Could I ask for a show of support for this proposal please. Would you raise your hand if you will support this proposal please. Are APNIC staff available to count the hands. Please just hold your hand up for half a minute. OK, so anyone who's against, who would oppose accepting this policy, could you please raise your hand. Now, I'm not going to ask for those with no opinion, because I assume that, if you haven't raised your hand in support or opposition to the policy, then you have no opinion and it seems that that proposal is accepted by consensus, so thank you very much. TAKASHI ARANO: Yeah, I will move on the next topic. Next proposal was IPv6 allocations to closed network which allows IPv6 allocations to closed network if the other criteria are met. And, actually, consensus was reached to proceed to AMM and mailing list. I will read action item - "Pending approval at each remaining stage of the policy proposal process, APNIC Secretariat to implement the proposal to permit allocation of IPv6 address space to closed networks." PAUL WILSON: OK, could I ask you then to raise your hand if you will support this proposal. OK, thank you. And would you please now raise your hand if you oppose the proposal. OK, thank you very much. That's been accepted. TAKASHI ARANO: Next one is also IPv6 related. This was to allow IPv4 infrastructure to be considered during IPv6 request process. The proposer tried to clarify the current policy document and the proposed specific changes in it. And there was some discussion in the meeting and some amendment was proposed. This amendment was add a 2-year usage plan and the proposer agreed to this amendment and this amendment proposal finally get consensus actually. So I will read out the action item - "Pending approval at each remaining stage of the policy proposal process, Secretariat to implement the proposal with the modification that there is an added requirement for LIRs to have plan to move some of their customers from IPv4 to IPv6 within two years." PAUL WILSON: OK, this proposal, again, was accepted by the consensus of this SIG. So could I ask you please to indicate your agreement with that. Please raise your hand if you also agree with this proposal. Thank you. And if you are not in agreement with the proposal, please raise your hands. It seems that, once again, we've got the consensus. Thank you. TAKASHI ARANO: Probably this is the last proposal. It was the recovery of address space. This proposal attempts to recover unused historical IPv4 addresses. According to the proposer, the historical address categorises three types. One is the reused, the other is unrouted. The - unrouted and unused. Actually, the unused means unrouted and even in private, OK. That's the definition of unused. Anyway, APNIC, in this proposal, APNIC Secretariat would identify and recover unused resources and, if APNIC can't contact the resource holder, the resources will be put into the unused pool after one year. This was the proposal. And we had some discussion about this and consensus, timely consensus reached to proceed to AMM and mailing list. So action item is that, "Pending approval at each remaining stage of the policy proposal process, APNIC Secretariat to implement the proposal to recover unused address space." PAUL WILSON: OK, could I ask you then to raise your hand if you will also support this proposal, please. Thank you very much. And if you do not support the proposal, could you raise your hand please. Once again, a clear consensus, thank you. I think that's the last proposal, we move on to informational so we can all relax a little. Thanks. TAKASHI ARANO: OK, yeah, Paul's right. Other presentations were informational but also very important topics. One is IPv6 guidelines. In the previous APNIC meeting, we got consensus about the working group will operate on creating guidelines. Actually, the Co-chair was very aware of the framework of the guidelines proposed here. Generally, we agreed in this room about the guidelines and the contents and the Secretariat action item should be "Secretariat to edit and publish the IPv6 guidelines document on the SIG policy mailing list". And they will make some comment period for that document. That's that action item. Is this OK? Yeah. I will move on. The next one is also important and that's subsequent allocation in DSL/cable guideline. This guideline was developed probably two years ago or something like that. The proposer actually proposed some changes in guideline document and the guideline document is originally intended to be easily changed, not like policy document. So action item should be Secretariat to - action item should be creating new working group which reviews the current DSL guideline. The action item should be, "Secretariat to call for volunteers of new working group." This is OK? Everyone? OK. Other three information, all three were very important and very interesting topics. One is LIR IPv6 requirement. The presenter show that future requirements and tendency of IPv6 usage. In the next presentation the presenter show local know-how and new findings and shared this knowledge among us. The final presentation was NAT is evil. That was kind of interesting. The presenter pointed out why NAT is evil. Actually, he said that - how to say? - NAT prevents from the new application coming, appearing. That was his point, as far as I understand. In the beginning of Address policy SIG, I check some open action items. All action items have been cleared except this one. This one need - "proposer to resubmit revised IXP proposal dealing with...". In the meeting, the proposer was not there and the new action item might be Secretariat to check the proposer, whether he wants to continue discussing or not. Is this OK? If we have Bill Woodcock here, we can check now? OK. The new action item should be Secretariat to check the status. OK, that's it. Thank you for your cooperation. APPLAUSE PAUL WILSON: I need to carry out my traditional duty of presenting a gift to the Chair of the SIG report. Arano-san, thank you very much. TAKASHI ARANO: Thank you very much. PAUL WILSON: The next one is the database SIG. Are you ready, Xing Li? XING LI: Good afternoon. This is the report for the database SIG. OK, based on the plan, we had two proposals and some informative presentations. First, the remaining action items from APNIC 16. The first was db-16-001 which was the