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.
APNIC member meeting.
Friday, 25 February 2011.
Srinivas Chendi: A very good morning to you all.
How are we today? Good?
I know it's the last day. Everybody wants to get back to their families and get back to their homes, but we're going to finish this today and we can look forward to going back home.
I would like to welcome all the APNIC members and delegates, ladies and gentlemen, to APNIC 31 Member Meeting.
This session is chaired by Akinori Maemura-san, who is the Chair of the APNIC Executive Council Board.
Before I hand over the mic to Akinori-san, I would like to thank the sponsors of APNIC AMM -- TWNIC, KISA and JPNIC. Please, ladies and gentlemen, put your hands together for the sponsors.
Srinivas Chendi: Thank you very much and now I hand over the mic to the Chair.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you, Sunny. Good morning everyone. My name is Akinori Maemura, Chair of the APNIC Executive Council and I am pleased to say welcome for all of you. This is the last day of the long week of the APAN-APRICOT 2011. As always, we have a lot of things already, you know, removed from this venue and Friday is, you know, exclusive for APNIC, but this time we have some APAN sessions, then we are going to have the APNIC Member Meeting in this shape, in Hong Kong.
I hope you have already enjoyed much, not only the conference itself and Hong Kong, and I expect that you have some more fun here.
Paul Wilson, our Director General of APNIC, now dealing with ...
Paul Wilson: Good morning, everyone, and thanks very much for being here. It's great to see such a good turn out during the week and today as well.
The meeting today is known as the "Member Meeting". Its purpose is mainly to focus on the business of APNIC members, to be reporting to members about what's going on at the Secretariat, at the EC, what's been going on at this meeting and what the results are and so on.
However, it is a fully open meeting, so everyone is welcome and contributions are welcome from everyone here in the room.
If we have remote participants, I would like to say good morning to you as well and thanks also for being here.
Just one word about the presence of APNIC staff or a few words about it. There's quite a contingent of APNIC staff here. We are here to serve you, our members, as our first interest here at the meeting.
So today is your last chance, as a member, to get anything you need from us, while we're here. There are plenty of APNIC staff around, generally wearing the white shirt with the blue stripes on the sleeves, so please feel free to ask us for anything that's needed, because that's what we're here for.
So with that, thank you very much and we'll get on with things. Thanks.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much, Paul.
Before we move to today's agenda, as you see, on the stage, we have all the Executive Council members on the stage. Executive Council members are representative of the membership of APNIC, so I would like to encourage you, if you have any questions, comments, input, please feel free to access any of the Executive Council members and let us have your voice. That will be really, really appreciated.
OK. I will move onto the next agenda, which is BGP movie by Geoff Huston, our chief scientist of APNIC, who is now coming up to the stage.
Thank you very much, Geoff.
Geoff Huston: Thank you, Akinori, and good morning everyone. I'm Geoff Huston. I'm the Chief Scientist of APNIC.
Some years ago, we started playing around -- and we're still playing around -- with BGP data and in particular, what we're looking for is what was going on inside the network.
This time, however, I would like to look at another part of this, which is actually looking all about the last 20-odd years. Because it's over.
This is indeed the end of IPv4.
I've seen this slide about six times this week, so this is the last time I am ever going to do it, with this luck. This is from the Potaroo website and it tried to do over the last 10 or so years, tried to estimate exactly when IANA would run out. In the end, we kind of got there on 3 February. There was no more.
The big red line managed to get down to zero and that was the end.
Did we panic.
I heard a presentation earlier in the week that said: what panic? Didn't panic at all. This is the last 10 years. Looking at the daily rate of allocation of IPv4 addresses and the unit is in terms of /8s per year.
So way back in 2002 at the time of the big bust, we were getting through around four /8s a year and then we kind of recovered and started moving to oscillating around 10 /8s a year and right up until 2010, no change whatsoever, we didn't seem to panic at all.
But last year, oh, how we panicked. How we panicked indeed. You noticed last year, by the end of the year, in fact now, we're getting through a rate that if we manage to sustain it, and we can't, we would be running at around 22 /8s a year.
Or indeed 10 per cent of the entire address space every year. Oh, how we panicked indeed.
But, now, it's over. And all good things must come to an end. But not all at the same time. This is a graph of when each RIR is predicted to exhaust what pools of addresses it has left and the probability of any particular month that it will do so. The latest modelling suggests that here in the Asia Pacific region, with a probability of 69.2 per cent, APNIC is going to hand out its last address from its general allocation pool and move to the last /8 policies in July of this year.
It could be a little bit earlier, probability 17 per cent, could be a bit later, probability 16 per cent or so.
RIPE and ARIN will run out in the middle of next year at this point, plus or minus a few months, so it's hard to actually give a high certainty and in the current modelling and as long as the demand doesn't leak, LACNIC will probably run out in the middle of 2013 and AfriNIC as you see.
So, yes, the ride is over, but we're not all coming to hit the buffers at the same time.
So as we reach the end of this chapter, let's just remember what an exciting ride it's been. So I would like now to play the movie.
This is a movie that's looking at the BGP and allocation data every day since 1983. What you see here are two maps. The one at the top is actually a map of the entire IPv4 address space. The big yellow pool is what IANA had as available for allocation. The blue bits are the bits that the IETF had reserved for various purposes.
We do these in columns. I'm not trying to give you a heat map or anything more detailed, but each column represents one /8.
So when it's green, it's sort of been marked as out there somewhere and when it's red, it's being marked as allocated and when it's green, it's being marked as assigned to somebody.
Right now, what we're seeing, way, way back in 1986, is that the first half of the space up the top there, which is the class A networks, they were handed out in single chunks, single bars.
The next quarter is the Bs, which is the block from 128 through to 191. As you see, there's a certain amount of activity just running through and, whoops, there went a bit over to Daniel Karrenberg to run in RIPE-NCC or its predecessor and what you're seeing is in the middle of the 1980s, the Bs start to get active as academic and research networking takes off.
In the middle are some speedometers to show you the rate and right now, way, way back then, 20 years ago, we were running pretty heavily. The reason why was actually because Bs are pretty large address chunks, /16s.
As you see, day by day, we were getting through the Bs pretty quickly.
