APNIC Annual Member Meeting 2000

NIR Meeting Minutes

AMM Index page

1st National Internet Registry (NIR) Meeeting
Wednesday 1 March 2000,
Juniper Tree Room Sheraton Walker Hill
Seoul, Korea

Chair: Seung Min Lee, KRNIC

Attendence:
APJII Irvan Nasrun
APNIC Paul Wilson
Anne Lord
Gerard Ross (minutes)
CNNIC Mao Wei
Zhang Wenhui
Xia Qing
Qian Hualin
JPNIC Akinori Maemura
Masayoshi Toya
Yoshiko O Chong
Naomasa Marayama (observer)
KRNIC Weon Kim
Jin-Hee Kum
In-Su Im
TWNIC Shih-Chiung Oyang

It was mentioned by the Chair that the scope of this meeting should be limited to hostmaster-related and IP address issues only. Specifically this meeting is not about finance or voting related issues.

1. AGENDA BASHING

No change to agenda which was previously circulated.

2. LIAISON AND COMMUNICATION

Seung-Min Lee presented proposal from KRNIC "Dispatch Staff to APNIC"

Proposal is important to KRNIC to ensure continuity if senior staff were to leave. APNIC has agreed in principle to the proposal.

It was commented by APNIC that this first visit by KRNIC would be a trial to help get details right. It is APNICs intention to support more visits, although the number of visits APNIC can support will have to be determined on basis of first trial.

It was also commented that any visitor would need to sign a non-disclosure agreement, similar to the one all APNIC staff sign.

TWNIC agreed this is a good idea for long term development and suggested the length of stay would need to be thought about carefully.

APNIC commented that the length of stay might depend upon experience of person who visits. Three months seems good time because of need to settle in.

CNNIC agreed that the proposal is a good idea in helping to establish good policies and procedures. Concern was also expressed about any increases in workload to APNIC.

APNIC suggested that the overhead would be high if the visit was too short. Longer visits would be more worthwhile, but could be determined on a case by case basis.

APNIC also commented that because of APNIC commitments to training & other visits, the this would have to be scheduled well in advance. NIRs could invite APNIC to present training during NIR member meetings. Member training is NIR responsibility, but APNIC is happy to help with resources & materials.

3. PROCEDURES

3.1 IPv4 Anne Lord presented proposal "Current NIR Address Request Process - Overview and Proposal"

APNIC commented that the software to select next contiguous block is not too far in the future, but this proposal raises the possibility of using a shared pool of addresses and having NIRs manually request from that pool.

CNNIC commented that they totally agree with proposal.

JPNIC commented that it would be a good idea to implement Allocation Window but it could raise a problem in terms of translating a large amount of member information.

KRNIC commented that this would depend on how large the Allocation window would be.

APNIC commented that for experienced NIRs it would probably be at least /16, but this would have to be worked out.

There was some concern over the extra workload that this would create, but APNIC commented that using the APNIC-075 already creates significant work so this proposal is about spreading that work out. The main tradeoff is the translation.

CNNIC commented that there is not much translation work for hostmaster in translating for allocation window only requests.

JPNIC commented that they need time to discuss this further especially re translation and asked for a target date for new policy.

APNIC responded in saying that the target date requires agreement but preferably no more than one year.

KRNIC suggested that a timeline of one month be set to commence work on this. If any objections, send to NIR-DISCUSS mailing list.

Anne Lord presented proposal "IPv6 Allocation"

APNIC commented that the current policy framework for IPv6 allocation is fluid due to lack of experience. So, currently there is global sharing of requests to evaluate technical details. We suggest that NIRs can make allocations but they should go through APNIC for experience building.

Masayoshi Toya presented JPNIC's IPv6 request process where JPNIC acts as an agent in collecting information from their requestors and forwarding the requests to APNIC for evaluation. They are observers in the process.

KRNIC asked if JPNIC's role in the process was just to lend their name.

APNIC explained that JPNIC process is still experimental, but we anticipate that JPNIC's role will grow.

JPNIC clarified further that JPNIC acts as a service agent. They provide Japanese version of form and documents, so member still gets a service from JPNIC. Plan is for JPNIC to get more actively involved in discussing addressing plans etc.

TWNIC commented that they don't yet know when they can start with IPv6 services.

CNNIC commented that they are just starting IPv6 services.

KRNIC agreed that this procedure is basically a good idea. It's OK for bootstrap period but needs more thought for future.

c. What is an NIR? Paul Wilson presented proposal "Criteria for the Establishment of New National Internet Registries."

APNIC commented that they don't want to continue suspending confederation memberships.

The policy has changed by classifying as NIRs separate from ISP confederations. We no longer use the term 'confederation' in association with an NIR.

In making rules for new confederations, NIRs should ensure that they an also met the criteria. Important to note that because only APNIC has confederations, it gets scrutiny from other RIRs and ASO.

It is possible that confederation structure will be reopened, so very important that all NIRs develop these policies.

KRNIC asked if an NIR member could also be a member of APNIC. APNIC commented that this is possible as APNIC has an open membership policy. However receiving two allocations should not be possible.

JPNIC asked if it was necessary to insist that NIRs should have a membership base. APNIC commented that it is not for APNIC to tell NIRs how to structure their organisations. Most important concern is for openness and transparency to be demonstrated.

KRNIC asked if government agencies can be NIRs? APNIC commented that there have been some already. The issue of the relationship to government should be discussed further however and is a difficult one.

4. AOB

19:45 Meeting closed