proposal for a policy for mirroring on IRR. This was sent back to the mailing list. OK, this SIG meeting, a modified version of this proposal was re-presented. The second item, 002, "Secretariat to implement proposal 'privacy of customer assignment records'". This was reported, the updates. And item 003 - "Secretariat to implement proposal protecting resource records in APNIC Whois Database." And also the status report was presented in this APNIC Database SIG meeting. And the first proposal presented in this SIG meeting is a proposal from APNIC. "Protect all historical inetnum and AS numbers with APNIC-HM maintainers". Existing customers can still use the resource but will not be able to change the record. And existing custodian who wants to maintain their records should sign a formal agreement with APNIC. Proposed annual fee is US $100 per maintainer. This is getting into the non- member fee structure of APNIC. The action item is pending approval at the remaining stage of the policy process, "Proposal to protect historical records with an APNIC maintainer to be implemented by Secretariat." In the SIG meeting there are arguments and discussions but the final is no-one against this proposal. So, Paul. PAUL WILSON: This is a proposal and so I would ask, unless you have any questions of course, if you would like to support this proposal to raise your hands. If you oppose the proposal, do not wish to support the proposal, would you raise your hand please. OK, that's clear consensus. Thank you. XING LI: Thank you. And the Secretariat proposal as I mentioned earlier, which is the action items - I mean, remaining from the previous APNIC SIG. OK, again, the title is 'IRR mirroring policy' by JPNIC. There are a lot of discussions and people wondering is this kind of - if this kind of mirror is necessary and finally, most people proposed - present this proposal and majority of audience decide to return this proposal to the mailing list for further discussion. For your information, this is the third time this proposal was presented and still turned back to the mailing list. I hope in the next APNIC meeting we shall have some outcomes. So, any questions on this one? OK, thank you. The rest of the presentations were informative. OK, one presentation is titled 'Privacy of customer assignments status report'. This presentation summarised the APNIC Secretariat's activities to implement db-16-002 and db-16-003 and there is no other arguments and comments on this report. The next one is early registration transfer project by APNIC. This presentation summarised the issues in managing the records for resources allocated before the RIR system was established and is also mentioned in the policy presentation. And they are quite interesting and this is just for your information. And so for the action items. OK, one of the action items in APNIC 16, the implementation is a little bit behind schedule, so this is the action from 16-002 - "Secretariat to implement the proposal to prevent customer records in the APNIC Whois Database being publicly available." This will be implemented by the third quarter of this year. There are two things I mentioned earlier so I won't repeat. Thank you very much. Any questions? Thank you. PAUL WILSON: Thank you very much Xing. Please accept a small gift for your contribution. Thank you. APPLAUSE The next report is from Joe Abley on the DNS operations SIG. You'll find live transcripts of yesterday's sessions and possibly also of this morning's up on the APNIC website if you'd like to review anything that's happened. JOE ABLEY: Hi, my name is Joe Abley and I'm reporting on the DNS SIG that was held yesterday. We had 60 people in the meeting. Five presentations. We had no policy proposals. So we're not asking for any consensus today. This is just all information. The first presentation we had was from Nick Griffin of NZ Registry Services. He provided an overview of the policy of registering names in New Zealand under the NZ top level domain and presented the software they use to do that when a commercial, shared registry package. It's now available for any other registry that wanted to use it. They use it in production in two sites. They support I think 150,000 names with 44 competitive registrars. Our second presentation was from Andrei Robachevsky from RIPE. He gave an overview of the rootname server system. He gave specific details of how RIPE are working to expand the footprint of their K-Root server. And deployment plans for the K include new sites in the Asia Pacific. George Michaelson from APNIC gave an overview of the collaboration between ISC and APNIC, root nameserver nodes in Asia Pacific in 2003. And he expects additional root server installs to happen in 2004, both I and F. George also gave an update on open action item on lame delegations. Action item dns- 16-001 which, due to other systems priorities within APNIC, this has been deferred until the second quarter of this year. Joao Damas gave a presentation on the operations analysis and research centre - OARC. This is an initiative which provides a secure forum for researchers, operators and software implementers to exchange data about critical DNS services. It's a membership organisation facilitated by ISC and the details and some of the benefits of participating were outlined by Joao Damas. We have an open action item dns-16-001 which has been deferred until the second quarter of this year. The last action item was action add-15-002. “Secretariat to refer discussion of signing the DNS root to the DNS Ops SIG”. I contacted the author and he wishes to withdraw the proposal. And that was it. Any other questions? PAUL WILSON: Thanks, Joe. And please accept the small gift. APPLAUSE OK, the next one is the NIR SIG. The SIG which is dedicated to the issues of NIRs. The Chair of that SIG is Akinori Maemura. AKINORI MAEMURA: I will report on the NIR SIG. NIR SIG is the special interest group to discuss topics on NIR operations and related issues. First NIR meeting was held in March 2000. At the time that NIR meeting just closed discussion meeting and we ran three closed meetings and this NIR meeting open to everyone. And in the year 2003, this open meeting was renamed to NIR SIG. I'd like to present you another background. The Chairs are myself, Akinori Maemura, and Chia-Nan Hsieh. I have been a long-time Chair of the NIR meeting and SIG. I like him to report this kind of reporting. So why Chia-Nan doesn't present this report? Because he ran back to his 4-week-old baby boy. APPLAUSE So he asked very kind words to me, "Please, let me go back to my baby boy." So I let him go. How cute! NIR SIG - it was held February 26, 4pm to 5:30. 