At this rate, the IETF looked at it at this time in 1990 and if we continue with classful address allocation, within about six years, by 1996, the Bs would have been exhausted and this movie kind of shows that pretty clearly, that we were just romping through the Bs in the early 1990s and that was predominantly into universities and similar.
There was some early work too with inter-domain routing and AS numbers and the early predecessors of BGP were coming through, I think it was called BGP3 at that time, and now you are actually seeing some activity in the bottom part.
This is the little bit of the AS numbers, the 2 byte AS pool. Of course, the AS pool is now truly enormous, being 4 bytes long, but to show this on a full map means this little bit of activity would just be one bar or two. So what we have done is simply shown you only the first 65,000 AS numbers.
By about the mid-1990s, we're starting to see the current system come into play, where we're moving away from the As on the left, the Bs in the middle and the Cs in the next little bit and moving into classless allocations.
So that now what we're seeing at the end of this is that before we moved, around about one-half, one-quarter of the As had been allocated, a huge amount of the Bs had actually been sent out and there was activity in the C networks.
But look now as we move to classless or CIDR address allocations. We are still satisfying the same amount of demand because don't forget in 1995, the internet was being commercial, but now the amount of addresses going out the door, the green, is nowhere near as active, that the actual shift from classful to classless radically reduced the address consumption rate as it went through.
Down the bottom is where all the activity is.
Because all of a sudden now, there aren't just a few universities playing; all of a sudden, everyone is running networking and everyone is running BGP. So down the bottom, have a look at the phenomenal rate at which we actually managed to allocate AS numbers.
We didn't collect day-by-day routing data until 1997. But now we can actually add in the next element of what you guys were doing, which is the routing data itself.
The pale green is what is not announced, what's dark, and the dark green is actually what's being advertised. So that when you look at the Bs, the middle block, only about half of the allocated address space was actually announced in the internet in 2000 and the rest, which had been allocated earlier, isn't necessarily being announced.
Interestingly, up in the Cs, it's a much higher rate. You also notice in the v4 space, that we're now starting to allocate from the As, kicking around network 64 or so.
The bottom is interesting, too. Those AS numbers.
You guys don't like old AS numbers. When you get a new one, you seem to sort of not advertise the old one. You notice the bit rot there, a huge amount of the pale green is down in the low AS numbers. While everyone thought low IP addresses were vanity, no one seems to like small numbers in their AS numbers.
You all seem to like the big ones.
By about 2002, you see the AS number rate, that's just pummelling through, so the internet is actually expanding at a phenomenal rate and that little speedo on the right shows the number of new entrants in the internet, the number of new players, was increasing dramatically every single day.
You also notice up the top, the allocation rates are now really starting to kick in and by the middle of the 2000s, all of that upper part of the address space, the old Cs, had been largely allocated and now we turned our attention to allocating in a CIDR fashion, the address blocks from the residual As, so now, in late 2005 and moving on, you now see the RIR system really starting to allocate a phenomenal number of addresses in that block.
The rate now is around four to five /8s per year.
We'll move now into what I think is recent past, because by 2007, which is where we are now, it was pretty clear that the amount of yellow space up the top, what's left in the IANA pool, is shrinking every single day and as you see there, as we allocate addresses in phenomenal quantity, the bits that are left, the spaces in between, the yellow bits, shrink visibly before your eyes.
So now, by the middle of 2008, you can actually see the bits that are left are being scavenged very quickly.
By early 2009, when we are getting through 10 to 12 /8s a year, the allocation rates really increase.
Now the last closing days, when you panicked.
Because 2010, as you see from the speedo down there in the left in the middle, we're now allocating at a faster rate than we have ever allocated addresses in the past and now we're actually filling up every last piece of space.
By 2011, it's all over.
That brings us, with the speedo right up there in the red, to where we are today.
This movie was done by George Michaelson. We used the data coming from routeviews.org and basically used manipulation from Net PVM Pearl and Ploticus, using only open source tools. We have been mucking around with this for years, but it seemed appropriate, at this point in time, to actually show you what really happened across all of IPv4.
So with that, it's time to move on.
With the close of IPv4, it may be time to be a little less cynical and put on a slightly hopeful hat. With a little bit of luck, or maybe a lot of luck, somewhere, lurking down there in the corner, maybe just around the next corner, there's a new chapter we're all going to write and a new movie we're all going to make.
Thank you very much.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much, Geoff.
Can we move on to the next speaker, Ang Peng Hwa.
Executive Council is conducting a membership survey every other year. We recently had the result of the membership survey, the member and stakeholder survey 2011, and here I would like to invite Prof Ang Peng Hwa and I think he is right now here.
The member and stakeholder survey will be -- the result of that will be used for our planning of the business operations and also we are now having strategic planning process and the survey result is really helpful for us to understand what members and stakeholders need.
With Prof Ang, John Earls of KPMG, are also in charge for this membership survey. I would like to appreciate the contribution to the survey of the two gentlemen. Thank you very much, Prof Ang.
Peng Hwa Ang: Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to be here.
I'm going to go over this survey. I'm told I have 20 minutes. I have taught undergraduates and I know that I have to keep the time, or else they walk out of the room or do Facebook instead.
I'm going to walk you through this survey, but what it means is that in 20 minutes, I can only go over it quickly, basically telling you what it's about and then hopefully tantalising you to read the full report. It's hefty, because it's about 150 pages, but it's good to get feedback from you.
What is this survey all about? The survey is done once every two years by the EC. So they commissioned me this time. Previously it was done by John Earls, who has done, I think, a very good job.
The survey is of both members and non-members, what we call the stakeholders, interested parties but who are non-fee paying and the outcome is used to guide the EC in strategies and directions and also getting the temperature of the waters and of, I guess, members here.
We begin by consultations in a couple of cities, in Asia, including Sydney as well, in Asia Pacific and the aim of this consultation is to get responses from members and stakeholders on what are their concerns and then you get further questions.
So we had almost 800 valid responses, an increase of 32 per cent. I think there were about 300 odd, really odd questions, non-hyphenated. They had just, "Yes, I want to do the survey", and then blank. So my colleagues are wondering whether they were doing this for the iPad, you know, that was eventually won.
There was decreased participation from members, a bit puzzling. I have no real answer to that one.
There was a slight drop. But overall, the survey responses increased.
