Minutes

NIR SIG

Wednesday 23 February 2005, Kyoto International Conference Hall

Meeting commenced: 11:10 am

Chair: Maemura Akinori

Contents

  1. Appointment of new Chair
  2. Review of previous open action items
  3. JPNIC update
  4. TWNIC OPM update and issues
  5. CNNIC update
  6. KRNIC update
  7. Report from activities of NIR fee WG
  8. Proposal on IPv6 per address fees
  1. Appointment of new Chair

  2. Maemura Akinori, JPNIC

    Maemura spoke of his time as Chair of the NIR SIG since its first days when it was known as the Open NIR Meeting. He had previously spoken to the two co-chairs and asked them to decide on which one should be the new Chair.

    Maemura stepped down as the NIR SIG Chair.

    Izumi was announced the new Chair.

    The new Chair introduced the session and explained the agenda.

    Top

  3. Review of previous open action items

  4. Izumi Okutani, JPNIC

    Presentation [ppt | pdf]

    • Action nir-18-002: Secretariat to call for volunteers of a new working group to review the NIR fee structure.
      Update: Done.
    • Action nir-18-001: Pending approval at each remaining stage of the policy proposal process, Secretariat to implement this proposal (prop-022-v001).
      Update: Open. Proposal approved by EC in November. To be implemented at the end of February.

    Top

  5. JPNIC update

  6. Izumi Okutani, JPNIC

    Presentation [ppt | pdf]

    The presentation provided an overview of JPNIC activities since the last NIR SIG meeting.

    The presenter gave an overview of JPNIC's activities related to policy and Internet governance. The Internet Governance Task Force has been set up in conjunction with IA Japan, JPRS, JPNIC, and JAIPA. The seventh JPNIC Open Policy Meeting, held in December 2004, was the first JPNIC OPM held since JPNIC had formally documented its policy development process. The speaker noted that JPNIC has also sent representatives to meetings held by other RIRs and NIRs.

    The presenter discussed new JPNIC services such as the expansion of IPv6 services and a Japanese version of whois data that will allow Japanese networks to read whois results in Japanese.

    The first phase of the new JPNIC RMS was implemented in November 2004. It included tools for hostmasters and web requests. Phase two, to be launched in April this year, will have an LIR portal and a new whois with a hierarchical structure.

    The speaker outlined current service issues such as the personal data protection law takes effect in Japan this year in April. This may affect whois, so JPNIC will be reviewing and documenting policy on how to deal with data privacy in whois. The speaker also reported that JPNIC also planned to review the fundamental role of whois. This review would include such issues as looking at the need to provide LIR contacts and whether this could be achieved in other ways.

    The presenter detailed JPNIC's efforts to clear up historical resources in the JPNIC database. There are currently around 3000 historical resources registered in JPNIC database and JPNIC is contacting the registered organisations to ask if the organisations prefer to be registered in either the JPNIC or APNIC databases. If the organisation wishes to be registered in the JPNIC database, the speaker explained that JPNIC exchanges an MoU with the organisation and provides a password to authenticate updates to database information. JPNIC does not currently charge historical resource holders fees.

    Questions and discussion

    • There was a question about how to reflect historical resource registrations accurately if some of the assignments are not registered in ARIN/APNIC. It was explained that JPNIC has tried to confirm the information with the networks themselves and requested documentation to verify the legitimacy of the resource registration.
    • More detail was requested about the impact of the data protection law on the database. The speaker explained that ultimately, JPNIC would impose a policy that if an end user does not want any information to be disclosed in database, that user will not be able to receive IP addresses. JPNIC could hide addresses of admin-c, and other such contact information. However, if an end-user doesn’t want any information at all registered in the database, it will not be possible to allocate address space to that organisation.

    Action items

    • None.

    Top

  7. TWNIC OPM update and issues

  8. Ching-Heng Ku, TWNIC

    Presentation [ppt | pdf]

    TWNIC policy-making process, which is based on the APNIC policy development process, was outlined in the presentation.

    The presenter spoke about the activities at the third TWNIC OPM, held in November 2004 in conjunction with APNIC training. There are currently three different SIGs that meet at the OPMs. The speaker summarised the proposals and presentations at the third OPM:

    • In the TWNIC Address SIG, there was consensus to create a working group to have further discussion on the proposal, "IP address transfer procedure for LIR customers".
    • After discussion on the APNIC proposal to implement the IP HD ratio there was consensus for TWNIC to survey Taiwanese ISPs about their opinion of the proposal. The outcome of the survey will be presented in the Policy SIG at the current APNIC meeting.
    • In TWNIC Routing SIG, there were a number of informational presentations, including the possible establishment of a looking glass in Taiwan and a notification procedure to allow ISPs in Taiwan to update the bogon route list as new allocations are made by NIRs and RIRs.
    • In the Database and reverse DNS SIG, there was consensus to monitor the legal requirements for privacy in Taiwan in response to the proposal "TWNIC WHOIS database and its privacy issue".
    • A second proposal in the Database SIG, "Whois DB query", did not reach consensus.