34 attendees were there, including APNIC, APJII, CNNIC, JPNIC, KRNIC, TWNIC and VNNIC. NIR SIG is discussing exchanging information for NIR operations. So we usually have no proposal. And so then no action items. Agenda - we had 6 reports. Izumi presented JPNIC Open Policy Meeting update. And David Chen presented TWNIC Open Policy Meeting update. NIR open policy is usually very similar with the APNIC Open Policy Meeting. So TWNIC, this is the first Open Policy Meeting. It is reported - they had a very active discussion there. The third is Toshiyuki Hosaka from JPNIC about JPNIC operations update. Then we had Nguyen Thi Thu Thuy from VNNIC about VNNIC-NIR operations and present status. What is impressive of this report is that they are having fee structure change. I think that they have to already make such big change. The next one is Dong-Wook - experience of APNIC training. He go back to Korea directly from Brisbane to here. Finally, Shin Yamasaki from JPNIC report NIR system meeting. NIR people to share issues and information about their registry management systems. Similar systems with the NIR. So, to summarise - there is no proposal. No action items. A very valuable SIG in terms of the active interaction between speakers and audience. Do you have any comments or questions? PAUL WILSON: I guess if he had stayed and presented he would have got the prize. Thank you. KAZU YAMAMOTO: I will report on IPv6 technical SIG. I'm Kazu Yamamoto, the Chair of the IPv6 technical SIG. So 57 people came to this session. So thank you all for coming. At the beginning of this session, I reported on new charter which was approved on mailing list. The new charter is, "to share information on IPv6 deployment around the region and to review technical and engineering issues relating to IPv6". OK? And three presentations followed. Since, you know, presentation on IPv6 technical SIG are supposed to be informational so all three of these are informational. So there is nothing to be discussed here. Anyway... I will describe all three presentations. One is from Tim Jones whose title is "IPv6 allocation update". This is a regular presentation from APNIC and he reported that the number of IPv6 address allocation is increasing. That is very good news. And, as the Chair, I would like to ask APNIC to continue this regular report. The second presentation is done by Billy from KRNIC. His title is "IPv6 .kr DNS deployment status in Korea". This was about dual-stack DNS servers for .kr. Actually, dual-stack DNS servers is already deployed for .jp and .kr is now following. This project is very, very important to deploy IPv6. I think that JPNIC and KRNIC guy should write some document for, you know, any guideline to deploy this kind of service. And the last presentation was from Kenichi Kanayama. The title is "IPv6 deployment metrics in Japan". This project is led by Arano-san. This project is to know how degree IPv6 already deployed in the world. He explained that counting the records for each domain or the routing information as a metric. And Randy Bush suggested that dynamic information is more interesting than static information. That means that we cannot tell the actual number of IPv6 hosts from registered information. He rather wants to know the actual information, for example, by a graphic analysis or something. So my suggestion is that Kanayama-san should consider Randy's suggestion and make one more report in the next meeting, I guess. Is good reason for him to come to a visit to Fiji. Anyway. PAUL WILSON: Thank you very much Kazu for the report and here is a small token of our appreciation. I note your offer to provide some guidelines for deployment of IPv6 dual-stack DNS servers. I'm sure that would be much appreciated by many of us. OK, the next one is Philip Smith who is in charge of two SIGs, IX and routing. So we'll have two reports in one from Philip. PHILIP SMITH: OK, I'm up there already. OK. Good afternoon, everybody. I've got, as Paul was saying, two SIG sessions to report on. The first one is the IX SIG, the Internet Exchange special interest group. It was held on the 25th. This was the agenda that we dealt with. We went over a brief introduction, introducing myself and my Co-chair Che-Hoo Cheng, who is somewhere in the audience here. We had one open action item to deal with, which I'll comment on in the next slide. And then we had six presentations which was, well, I was really delighted to get all these volunteers to present, especially the two from outside the region. I'm really grateful to Vanessa Evans of LINX, the London Internet Exchange, and Serge Radovcic from the Euro-IX, the Association of Internet Exchanges. It's good to get presenters from outside the region to come and let us know what they do. It may be interesting for people in the region and they may find interesting things also. Andy Linton gave a presentation about the Auckland peering exchange and the Wellington Internet Exchange, a summary update of what is going on in New Zealand. Gavin Tweedie talked about the Western Australian Internet Exchange. Then we had the two European visitors giving their presentations. Toshinori Ishii talked about JPNAP and then Johar Alam talking about APJII. We had a full agenda, which took 90 minutes which I was pleased to see. Even more, we had 63 attendees in a room half this size. It was quite literally standing room only. I don't know if we'll repeat this but, note to the Secretariat is that we might need more space. One of the comments was, "Why did we have it in such a small room". Action item ix-16-001 was completed and our thanks to the Secretariat for clarifying the policy document and for updating the online ASN application form. If you remember, that action item came as a result of one of the exchanges getting a bit - well, they were unclear about the ASN qualifications, whether the participants in the IX group actually apply for real AS number or a public AS number for the exchange point. So that was all clarified and now it actually explicitly says in the online application form, which is great. So that was the IX SIG. Now I have the routing