Of members, we have four areas that were asked.
Satisfaction APNIC services, resource distribution, billing and administrative services and then the priorities that members felt APNIC should be pursuing.
Of stakeholders, a broader set of questions and members also answered these questions here. So APNIC public services, issue of IPv4 and IPv6, training, which came up quite a lot in the course of the consultations, internet governance and then APNIC representation.
The full report contains analysis, the summaries about 19 or so pages, then the fuller report, about 30 pages, then the questionnaire and the appendix.
So you see the full questionnaire, comments and for most questions, respondents were invited to give their comments, so the comments are all recorded, and I mean all of them, complete with grammatical errors and typos, they have not been touched. Then we did further analysis by economy, to see any differences.
By the way, in case those of you who have answered, you should know, you should be assured that there's no way to identify you individually from your responses. All responses are captured, but there's no personal identifying information there.
So before I begin to show you all, I was wondering whether to say that you should take the statistics with some salt or a bag of salt, but it was sort of suggested that's not quite right. Basically, you should have a caveat and if you know the sentence begins with a caveat and ends with a caveat, OK, so that's how important the caveats are.
First of all, the survey is not randomly done.
The respondents were not randomly selected. So technically speaking, you should not do your statistical analysis, so you get an idea you should not do statistical analysis. So that's kind of the major factor behind this, why you should take this with some caveats there.
Secondly, normally for surveys, you go back to the people and ask them a little more detail, as to why they answer that way. So you kind of need to go back in a way to the consultations, you know, get some sense of what people say and sort of what the numbers actually mean. So you should sort of look at both.
But I guess when you see big differences, you say, yeah, I know these results are probably valid.
So on APNIC general services, the membership is pretty satisfied, it would seem. If you look, it's very high score and again, from consultations that I had, you know, people were generally satisfied with APNIC services.
I want to draw your attention to the bottom statistic there, 6.36, that APNIC should provide support in more languages. What members are saying is that, you know, they should maybe rethink, there are people who do not feel that way.
So this is by and large the sort of statistics given in the summary.
These statistics given by the breakdown in economies, I think the EC is seeing for the first time, because we did some number crunching. The services provided by APNIC are satisfactory, the furthest left. You can see the breakdown by economies and the least developed economies are most satisfied and then the developed economies are least satisfied, among the three, but you can see overall, the numbers are high. And then you can see the breakdown by economies on the right, about APNIC providing support in more languages, the breakdown by economies.
On Resource Distribution and Technical Services, so you see the numbers there, 7.79 to 7.42, second last number, statistically speaking, there is no difference. So this is one of the things I mean by the caveat. When you see the numbers, don't look down to the last, you know, number there, but look a little sort of beyond.
If you look at the very bottom number, 6.83, this one probably should be taken on board and, you know, you should probably ask whether APNIC should provide consultancy services specific to members' needs.
This question arose because there were people who asked whether APNIC could do that, so we want to get a sense of what the membership felt.
On billing and administration services, again, generally, quite high level of satisfaction. On providing further discount for least developed countries, whether this should be lowered, you can see that the number is down.
By the way, in case you're wondering whether these are kind of the developed economies saying no, actually, it's not. I did some further analysis and even the least developed countries felt that, no, the discount need not be further lowered. There is a discount for least developed economies, there is not a discount for developing economies.
On APNIC priorities, the big one that jumped out, you can see right away, and Paul has been talking about this throughout this meeting. Sleep, think, dream IPv6, right? So we should support IPv6 deployment. It's a major one. The sense of both from the consultations as well as from this survey.
On APNIC public services, general satisfaction.
Actually, on this one, 6.49, again, my sort of further analysis here, statistically speaking, not quite -- should not be applied, but I did it anyway.
There's not a difference between these two, so the sense is that the APNIC's policy development process is all right. There was some talk that maybe this policy development process should have policy to allow more frequent changes, but there's some disagreement in a sense, going down means there's some disagreement there.
On the role of APNIC for facilitating IPv4 address transfers, the big one was that APNIC should develop policies and guidelines for transfer. That came out in a very big way, you can see.
All the other responses came about from talking to people again at a consultation. I did further analysis, looking at a breakdown by economies. You can see that there's not a big difference there, so the sense of developing guidelines and policies was major.
On IPv6 deployment, this one is interesting. My organisation has a formal plan for IPv6 deployment, about 40 per cent said yes.
So receiving IPv6 allocation, almost 40 per cent.
Staff being trained, OK, that's a slight drop, 30 per cent. Then having IPv6 transition budget is about 20 per cent.
So what you're seeing is that stakeholders, members and stakeholders, 40 per cent say they have a plan, but only 20 per cent say they have a budget.
So half of the people who have the plan don't have the budget. You guys know how effective plans can be without budgets, right?
So I think this signals to me an issue, as an independent observer here.
Training was a major question that came up in the course of the consultations, so a series of questions here. In general, there is agreement to these questions there, that there should be more training. APNIC's training, by the way -- and I know thanks to a number of you people here who have given training -- the participants of this training were asking for more, the members and stakeholders were asking for more training, and APNIC's training is seen as objective -- it's not vendor specific, and credible and highly regarded.
The major concern was that of the cost of APNIC's training. That's sort of an issue that came up.
On-line training seems to be an issue, accessing on-line training. Only a small number had access, 21 per cent, and then there is the question of the relevancy of the training.
Many people prefer their training to be local.
You can see the slight diversity there. The comment that -- the sense was that training should be local.
On governance, OK, here you see that the sense is that APNIC should do more to support specific regional internet governance activities; quite high agreement.
Current level of engagement with governments in Asia Pacific region is fine. I did some analysis and government respondents or respondents from government agencies were more likely to disagree.
The sense was that government respondents wanted more engagement by APNIC, whereas the members and stakeholders who are not from government felt that it was fine. So there was this difference. So actually, if you tease it out, there will be a difference, a qualitative difference, in how people responded based on where they're coming from.
Whether they're from government or not from government.
Then the last question there, "Should governments in Asia Pacific region be more involved?" You can see a further drop, so the members are saying "no".
Actually, if you look through, it's that governments -- sorry, APNIC should engage with governments, but not allow government to be involved in decision making. That's the sense that came through pretty strongly. Both from the survey and from the consultation.