    The presenter noted that TWNIC is hoping to obtain more opinions on policy issues via SIG discussion boards. TWNIC also plans to encourage ISPs in Taiwan to propose more policies and informational presentations for future TWNIC meetings.

    The presenter reported on other recent TWNIC activities, such as the holding of two member meetings and two OPMs within the past year and the attendance of TWNIC staff at Japan’s 2004 Internet Week. The speaker noted that during the visit to Japan, TWNIC staff had learned valuable information from a side meeting with JPNIC.

    The speaker urged SIG attendees to visit the TWNIC website to view the results of TWNIC's survey on Internet connectivity in Taiwan.

    Questions and discussion

    • There was a comment from JPNIC that the meeting between JPNIC and TWNIC had also been very useful for JPNIC.
    • TWNIC encouraged other NIRs to have OPMs if such meetings were not already being held.

    Action items

    • None.

    Top

  9. CNNIC update

  10. Tao Chen, CNNIC

    Presentation [ppt | pdf]

    The presenter noted that there had not been a CNNIC OPM since last APNIC meeting, so the presentation would concentrate on technical developments at CNNIC.

    The presented reported that CNNIC has a new allocation manager for member information as well as a whois service.

    The speaker reported that the APNIC Whois Database is now mirrored by the CNNIC whois database.

    In future technical developments, it was noted that CNNIC members will soon be able to register customer data in Chinese.

    The next CNNIC OPM will be held in May or June 2005.

    Questions and discussion

    • None.

    Action items

    • None.

    Top

  11. KRNIC update

  12. James Shim, KRNIC of NIDA

    Presentation [ppt | pdf]

    The presentation reported on KRNIC's view on the ERX project. The procedure at KRNIC for dealing with ERX resources is that KRNIC contacts the ERX holder and asks the holder if it wants to transfer the resources to the KRNIC registry. If the holder does want to transfer the resources, KRNIC submits a transfer request to APNIC.

    The presenter discussed some of the difficulties KRNIC had experienced during the ERX project.

    The speaker noted that, due to errors in the country code field, there have been some double entries for registrations to Korea.

    The presented reported that ERX-related complaints fell in two categories: 1) ERX holders do not want to be troubled with the project, and 2) KRNIC members do not want to bear the costs of project.

    The speaker noted that there had been a difficulty in deciding whether the transfer of address space to KRNIC member should increase that member's tier. If KRNIC made the decision to increase the tier, it could mean that networks would not want to transfer address space. The speaker asked for feedback from other NIRs and how other NIRs had dealt with ERX space.

    Questions and discussion

    • A JPNIC representative stated that JPNIC had experienced similar problems. In particular, the JPNIC fee schedule changed in 2004 and organisations do not want to pay more for historical space.
    • There was a comment that at the moment, APNIC allowed ERX holders use their space without being members, with a minimal administration fee for changes to ERX registrations. But for NIRs, it is hard to absorb the financial impact of additional ERX resources. APNIC was asked if it had any plan to charge all ERX holders. An APNIC representative explained that from March, APNIC would be reclaiming unrouted historical resources under the "Recovery of unused address space" policy. It was noted that the APNIC Secretariat is taking steps to increase the integrity of database information, but agreed that the steps may appear to be a little slow.
    • It was reported that APNIC came across similar reluctance to pay maintenance fees for historical resources when conducting training in New Zealand. At that time, APNIC members had explained to the non-member historical resource holders that it was time for historical resource holders to help pay for services they were receiving from APNIC. It was commented that the problem was a communications issue.
    • KRNIC suggested that the APNIC FAQ on ERX could have some information added that was relevant for affected NIR members and suggested that more coordination between APNIC and NIRs could assist ease ERX difficulties.

    Action items

    • Action nir-19-001: James Shim from KRNIC to make suggestions to APNIC to expand the ERX FAQ to include information relevant to NIR members.

    Top

  13. Report from activities of NIR fee WG

  14. Toshiyuki Hosaka, JPNIC

    Presentation [ppt | pdf]

    The presentation provided a brief overview of the current NIR fee structure at APNIC and the history of NIR fees discussions at APNIC since the first discussions at APNIC 15 in Taipei. Since APNIC 18, the presenter noted that there had been active discussion on topic on the WG mailing list as well as at offline meetings between TWNIC, KRNIC, JPNIC and CCNIC.

    Questions and discussion

    • None.

    Action items

    • None.

    Top

  15. Proposal on IPv6 per address fees

  16. Billy Cheon, KRNIC of NIDA

    Presentation [ppt | pdf]

    This presentation was an elaboration on discussions between NIRs on modifying the APNIC fee structure for IPv6 fees for NIRs.