SIG. That was held yesterday, chaired by Randy Bush and myself. Slight difference here - rather than a flood of presentations, we only had one. That one presentation was from Geoff Huston. It was actually quite a long and extremely interesting presentation about some of his recent research work looking at the amount of allocations that the registries have been making versus the actual announcements on the Internet routing table. Rather than trying to summarise Geoff's presentation, I would rather encourage you all to go and read it, because it's actually a fascinating piece of work. It's probably one of the best presentations I've seen. I hope you don't mind me saying that Geoff. GEOFF HUSTON: I'm very embarrassed. PHILIP SMITH: But it was really good. And following from that presentation, we had actually quite a lively and interesting discussion, which is unusual I think, particularly for the routing SIG. We had quite a long discussion about the routing table and what's appearing in this, how it's appearing there, why it's appearing there and so forth. And, in this discussion that I had with Randy during and after the SIG, it's very, very clear that this is quite an interesting topic that we've only just started talking about and I think what we're going to see at the next APNIC meeting - revisit this particular subject and, as some of you probably know, Randy does a lot of work in this particular field in any case so we're going to pull together an agenda that will carry on a lot of the discussion that we've had here. We only had 44 attendees. It was in this room, so it felt a little bit sparse but it was actually a very, very interesting presentation. - sorry, interesting SIG. Following the discussions that - well, I had the closing social for APRICOT last night. I think a lot of people got quite fired up about it because they were coming to me saying things like, "Why won't this?" and "why can't we have that?". I think revisiting the topic would be a good thing for the next APNIC meeting. And that was the report on the Routing SIG. Thank you, Paul. PAUL WILSON: Two gifts in one. APPLAUSE That is the end of the SIGs. We have a few BOF reports and Philip, surprise, surprise, is the APOPS guy as well so he'll carry on with APOPS. I'm not sure who we have for CRISP, APCERT and I guess it's Gerard for the website BOF. PHILIP SMITH: Do I get a prize for this, too? PAUL WILSON: There's no satisfying some people! PHILIP SMITH: Right. This is the APOPS BOF. I've forgotten which day it was on. I think it might have been Tuesday. Yes, it was Tuesday evening just before the APRICOT opening social. We held the APOPS BOF or the Asia Pacific Operators Forum BOF. So I've put the details there because I think maybe less of you will actually know what APOPS is and how to get - how to get on to the mailing lists and the website and so forth. So I've put that up for you. It's chaired by myself and Hideo Ishii from Asia Netcom. We have a website which is kindly hosted by APNIC. There's not much information on the website, but it does tell you how to subscribe to the mailing list. It tells you when the next meeting is, tells you where the meeting agenda is and so forth. If you're not on the mailing list, you can subscribe to it through the APNIC mailman interface following the URL that's listed there. What is APOPS about? As you can see from the agenda, it's a forum for the network operators in the region to come together and talk about the agenda issues that's facing them. It's, I suppose, modeled along the lines of some of the other operations groups around the world. But it's probably less active than, for example, NANOG or AfNOG and similar groups. But we are here, we do have updates coming from the different operation groups in different cups and different regions. So we have reports from Akinori Maemura, which gave us an update on last month's JANOG. I gave a quick summary of what happened at the South Asia Network Operators Group meeting which was held last month in Bangalore in India. Jonny Martin told us all about NZNOG which was also last month in Hamilton in New Zealand. Paul Day gave us an update from the Western Australia Internet association which was greatly appreciated. And then we had reports about operational experiences within networks. The first was Kams Yeung from Asia Netcom talk being their MPLS-enabled network and finally Dorian Kim gave us a brief overview about their experiences deploying native IPv6 across the global backlog. Again, these presentations are on the website, if you go to the APNIC website and look under the BOF section for this meeting, you'll find the presentations here if you're interested in having a more detailed look, and that was us I think. Yes, that was it. PAUL WILSON: Thank you, Philip. APPLAUSE PAUL WILSON: I'll assure Philip that his comment about the IX SIG is noted and we'll certainly remember to schedule that in a larger room in future. I'll also point out to all of you here that the APNIC registration system allows you to give us some indication in advance of which sessions you believe you'll be attending. So far, that hasn't been providing very accurate figures and, as Gerard might be going to mention, his website BOF was expecting 45 participants and it had significantly fewer than that. It would be helpful if you can indicate your intentions when registering so we can avoid overcrowding and undercrowding the rooms. Over to George. GEORGE MICHAELSON: The CRISP BOF was a very small, informal BOF, very productive BOF actually. It had 10 attendees. The discussions covered the status of the CRISP working group in IETF process and we discussed some coding and implementation issues in pursuing XML technology. We had quite a good discussion of EPP which is the Extensible Provisioning Protocol. It's in use quite heavily in the domain registry stakes and it looks like quite a good candidate for mediating RIR to NIR communications, structured communications of resource management between us. There are open-source implementations available. I think we will continue discussions via e-mail about the applicability of this technology in our area. The APNIC/APCERT BOF report had 25 attendees. We had CERT/CIRT bodies and NIRs and individuals. We had a very good discussion on Whois data accuracy. Andrei from RIPE NCC gave us an overview of IRT issues and implementation. There was a very good