So how should APNIC engage government? Sharing best practice is one. I heard this story in Bangladesh of a couple of ... In fact, who had been arrested. The reason was that illegal content, specifically pornography, was flowing through the pipes. We are just talking, like, a year or so back, so it's quite recent. So the sense was that APNIC as an independent body, independent and credible body, if they had said something, told governments or maybe informed governments, maybe this situation would not have arisen.
So the sense was, again, I guess the work done by you all and EC, that APNIC's credibility is high and so sharing best practice would help the industry.
Training government was discussed. So the sense was maybe government should be given some training.
Then encouraging participation at APNIC's decision making meetings, you can see this is down. So the membership and stakeholders felt that should not be -- government, of course, said "yes" to this question.
On government involvement through something like a GAC, Government Advisory Committee, this is something that ICANN has, so this question was floated. Number is down, 6.28. So this is low agreement.
On the IGF, the sense was, that, yes, APNIC should play a more active role. The numbers are big enough so there is a real difference.
On APNIC Executive Committee election process, the feeling is that it's clear and transparent. And the second bar here, "The regional internet community would benefit from more localised support." Right.
On NIRs, this was interesting. The question was whether people understood what NIRs was, so we asked questions to sort of tap this. So, do we have an NIR already, a National Internet Registry? This was the response. But actually what happened is that people who had an NIR said they didn't have one.
And people who didn't have one said they had one.
So people don't know what an NIR is, actually. So there's clearly confusion here.
So this was another reason to take it with some caveat. So this set of numbers here, although, yes, they are responses, what they actually show on further analysis is confusion on the part of the respondents. So there probably needs to be some education on what an NIR does, sort of, before asking for that.
India had asked for an NIR, but I see that confusion is also present and it's not that much difference. So actually Indians themselves who ask, they're slightly better informed, but there's also confusion among the Indians.
Findings probably need further looking into.
I mention NIRs there. The second bullet there.
Support in more languages and whether APNIC should enter consultancy services. Clearly some people are asking for that, but again overall, the support is not quite there.
Training should be looked into further, because there's a question of the on-line training and I know that APNIC has invested resources in that area. And then people wanting more local training, as opposed to something like this. You can see that an APRICOT training would be good, but support for that seems to be pretty low.
Some priority issues that probably should be acted upon. IPv6 deployment, huge, huge one. I guess you guys know the issues there.
Then organisations have plans and ideas, but no money. In the real world, I mean, it's not going to fly.
Policies and guidelines for IPv4 transfers seem to be big as well, so something to look at and again the community here will be useful.
Role of government: to sum up, they should support IG activities, regional IG activities, engage government more, share best practice, but not necessarily ask them to be more involved with us/APNIC. Some concerns there.
So my final recommendation, go over the report, yes, I know it's 150 pages, and then offer your feedback.
I appreciate that very much. Thank you.
Maemura Akinori: Any questions, comments?
If not, the next agenda item is APNIC EC election procedures.
Before I pass the microphone to Paul Wilson, I will make some comments on this.
You remember -- I think you remember in KL meeting, one year ago, we had some problem for the election of the Executive Council members and we sought some advice by having election review panel, ERP, and then we had a panel report.
With advice of that, APNIC EC, which is responsible for the operation of the APNIC Secretariat, in oversight function, representing the APNIC membership, considered about the election improvement. Then we formulated a procedure which is really firmer than it was, then now this time is the first time to have the APNIC EC election with this procedure, which is newly developed.
Here, our Director General, Paul Wilson, will deliver you explanation of this process. Thank you very much. Paul.
Paul Wilson: Thanks, Akinori. OK, the election of the EC members today is one of the functions of this meeting and so the procedures by which we do that are pretty important for everyone to understand.
I think, for most of you, the procedures that I'm going to be explaining here are going to be quite familiar, but they have been changed in accordance with the recommendations of the election review panel. So there will be a few things that are a little different from the last EC election.
I'll mention that some of the provisions that the election review panel produced, some of the recommendations, were actually implemented for the sake of the Address Council election that happened at the last APNIC meeting.
So as it was explained at the time, we did bring the recommendations from the panel that could be applied to the Address Council election at the last meeting. We brought those in for the sake of trialling and testing those provisions.
Now they have been implemented in full in the case of the EC elections and I'll go through those now.
In overview, I'm going to be talking about the function of the election, to the extent I haven't covered it, voting entitlement, the mechanisms for on-line and on-site voting, for appointing proxies, for counting the votes, declaring results, resolution of disputes and finally, after this presentation is over, there will be the opportunity for speeches from the candidates.
So a reminder in advance to candidates for election today who are in the room, please be ready and prepared to present yourselves at that time.
The general principles of the election is that the EC is a formal election that's conducted under the APNIC bylaws. The voting process is secret and as I have mentioned, the recommendations that came to the EC in 2010 have been adopted.
Those recommendations were the following. The appointment of an independent Election Chair to oversee the process. The use of Secretariat staff to serve as election officers, to manage the process, and election tellers to count the ballots.
The appointment of independent scrutineers to observe and an improvement to the documentation of the entire procedure.
The election that we're about to undertake here, in 2011, is for four vacant seats on the APNIC EC.
They will serve a two-year term that starts from the day of their election, that's today.
There was a call for nominations that ended on 9 February and there's a link here to that call as it was made.
On-line and on-site voting are both available and the voting rights can be exercised by formal members of APNIC only.
So the election web page is there. It's easy to see and remember. It's just apnic.net/elections if you would like to have a look at the documentation there.
The Chair of the election is an independent person appointed by the APNIC EC. That person, he or she, is responsible for overseeing the process, appointing the election scrutineers, declaring the results and resolving disputes.
We have appointed or I have appointed election officers selected from the APNIC Secretariat staff and their responsibilities are to administer the call for nominations, to manage the voting processes on line and on site, to supervise the ballot paper collection on site, to perform the counting of the votes with the election tellers and to retrieve on-line voting reports as part of that process.
The election tellers also appointed from APNIC staff are responsible for supervising the ballot box, for actually validating and counting the votes and for reporting the results to the Election Chair.