    The presented explained that the NIRs were happy with the current IPv4 address fee scheme for NIRs, but felt that APNIC should not charge for IPv6 until necessary.

    The speaker explained that across the Asia Pacific region, IPv6 is not yet fully commercialised. In Korea, KRNIC does not charge per address fees for its members, which means that KRNIC must absorb the cost of per address fees charged by APNIC. The presenter explained that this would lead to lasrge costs borne by KRNIC when making large IPv6 allocations to its members.

    The presenter explained that the revised fee structure currently being considered by the NIR fee structure WG should not significantly affect APNIC’s budget since per address fees only cover 8 percent of APNIC’s revenue.

    Questions and discussion

    • APNIC clarified that the total percentage of the budget provided by per address fees is actually 13%.
    • It was clarified that the NIR fee structure WG had checked the fees charged by other RIRs. It was noted that ARIN has suspended IPv6 fees until the end of 2006.
    • It was noted that because ARIN and RIPE have a large number of members, they have a large revenue base that can absorb non-payment for IPv6 fees. However, because of APNIC's smaller membership base, a reduction in fees would have a significant impact on APNIC activities.
    • It was suggested that instead of dropping NIR fees for IPv6 entirely, perhaps a fee to cover minimum operational costs could be levied. For example, perhaps the charge could be capped at the fee for a /32.
    • It was clarified that no proposal for fees restructure could be put forward as a formal item for approval at APNIC 19 since the WG had not sent the fee restructure to the SIG mailing list at least one month prior to the meeting as required by the APNIC policy development process.
    • There was a suggestion that the WG develop a formal proposal and circulate it to the NIR SIG mailing list.
    • It was noted that, as a result of a meeting the previous day between the WG and the APNIC Secretariat, Geoff Huston had posted a list of figures to the mailing list.
    • There was a comment from the APNIC Secretariat that if a direct APNIC member receives an IPv6 allocation and already has an IPv4 allocation in the same or a large tier, the IPv6 allocation is basically cost free. However, NIR members are subject to this one-off fee, which is recognised by the Secretariat to be an imbalance.
    • Currently, IPv6 represents two percent of APNIC's revenue. However, it was noted that as IPv6 adoption spreads, IPv6 revenue would increase accordingly. It was suggested that perhaps a compromise could reached where IPv6 per address fees were capped at a certain level.
    • There was a comment from a TWNIC representative that although he supported the speaker's proposed fee change, he was also willing to negotiate with APNIC on a schedule that met both the NIRs' and APNIC's needs.
    • A CNNIC representative also stated support for the WG's proposed fee change.
    • It was summarised that there were three possible options for modifying the current fee schedule: no fees, discounted fees, and a one-time operational fee.
    • JPNIC was also in favour of the WG's proposal, but appreciated APNIC recognising the NIR's difficulties with the current fee structure.
    • It was acknowledged that because Geoff Huston had posted financial information so recently, there had not been sufficient time for the WG to analyse the information.
    • The NIRs were questioned if LIRs were currently requesting large IPv6 allocations. The NIRs confirmed that this is the case.
    • There was a comment from the APNIC Secretariat that due to a poor Australian to US currency exchange rate, the APNIC budget was very tight. If IPv6 fees were to be abolished, there was a possibility that APNIC could go into deficit.
    • The APNIC Secretariat was asked to provide projected figures on how IPv6 per-address fee changes would affect the APNIC budget. This information should include information on the revenue from both IPv4 and IPv6 fees.
    • JPNIC agreed to post a schedule for further work on the fee issue to the mailing list.

    Action items

    • Action nir-19-002: The APNIC Secretariat to post APNIC financial information related to per address fees to the NIR SIG mailing list. The NIR fees WG will then use the information to further develop a proposal for more equitable IPv6 fees for NIRs.

    Top

Meeting closed: 12:50 pm

Minuted by: Sam Dickinson

Open action items

  • Action nir-18-001: Pending approval at each remaining stage of the policy proposal process, Secretariat to implement this proposal (prop-022-v001).
    Update: Open. Proposal approved by EC in November. To be implemented at the end of February.
  • Action nir-19-001: James Shim from KRNIC to make suggestions to APNIC to expand the ERX FAQ to include information relevant to NIR members.

  • Action nir-19-002: The APNIC Secretariat to post APNIC financial information related to per address fees to the NIR SIG mailing list. The NIR fees WG will then use the information to further develop a proposal for more equitable IPv6 fees for NIRs.

Minutes | NIR SIG


Top of page
Programme | SIGs | Sponsorship | APNIC meetings | APRICOT 2005 | APNIC home
Last modified: Monday, 14-Mar-2016 10:53:25 EST | © 1999 - 2021 APNIC Pty. Ltd.
Contact us | Privacy statement