suggestion that we should look into improvements in data sharing with various agencies to support initiatives. Andrei also presented about the abuse contact proposal at RIPE NCC. I think there will also be continuations of discussions in e-mail and APNIC Secretariat is actually looking at ways in which we can take the existing AUP - acceptable use policy - which covers bulk access to Whois data and, implicitly under that, take a subset of that data, such as a profile of specific resources within the country or economy, would be very easy for us and the Whois that it will help in-country or in- economy CERTs. PAUL WILSON: Gerard Ross, the APNIC's documentation manager will now present and, on the assumption that this will not take a long time, Kenny is lined up. GERARD ROSS: That is a fair assumption. This is possibly the quickest report of the day. As he noted, although we were expecting nearly 50 people from the attendance figures, we got a little less than 10 which was a bit disappointing but, nevertheless, the feedback we got was good. The intention of this BOF was to gather some good feedback from as broad a range of stakeholders as we could about how our website is to deal with. We had discussions of certain issues, including speed and navigation and some suggestions for improving access to the active document list and a few other good things. We will also did a short workshop exercise which will also help provide evidence to improve the navigation. As we mentioned before, the survey forms are still with you. You still have a chance to win a sensational prize. All the feedback from the BOF and surveys and other work during the year will lead to, I hope, some continuous improvements on our website. Thank you. PAUL WILSON: Thanks, Gerard. I do hope this prize isn't being oversold. GERARD ROSS: Maybe a little. PAUL WILSON: I think the forms need to be in by the start of the coffee break. Having now finished the SIG and BOF reports and done so a little early, Kenny will present the update from the ASO Address Council. Kenny is one of the Asia Pacific - that is APNIC-appointed - members of the Address Council along with two other individuals from this region. Over to you, Kenny. KENNY HUANG: Good afternoon. My name is Kenny Huang. I'm giving an update about the Address Council. I think everybody is eager for the tea break so I'll try to finish as quick as possible. Probably everyone is aware of the new ICANN updated structure. Here is ICANN organisational chart. You can find this chart on the ICANN website. Here is a list of acronyms. You can find these on the website. The major concern we've got in the Address Council is the Address Council elections. AC members are appointed through separate nomination and election processes in each of the RIR regions according to the MoU. And minutes of previous Address Council meetings as well as ASO General Assembly meetings are available on the ASO website. Members of the ASO AC are appointed within each of the Regional Internet Registry regions in accordance with the terms of the MoU, as I mentioned earlier. So far, we have four RIRs. Mark McFadden is currently the Chair of the ASO Address Council and Eric Decker and Louie Lee. From the APNIC region, includes Hyun-joon Kwon from Korea and Takashi Arano-san and Kenny Huang, myself. From RIPE region, Address Council members include Sabine Jaume, Hans Petter Holen, Wilfried Woeber and from LACNIC region, we have Raimundo Beca, Hartmut Glaser and Julian Dunayevich. We also have Address Council observers according to the ASO MoU. Observers may be nominated by ICANN from emerging RIRs. The current emerging RIR observers for AfriNIC including Adiel Akplogan, Yann Kwok and Christine Arida. So one of the missions for ASO is to elect ICANN board members. So here we finalised the ICANN board election process. It's a pretty long process. Initially, call for nominations is 90 days plus two weeks prior to General Assembly. Nominations close two weeks prior to General Assembly. Nominations may be made by anyone. Nominees will be reviewed for eligibility by the ASO AC and the public comment period begins at the end of 90 days and lasts for one month. After comment period ends, ASO AC will select the ICANN board member. Changed ASO AC tele-conference schedule each month to every three months. So other interesting activities, include published a road map of activities for 2004 and ASO General Assembly will be held in May 2004 in cooperation with RIPE. Election for ICANN board of director member - nominations are open. So you can see the website is here. So, for e-voting system, we’re currently investigating numerous e-voting systems, including different options. Also, Paul will give an update regarding the formal Number Resource Organization for draft proposal and AC members have been meeting held on October 15 to discuss NRO draft so the following issues was raised by members of Address Council - the first one was discussion of NRO document at RIR meetings. And the second one is open and transparent Executive Council. And the next one is appeals panel clarity. The final one is role of EC to be ratified and rejecting global policies. So following this listed schedule in year 2004. OK, thank you. Any questions? PAUL WILSON: OK, thank you very much. Are there any questions about the Address Council report? Well, we're still running early and so I'm quite happy to proceed with the next session which is a brief report on the ICANN ASO NRO and related matters. So I will do that unless there are any counterproposals. Thanks. OK, I'm going to be discussing the NRO and the ASO, both of which have some relationship with ICANN which I will explain. I'll also be giving a brief update about the WSIS World Summit on the Internet Society progress. Firstly, the NRO it was formed late last year. It is formed as effectively a coalition of the existing RIRs in a formal fashion that has never existed before. It is called NRO. The point of this organisation is to take carriage of joint activities amongst all of the RIRs. And for a number of years there have been a number of joint activities of the RIRs. Those activities appear to be increasing. They include particularly technical services, such as in the area of the reverse DNS for, that is in-addr.arpa. More recently, the ERX process has involved a lot of coordination exchange amongst the RIR and there are some