Scrutineers are appointed by the Chair. They're selected as recommended from the staff of other organisations who are present on site here. They don't vote and must be independent from any member or candidate. Their responsibilities are to observe the election tellers in counting the votes, not to handle or touch ballot papers and to notify the Chair in case of any anomaly or issue which is identified in that process.
Voting entitlements are defined under the APNIC bylaws and associated documents.
Voting is only accessible or can be managed by the members' corporate contacts registered within the MyAPNIC system and contacts who they have authorised with voting rights.
As you all may know, the number of votes that a member can exercise is determined by their membership tier, according to this table. So from the associate level up to the extra large level, you have votes from 1 up to 64, in accordance with that membership tier.
How does on-line voting work? The voting period opened on 11 February 2011 and it ended at 9 am UTC plus 8 on Wednesday, this week.
If there is any confusion about the way we express our dates at APNIC, it's in accordance with international standard and it's documented on the website.
On-line voting is provided via MyAPNIC. That system is one that has been programmed, produced by MyAPNIC. It preserves the anonymity of the voters by storing a separate record of who has voted separate from the record of the votes actually cast.
The reports from that system are delivered today during the counting process.
Talking about the counting process, on-site voting, the period starts as it's announced by the Election Chair shortly. It will end at 2 pm today, local time. As for on-line voting, the corporate contacts are entitled to vote, along with those who have been appointed or provided with voting entitlements by the corporate contacts or the appointed proxies, appointed according to the proxy nomination system.
So the ballot papers for on-site voting can be collected from the voting desk until the close of voting today.
The logistics for the voting today is that we do have a separate dedicated voting desk outside the room here. There is a ballot box that's there and it's opened after the on-site voting is announced.
The ballot box is supervised at all times by tellers and any inquiries that anyone has should be directed to the election officers at that desk, please.
The voting ballot paper, I'll explain now. The papers themselves provide instructions quite clearly and each one is marked with a stamp which has been applied today and it will only be valid if it has that stamp.
A voting paper will be invalid if no boxes are marked or if more than four boxes are marked or if it has an ambiguous marking or if it doesn't bear the validation stamp.
The ballot papers actually have a value in terms of the number of votes that they represent. Either 1, 2, 4, 8 or 16. So for those of you in a 32 or 64 vote category, you will receive a number of 16 vote ballot papers to total your 32 or 64 vote entitlement. If you wish to exercise your votes differently for a different set of candidates in each case, you may trade in your ballot paper, the one that you have, for a number of ballot papers of smaller denomination if you wish to do that. So you see the staff at the voting desk if you wish to do this.
This is what the ballot paper looks like. You see a sample here of a 2-vote and a 4-vote ballot paper.
As I mentioned, each paper is stamped on the back, a stamp that's not laser printed onto it, and the paper will only be valid if you find that stamp on the back.
Proxy appointment. This is done according to the APNIC bylaws. The period opened on 11 February and it ended at 9 am local time on Wednesday.
A proxy holder, someone nominated as a proxy, is appointed by a corporate contact of a member to vote on the member's behalf. The proxy holders don't need to be from the member organisation, but they must be registered for the Member Meeting.
The counting procedure. Votes are counted in the presence of scrutineers. All ballot papers are checked in the counting process. There's a set of tally forms which are used to record and total and verify the votes. The on-line voting reports, as I mentioned, will be printed during the vote count and the total votes for each candidate will be derived from the total of on-line and on-site voting.
The result of the election will be announced by the Election Chair, who will include the name and total vote count received by each candidate in the election, so every candidate will be announced in terms of the -- with the total number of votes they received. The Election Chair will also announce the number of valid and invalid ballot papers or votes cast.
The Election Chair will also announce any disputes and the resolution of those disputes as they may have occurred and will disclose any communication from the scrutineers regarding the counting process, in terms of anomalies or issues.
Dispute resolution. Any complaint about the conduct of the election should be lodged in writing with the Election Chair at the meeting and they should be lodged no later than one hour before the scheduled declaration of the election result.
Notices may only be lodged by members themselves through their authorised voting representatives.
The Election Chair is responsible for resolving those disputes, using his or her judgment and discretion. The Chair will, as I mentioned, provide a notice of all disputes and the resolution when he or she declares the result.
With apologies for the length of the explanation, I hope everything there is perfectly clear, but I would be happy to hear any questions and to answer them.
OK. Thank you.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much, Paul.
Then I would like to invite the Election Chair this time, Mr Francis Lee. Francis Lee was appointed, because he's involved in APAN as the steering committee member, then this time is a really good chance to have something collaborative with APAN. That is the main reason why we appoint Francis for this.
Thank you very much, Francis, for your services.
Francis Lee: Thank you very much. Very good morning, everyone. I think we are reaching a very important part in any society. That's the election.
My name is Francis Lee. I'm from Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Let me introduce you to the team that is helping in this whole process. We have George and Connie, who are the election officers, Guangliang Pan and Anne Lord from APNIC who are the tellers and the scrutineers are, as stated, from different organisations, and we specifically chose them so they're separate, and that's Anne Lord from ISOC, Nick Hyrka from RIPE, Hisham Abraham from AfriNIC and Leo Vegoda from ICANN.
The way we are going to do this is that I'll invite the candidates up one by one and they are given five minutes to share their vision with you and introduce themselves to you as well.
After that, what I'll do is -- the box, the voting box is here and I'll open the voting box and show you that there's nothing inside that voting box and then after that I'll close that back and from that time onwards, Connie and I will take the box outside and that's where the voting will start.
In no particular order, let me first invite Kenny Huang to give a five-minute introduction.
Sorry, keep it short. No PowerPoint.
Kenny Huang (TWNIC): Thank you, Chair. Good morning everyone. My name is Kenny Huang. I'm currently on the Address Council of APNIC and also the board member of TWNIC. It has been my honour to join the election this time, to be an EC candidate with all the excellent EC candidates with the others. I have been a participant in APNIC for more than 10 years. I chaired the APNIC Policy SIG since APNIC 14 to APNIC 23 and I also participate in a lot of internet communities, such as APAN, IETF and something like that.
Regarding to join the election, because I am currently the AC member of APNIC and this position probably in conflict with the potential EC. So I would like to declare -- I would like to resign AC position, if I elected to the APNIC EC.
So that's my official statement. Thank you very much.
Francis Lee: Thank you very much, Kenny.
The next candidate is Imtiaz Ahmed.
Imtiaz Ahmed (PTCL): As a brief introduction of myself, I have been involved in the development of the internet since 1999 up to now. So all the initial career after my graduation was spent in the promotion of dial-up and then broadband and now our vision of PTCL is towards the national networks.
With our dedicated efforts, PTCL has now declared itself from a telco towards the broadband service provider. So we are offering the bundle services, not only voice, but the voice over broadband, plus IPTV and DSL broadband services.
So all contribution made by our team in the development of internet in Pakistan is really -- which I want to expose at this august forum, and we want to participate from the -- we have the problems and we want to know the problems of the region as a whole and want to be participating in all solutions and all problems to resolve it.
Thank you very much.
Francis Lee: Next I will call Gaurab Raj.
Gaurab Raj Upadhaya (Limelight Networks): Good morning, everyone. I was nominated to the APNIC EC and I accepted it. I have been in the APNIC community for a very long time. Since 2002, I think, I have not missed a single meeting, since then.
At APNIC, I have served as IX SIG Chair for the last five years. I have been a speaker. I've proposed policies, debated with the community and overall, you know, worked hard to make sure that our policies reflect the opinion of the community in the region.
I have also lately been the Policy SIG Chair and that has given me a very good understanding of how the public policy process in APNIC works. Having said that, I think right now, APNIC is in very interesting times. As we run out of IPv4 and more people want to deploy IPv6, APNIC has to be extending more services to its members and also at the same time, extending outreach to non-members, so that there is general awareness about the internet and so on.
I also think that APNIC has been doing a very good job with outreach to other organisers in the internet governance foras and it needs to continue doing that, while keeping the interests of its members at the forefront.
So I think I can, with my experience with working with the community, over 10 years, I have also been organiser of APRICOT and SANOG and, you know, have done a lot of workshops, met a lot of people, worked in the R&E community, been to APAN meetings, worked in the ccTLD community. Probably that experience will help APNIC go forward in the next few years.
Thank you very much.
Francis Lee: Thank you very much.
James Spenceley (Vocus Communications): Thank you.
I'm a serving member of the APNIC EC and I'm putting myself up for re-election.
I think APNIC is going into very tumultuous times.
It's very important for us to have a strong financial position, to also have strong community outreach and also governmental outreach.
That's something that I pride myself on bringing to the APNIC EC, as CEO of a company and also as a person with a technical background, I have a good mix of both financial, business and corporate governance experience.
I think that brings a lot of positives to the APNIC EC.
I would like to thank everyone for their support over the last two years. It has been a very interesting time to be on the EC and I hope to be able to continue.
Francis Lee: Next, can I have Wei Zhao.
Wei Zhao (CNNIC): I'm from the international business and policy development department, so currently my obligation will be -- sorry, was, the IP address allocation management and the domain name registration management. Also I carry the responsibility of the IP address researching and the international cooperation. So I have been deeply involved with the IP allocation management, also the domain name area.
I've been involved quite a lot recently with the internet governance, the project and researching nationally, so that will give me some experience and we all agree that after IPv4 running out and the government might take the leading role of adopting IPv6, I do believe my experience can set a better bridge between the AP region community and the government and also currently I serve my term with NIR SIG Co-chair. If there's no conflicts, I do like to carry on with my term. I think I can contribute my effort in that area as well.
So we all see there is a painful period after IPv4 running out. My intention to be elected as EC member is I'm trying to devote my effort and time to make the process less painful and a little bit more joyful. Thank you.
Francis Lee: Next is Kim Yoonjeong.
Yoonjeong Kim (KRNIC, KISA): Hello, everyone. I'm very honoured to be a candidate with excellent candidates.
I would like to introduce KRNIC, KISA instead of me. As some of you know that the KRNIC, KISA is the only APNIC member from Korea. There are no ISP or IDC APNIC member from Korea. The reason why, we KRNIC is sponsored by the Korean Government, based on the relating law. So there's no organisation like KRNIC, KISA in the world, I think.
There is pros and cons with the system from various perspectives.
However, the thing is that EC election, under these circumstances, we are very, very in adverse and this system influence to Korea. We have only 54 ballots to cast and I think it's ... to compete to other countries, I think. I don't want to issue this problem, but I just inform you that we KRNIC, KISA run the EC election under difficult circumstances. So I think my predecessor Mr Kwon is very highly evaluated, I think.
Anyway, I just do my best under this hard circumstances.
As IP team director since last year, I have attended APNIC three times and I developed Korea's IPv6 strategy plan, with Korea KCC and I do a pilot project with Korean number 1 mobile telecommunication company and raising awareness through press release and conference v6 summit, organise IPv6 education and so on.
KRNIC, we play an important role as one of member of APNIC.
That's my presentation. Thank you.
Francis Lee: Next I'll call on Michael Sawej.
Is Michael here? Anyone want to speak for Michael? Michael may not be here.
Fred Christopher (PITA): Thank you very much.
Just a little bit about Michael. I'm not here to campaign for Michael --
Francis Lee: I know.
Fred Christopher (PITA): Just a little bit description of Michael. Michael is the Chief Technical Officer from a very small island country in the Pacific, Marshall Islands, which is known as .mh. He has been nominated by another small island country, by Palao, and the idea is to have a view within the Executive Council of the needs of the small island economies.
He's there to enrich and provide diversity to the Executive Council for the aims of APNIC. Thank you very much.
Francis Lee: Thank you.
I would like to make a slight correction on the scrutineer. Leo Vegoda has been replaced by Nick from RIPE-NCC.
Thank you to all the candidates for the speeches.
We move onto the next stage and that's basically the opening of the ballot box, to show that it's empty.
It's empty. There's nothing inside it. I'll seal it now.
So I have locked that. This voting box will be just outside.
I would like to declare the election opened and the voting box will be kept outside and please do vote for your candidate.
Thank you all.
Maemura Akinori: Let me make sure, Francis, the voting is already open?
Francis Lee: Yes.
Maemura Akinori: OK. Thank you very much.
That's all for the first session in the morning and it is very efficient. It is earlier than planned, but we will have a break here for the morning tea and I would like to ask you to get back to this meeting room at 11 am sharp for the second morning session.