ongoing technical services needed to support the new distribution of the legacy of the historical records. There is considerable demand as I mentioned before for a global Whois service in some form, whether it's still delivered by CRISP or some other adaptation. What is clear is that it needs to be developed and coordinated among the RIRs. There will be more technical services required almost without doubt. And all of these activities require cooperation which has been conducted reasonably well so far, but in some senses, certainly a formal organisation amongst the RIRs is an important step forward in making those activities easier. Another thing which the RIRs haven't yet offered is a sort of global point of contact into the RIR system. That's something that was called for directly and indirectly through ICANN and related processes where apparently ICANN itself is said to offer that point of contact. In fact, we don't seem to receive too much contact via ICANN. And yet, there does seem to be a need for an RIR point of contact, so the NRO is that point. Likewise, representation of the RIRs has so far been an ad hoc selection amongst individual RIR staff members who may be available to represent the RIRs collectively. One of these representational opportunities or requirements is coming up just next week in the ICANN meeting in Rome where there's a special workshop and there's one seat on a panel for an RIR representative. Again, rather than an ad hoc system, the NRO provides formal representation of all the RIRs. There are various negotiations with external parties which have taken place already, which will continue to take place. One of those is, in particular, the formation of the ASO. The ASO, which I'll go into a little bit more in a second, was formed as a joint negotiation and a joint agreement amongst originally three RIRs and ICANN together. So a 4-party agreement in which three of the parties, the RIRs at the time were very similar to each other and ICANN was the odd one out in a sense. The NRO will serve as a point of negotiation and, in fact, relationship in the new ASO, as it can do in other agreements and contracts of various kinds. The other thing regarding the ASO here is that, firstly, the NRO is intended to be the point of contact. The point of remit with ICANN to form the ASO. The NRO is also designed to be able to provide services, predominantly technical services, in the absence of ICANN. That's a fairly important point. A little bit controversial, let's say. But the RIRs have been quite clear, particularly the RIR boards in discussion of the NRO. Prior to the ICANN reform, it seemed that the Internet community came very close to losing ICANN altogether. It was really in crisis. We had a very surprising paper written by the ICANN president that more or less said the whole thing had been a complete failure and had to be rebuilt in a fairly controversial way. It was rebuilt, completely differently as it happened from the original proposal. That's a very rocky road for ICANN to have followed. As they say, once bitten, twice shy. We need to, I think the RIRs collectively realise we need to be a lot more careful in designing a possible future without ICANN in case it comes to this sort of crisis point again. So the NRO, as a formal coalition of the RIRs, is designed to be able to provide service and continuity without ICANN, particularly the unallocated number pool which is under the responsibility of ICANN and the IANA. If we imagine what might happen, or what might have happened in the event of ICANN's failure, a year or two ago, then you could imagine what sort of negotiations and discussions might have happened around the unallocated pool, who would have been wishing to take upon on that responsibility. It is important for the RIRs to be in a position to move in quite decisively and provide some confidence and continuity that that particularly resource is being protected. That's an introduction to the NRO. The basic functions of the NRO. What's happened in forming the NRO. Firstly there was quite a long discussion about the RIRs’ position on ICANN reform, on the reform of the ASO and on the type of organisation which needed to be formed. The RIR boards made several statements, public exchanges with ICANN as well as position statements which were published over a period of at least a year. These statements really led up to a - excuse me - a specific proposal for an organisation called the NRO. That was published by the RIR boards collectively with a final comment period of a month. And after that comment period was over, somewhat more than a month later, the NRO, MoU which had been published in draft form for comment was signed by the CEOs, myself, the heads of the RIRs. They signed the MoU document. I'll mention that the NRO as an organisation is not yet a legal entity. It's formed as a named entity formed by the signing of this MoU. But it's anticipated both in the MoU and quite openly in discussions around the NRO, that the NRO may become a legal entity or may need a legal vehicle in order to carry some of the particular activities which have been described already. Some of the technical activities, for instance, do carry legal risks as many business activities do. In the case that there was some legal case involving NRO actions, it's quite important to have legal clarity over who defends those actions and how, because without the NRO being formed legally the target is quite unclear and the RIRs could become targets for legal action that they may have had no direct part in. Other aspects of the NRO - I'm not going into all the details, all the specific mechanisms and details within the NRO, but one of the clear essential structures of it is the Number Council, which is there to provide a global policy coordination function within the NRO. This might seem odd, in that it appears to be parallel with the ASO's global policy coordination function But the reason why this is built into the NRO is to ensure policy coordination in the absence of ICANN will continue in a rational and reasonably stable manner, similar to the way it happens today. So the NRO Numbers Council, there is a provision which has two members elected by each of the policy meetings and one member appointed directly by each RIR organisation. Now, since the establishment of the NRO, the executive council of the NRO has been appointed