Thank you very much.
APNIC member meeting.
Friday, 25 February 2011.
Maemura Akinori: Welcome back to the APNIC Member Meeting.
The second session is mainly for the report from many parts of APNIC. To begin with, we will have, again, our Director General, Paul Wilson, to deliver you the DG report.
Paul Wilson: Thanks very much, Akinori. Thanks, everyone.
This is the start of a series of reports from the senior managers at APNIC, starting with myself, to talk about what's happened in the last year.
Traditionally, and, in fact, the reporting that is coming to you, is about 2010 and what we all did during that last year. This being the annual meeting, that's, of course, the main topic.
But I'm actually going to start with what's happened so far in 2011. That's not only because I've got a fairly poor memory and these are the things that come to mind, but also because it's been a very packed couple of months, to put it briefly.
We've had many things that have come up since the beginning of the year that are sort of evidence of the start, I think, of what's going to be a very busy year indeed.
On January 1, we started the new year in a brand new APNIC office, which was very exciting and significant for everyone.
On 1January this year, we also had the scheduled launch across all of the RIRs of RPKI in global production; also the end of the culmination of a lot of hard work.
On 13January, a couple of days after I left the country for some vacation, Brisbane experienced this quite phenomenal flood that you probably heard about, but it was extremely destructive and it was a very big event in the history of the city where APNIC is based.
On 3 February, following the request that APNIC had sent to IANA in January, I attended a ceremonial event in Miami, which was the distribution from the IANA -- thanks Leo -- of the last five /8 blocks, according to the global policy which had been established a few years before.
The next day, we had a very interesting retreat meeting involving the RIR heads and also the heads of ICANN, IANA, IAB and IETF -- that is the chairs of IAB and IETF -- to discuss some pretty important issues that are before us today in the global scene, to do with RPKI for one, to do with the future of ICANN, in particular the negotiations that are coming up over the renewal of the IANA contract and so forth.
On 15 February, APNIC announced a set of new procedures for handling IPv4 requests, which we in fact weren't expecting to be introducing until March or April, but with the final five distribution, which was earlier than expected and with what looked like potentially an increase and a potentially very rapid increase in the rate of v4 deployment, there are aspects of our IPv4 request procedures which really needed to be thought through carefully and modified for the sake of, as you'll hear later, timing and certainty of scheduling of those requests.
On 16 February, we launched the in-addr servers that APNIC is running now, along with the other RIRs, for serving the in-addr.arpa zone, along with DNSSEC, in that section of the DNS.
On 20 February, that is at the beginning of this week, we came to a checkpoint in the cycle of strategic planning at the EC level, which you'll also hear about.
On 20 February, we also heard the results of the members survey for 2011. And last night, we had the close of a record-setting APRICOT meeting.
Today, the UN's Commission on Science and Technology for Development has the sittings of a working group on the future of IGF. Sam Dickinson, APNIC's Policy Manager, who you may well remember, I hope, from policy sessions at previous meetings. Sam is one of four global internet community representatives on that working group.
This is just the last couple of months.
The reason I'm talking about these events, though, is not just because they're in the forefront of my mind, as recent work items, but, in fact, all of those things are really built on by what we have done over the last year. When I look at what we have done over the last year and the linkage between those developments, which you're going to be hearing about, and all of the challenges that we have had just in the two months of this year, I think there's a really nice correspondence that I think we have been working very much in the right direction and preparing ourselves pretty well, I hope, for what's come up in the first months of this year and what's to come.
The things you'll be hearing about this morning are things like the developments that we've achieved in the availability and reliability of our services, including our business continuity plan, which has been reported before, but which became quite important during those events of mid-January.
Procedures for dealing with both IPv4 and IPv6.
So the IPv4 procedures, the procedural changes, were prepared during the last year in anticipation of what we're seeing now. In IPv6, we streamlined procedures with something called Kickstart, which actually did give us quite a boost in the number of IPv6 allocations and assignments that have been made.
We've continue to deploy all APNIC services by IPv6, of course, and to harden our compliance and support for IPv6 in our services. So anyone who is using a v6-capable laptop here, you'll certainly see, if you visit the APNIC website, the v6 address there.
That comes as a big surprise to people often who don't realise that v6 is running on their notebooks or computers, that they may actually be using v6 without knowing about it. But I'm sure everyone here is fully aware and that's sort of old news.
But it is something that we have been focusing on.
It's pretty important, in terms of leadership to others around the community, who are pondering how to do the same thing.
APNIC has become Agile in the last year, in terms of adopting the Agile methodology for project and software development management, so starting within our software area, but actually now permeating through the whole organisation, is an Agile approach to a lot of the projects we do inside and outside of that technical area.
Public affairs is a big one now. We've recruited a specialist senior public affairs advisor, in the form of Pablo Hinojosa, who has experience as a Vice-Chair of the APEC TEL Working Group, as well as a member of the ICANN GAC and numerous other achievements.
Public affairs has nothing to do with romance; far from it, actually, as Pablo knows well. But it's really given us an important boost in the external engagement that we have at a high level in many areas and some of them are included here. The IGF and our CSTV participation is a very good example there of an influential position, in terms of where the IGF is going.
We supported the Asia Pacific Regional IGF. We've been at ICANN RIR NRO meetings. Geoff Huston, in particular, has been playing an important role in OECD discussions on internet economic and related issues.
ITU's Plenipotentiary in 2010 was, as you may know, a three or four-week meeting of the ITU, which is an extremely gruelling event, but one where some of us, the lucky ones, needed to actually engage with that. The v6 group of the ITU as well, the Asia Pacific IPv6 Task Force. The various NOGs around this region, regional inets which are organised by ISOC. This is a list of events in which we have been very actively involved in every one of them, through the course of the last year.
On a slightly different plane, the Information Society Innovation Fund is something that we have been continuing to support or work on, actually as a funded project, which is something that has given us some interesting connections, again into the external environment.
Lastly, a big job for the last year, run by Richard Brown and the rest of the business area, was the purchase, relocation and the preparedness for relocation into our new office. That was something that the technical team were also very involved with. It was, in fact, the test bed for our new triangle architecture of redundancy within the city, where we were able to offload the services that existed at our old office, into one of the redundant sites while we relocated. So we were able to relocate with very little disruption of any service at all.