and that, as was always defined within the structure, was to be formed by the CEOs of the RIRs. So each of the RIR boards made the formal step of appointing its EC representative. And that's management or executive committee to look at the operational activities of the NRO. We in the EC establish the engineering coordination group which is a formal grouping of the CEOs of the RIRs. And that is the group responsible for the carriage design and carrying out of the various technical activities as required. And Andrei from the RIPE NCC is the Chair of that group. RIPE NCC are hosting a website, with the email address and the URL there for the NRO. Apart from those administrative activities of establishing the two committees of the NRO, the other substantial action taken by the EC was to suspend this Numbers Council component of the NRO. It is there in order to provide a policy structure if and when that policy coordination function, if and when that's needed. And we have an ASO at the moment. So while the ASO is in place and while negotiations with ICANN continue, in good faith, then there is no need for the NRO itself to carry a policy coordination function through the Numbers Council. That's where we are with the NRO. Now, on to the ASO - the NRO is an RIR body. As I've said, the coalition of the RIR, which exists quite independently from ICANN, designed to exist independently from ICANN. The component of the ICANN structure which ICANN has named as the possible body for coordination of global address policy. And the ASO is originally formed in 1999 and as you know, and as we've heard from Kenny, it has been operating through the Address Council, discussing and deciding on various aspects of its responsibilities. APNIC by the way provided the secretariat last year and that secretariat has moved to RIPE NCC. With the reform of ICANN which was commenced with this paper two years ago, the reform discussions necessarily involve the ASO as well. The new ICANN has got structural changes within its bylaws which do impact on the ASO. At the very least, the ASO needs to reform to some extent to accommodate the changes. For instance, there are only two ICANN board members appointed by the new ASO, whereas the old ASO had three. That is one very practical change. ICANN has proposed that there be an ICANN nominations committee appointment to the Address Council and that also is another practical change. One which by the way is not yet finally decided. There are also proposals for liaison points. On the other hand, there is also a case for some reform of the ASO that is more concerned, not with its interface with ICANN, but simply with its effectiveness. So the RIRs have published some documentation and, in fact, the RIR's proposals to the reform, they do carry the implication of concern for the effectiveness of the ASO and described some efforts to improve it. The RIRs have felt for some time that while the open election and appointment of Address Council representatives in each region is an important way of forming the Address Council, it has not been able so far to provide quite enough direct involvement by the RIR organisations in the ASO to balance the concerns of the memberships of those with concerns of the wider community which have been responsible for appointing the Address Council. The new Address Council in the proposal is to receive one appointment in each region from the RIR and two from the general community through an election process. Our proposal - the proposal of the RIRs is, in fact, the new ASO function be performed by the NRO. The proposal is that the NRO provide that to the ICANN in the name of the ASO. So therefore the Number Council as appointed becomes the Address Council. There are negotiations to be undertaken about the appointment of a member and the RIRs believe it should be a non-voting member of the Address Council from the ICANN NomCom. There are discussions about directional liaisons, but mutually so for every ICANN committee that provides a liaison to the Address Council, there should be an Address Council liaison back to that committee. So those committees might include GAC and ALAC. And so, the RIRs have proposed an MoU to be signed between ICANN according to this structure. The discussions are still under way. Partly because of the design similarity between the NRO and the ASO, I think it can be quite confusing. I don't know if this diagram will help. As I've shown, the NRO is a body formed strictly by and in the service of the RIRs and the RIR communities. It has within it, as an executive body, the EC, the Executive Council of the NRO. It has decided the Number Council, which as I've said has elected two members from the general community and one member from the RIR in each region. That like the Address Council will have 12 members in the event of four RIRs and 15 members when there are five RIRs. That structure exists and it's shown here without any reference to ICANN, whatsoever. The idea is that the NRO in the - the NRO can fill by agreement with ICANN the role of the ASO. In doing that the Number Council which has been suspended in the NRO actually becomes the Address Council and serves the function of the Address Council within the ICANN ASO. And that's a graphical representation if it helps. There are a lot of other things which could be included in this diagram. Kenny showed the official ICANN structural chart which is a fairly complex, Byzantine kind of beast. It shows the other committees like the GAC and ALAC. But the basic structure is there. OK, so that is really to describe both the NRO, has now been formed, the ASO as it is proposed to be formed as we finally conclude agreements of discussions with ICANN. There’s a somewhat related process that has been under way over the last two years, and which will be under way for two more years called the WSIS. It's not strictly related to ICANN in a direct sense but there's certainly a lot of overlap and potential influence here. WSIS is an intergovernmental summit which is hosted by the United Nations. As an intergovernmental summit, what this means is that the people who attend the summit are official country delegations by United Nations member nations. Those people, the official delegates, are representatives of government are the people who can vote, who can speak, who can make statements in that intergovernmental summit. Other observers are allowed and there are registration processes for observers to go to these meetings. Observers can sit and watch any of the public sessions. They can't make any contribution. They can't make any statement within those plenary sessions. They can, if an observer attempts to go to one of the critical drafting sessions which happens within these summits, then they will be asked to make a statement to the drafting session and then leave. That's the extent of the involvement that any observer can have in these processes. I'll mention there are a couple of other ways in, potentially, to the process. One of them which I'm hoping to pursue for APNIC, is called United Nations Economic and Social Council Consultative Status. That is something that if granted to APNIC would provide a certain extra level of ability to participate in WSIS. So far however we've participated, even with our right just as an observer. We had attended a number of meetings in the lead-up to a conference last year. Special Asia Pacific meeting in Tokyo about a year ago. We've been observing this process quite closely. What has happened during the process of WSIS, is that the issue of Internet governance has come to the fore as one of the most critical - the key issues in terms of the negotiations, the intergovernmental negotiations that are going on. The scope of the WSIS covers all aspects of ICTs - it covers social equity and it shows how countries go about developing their human rights and freedoms of different parts of society. It covers a huge range of political and social issues. And Internet governance appeared in only one of 60 or so paragraphs in the initial WSIS declarations. That one paragraph was the subject of a huge amount of discussion debate. So Internet governance, as defined in various versions of the documents, included Internet coordination, it included names and numbers, it included root servers. And all of the technical areas of coordination that we're familiar with. It also appears to cover spam and hacking content control. Even Internet governance is way bigger than we are, way bigger than ICANN is. No-one was really able to agree at all during the last two years of negotiations what Internet governance was to the extent that the final declaration and plan of action from the first phase of WSIS has resulted in a resolution to form a working group on Internet governance. That's a working group which will exist under the UN charter within some as yet unidentified UN body, probably. The actual body, the host body for this working group, isn't defined add all. It won't be ICANN or the ITU. There hasn't been any indication yet as to how it's going to be formed. So this working group on governance is chartered with quite a challenge. Firstly to define what Internet governance is. It's to work out who are its stakeholders. What are the issues in Internet governance and a whole raft of things which all depend on the earlier components. The first challenge will be to define Internet governance as all. It's going to be reporting back into phase two. At least in this area of Internet administration and coordination, it's going to be extremely influential. And so, I don't have anything specific to report about what we can do in this process, except to continue to watch it and continue to liaise very closely with other concerned bodies. They include quite a number. ICANN, ccTLDs, many bodies which are taking an interest in this area. For the time being, the RIRs are supporting, we're certainly supporting the Internet model, whatever that means. That is the current set of systems under which the Internet has been constructed and which has brought us here today. I think we need to be open to change and evolution in that model. But that is what we're supporting and for the purposes of this exercise we're also supporting ICANN. It's quite hard to be critical of ICANN or to talk about change of ICANN within this context because any criticism or lack of unity in this side of the argument can apparently be exploited for weaknesses and perhaps provide opportunities for people who would like to change the entire system. The stakes are the current Internet model versus what could be quite radical change imposed by or decided by the final intergovernmental conference in two years time. The outcomes, as I mentioned on an earlier slide, include and probably will include in the next meeting a declaration from the World Summit on the Information Society, and a plan of action. These documents are a form of guidance to the UN and to governments. They're not binding but they're very influential. All you have to do is think of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and numerous other declarations which do have a great deal of influence. And that's what we could expect to come out of two years time. The RIR staff and friends of the RIRs and in many cases members of the RIRs who may be at the level, in APNIC's case, NIRs, companies that have involvement with the ITU by virtue of their own memberships, are all urged to understand this process to the extent that we need to. And help to ensure that the correct information is available to those who are making decisions. For more information, there is a WSIS website, which contains many things, including many copies and versions of the documentation which has been produced, also the administrative side things of where the meetings are and where they're taking place. There are numerous other websites which contain information on this and I'd be very surprised if there was anyone here who hadn't at least heard of the WSIS because it has received a lot of attention through a lot of different avenues from people in organisations who are concerned about the process. So that's it by way of update. Are there any questions or comments? Once again, happy to talk during the breaks or later online or otherwise. Anything else in fact. So I think it must be time for our coffee break. We'll break for that and come back. Let me just skip back to our agenda. We'll come back for any open discussion. Open mic session, if there's any demand for that. There's an announcement to be made about the EC election, about the next meeting and meetings, in fact. And that will be all for the day. So I guess we'll be finishing early which will be a pleasant surprise to some of us. Thanks. I'll see you back in half an hour.