There are quite a few things here. IPv6; our relationship with the community; the end of IPv4, of course; the fact that, actually, we have a new home now, that really make 2011 and beyond look quite different to what we've seen so far and what we've been so far.
Just finally, still talking about tomorrow, another thing that we have been working on at APNIC, German and the comms team have been working on what APNIC's corporate image may look like in the future.
We think, after 12 years of the logo that we all know and hopefully love -- the one up there on the screen -- it might be time for a change.
So what we have now is sort of a teaser for what that change might start to look like, as it has developed during this year. I think we can show that now.
VIDEO PLAYED That's not intended to tell you exactly what's happening, but to give you a taste, I suppose.
I hope that will give you a sense of something to look forward to or something to anticipate, as it comes together during the coming months OK. Back to 2010, because just very shortly, I'll be handing over to the area directors of APNIC to do their bit.
What you're seeing from them, what you'll hear from them today, is their part in implementing an operational plan that we've developed within and that we continually develop within the APNIC Secretariat. To put that plan into context, you have already heard today about the member survey.
So our latest membership survey on the left is the current vehicle for, very broadly, taking member and stakeholder inputs, for that matter, into APNIC, into the EC, where the EC is dealing with our strategy and activity plan and our budget. Those two things are interrelated, of course.
In fact, during the EC reporting that's coming up, you'll see some insight into the current strategic planning activities that are under way.
But those two things, from the membership, the member survey inputs and the EC's interpretation of those inputs, come into the Secretariat via myself.
I sit both on the APNIC EC and, of course, as head of the organisation. What we produce from those inputs is an operational plan. You did see some presentation of the basic structure of this plan at the last meeting.
We organise our activities into these four sort of outcomes that have been identified as useful ways to categorise those activities.
Firstly, we're involved with delivering value -- as a service organisation, we're actually delivering services to our members and the wider community -- through the funds that we receive and that we manage in the mutual interest of that community. We're aiming for high quality services, of course, but specifically in relation to internet address allocation and management.
The second outcome that we're looking for that actually really does come from the foundation of APNIC, is that we support the development of the internet. The stakeholders in APNIC actually share a common interest in the internet, of course, and in its healthy and vigorous development. Through the Asia Pacific, of course, in our region in particular, we are supporting quite specifically the maintenance of the internet that we know and that we love today, the open and neutral internet, globally addressable through all of its components and featuring minimum barriers to accessibility and global end-to-end reachability. That really is part of our fundamental mission.
The second two areas are more about how we do the work we do. We find that collaboration and communication is exactly how we can work most effectively and how we're expected to work within this global community of stakeholders. Openness and cooperation has always been critical to the success of the internet, also to APNIC, and we recognise that that's really the way we want to do our work, wherever possible.
Finally, there's a set of activities that we call corporate support within the organisation, within the business area, within the technical area. In particular, but also in general, some of the work of the organisation, of the staff of APNIC, is dedicated to making sure that we have an operation that really works, that works efficiently and professionally and with accountability.
In summary, that's where the operational planning process has brought us to date and it's a framework that the reporting that you see will follow.
I would just like to introduce what the structure of the organisation looks like, because I will be handing over to some of these individuals shortly.
We currently have six staff, in addition to myself, on the senior management team.
From the left here, German Valdez as the Communications Director, Richard Brown as the Business Director, Sanjaya as the Services Director, Byron as the Technical Director, Pablo Hinojosa as the Senior Public Affairs Advisor and, of course, Geoff Huston as the Chief Scientist.
We've heard a lot from Geoff already this meeting, but the other five, I think you know them all, but in some order or other, you'll be hearing from each of these five senior members of APNIC staff shortly.
The four members on the left, you might notice that I'm referring to with the title of Director these days. They do have management responsibilities, and pretty challenging management responsibilities, for each of their areas.
So in a line-management sense, each of those four directors are responsible for an area of activity: communications, business, services and technical.
But as directors, they also share a responsibility with me and the other senior managers for the operation of the organisation. So the title that has been updated this year from Area Manager to Area Director, is meant to convey that sense of shared responsibility, outside of the strict line-management responsibilities.
Anyway, that's where I'll end. I'll hand over now to the Area Directors to give those reports and then also to Pablo, who has a few things to say. I hope you find what you hear to be of interest and to make sense, in the context of what I've just presented.
I also hope that you'll feel free to ask questions about anything that you hear in these reports.
Thanks very much.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much, Paul.
Here we start the area reports. To begin with that, Sanjaya, Service Director, will be delivering the report for the service area.
Thank you, Sanjaya.
Sanjaya: Thank you, Chair. Good morning, everyone. I'm going to deliver the services area report in the past six months.
If I have to look back at the last six months, and I have to think of what's the key theme of our activity, it has to be bridging the old world with the new world. And I think that theme will continue this year, because this year is the critical time where the flip happens, where IPv4 finally depletes, both in IANA as well as in APNIC.
At the frontline of all APNIC services, we are focusing on the two operational focuses, delivering value and supporting internet development, which I will go into more detail on and I will quickly show you the service delivery indicator.
First, I would like to report on the Resource Quality Assurance. I have started presenting this in the last meeting on the Gold Coast, and the reason being, we all know that as IPv4 depletes, the last thing we want to have is for blocks to be filtered. So we are now focusing on getting this awareness to everyone -- not solving the problem, because IP addresses do get filtered for one reason or another, but we want to bring an awareness for everyone, that if you do want to filter, do it responsibly, consciously and maintain your filter, update it every day.
Also, we are revamping our main interface to our members and that's through MyAPNIC. We implemented a very important policy in November. That's the introduction of mandatory incident response team objects in the Whois Database. This actually, again, sort of preparing from old world to new world. I think going into the very wide space of IPv6, we probably need to establish a more responsible incident handling or operational issues through clear information of who can handle incidents in our network. So we have successfully implemented this important policy. We now have close to 1,300 incident response team objects linked from 57,800-over Whois objects.
Again, Whois is our key public information repository. We are improving MyAPNIC to make it easier for you to manage your public information, bridging new world of DNSSEC. We all know that it's coming, finally. In June 2011, we will have the ability in MyAPNIC for our members to update their DS record for the reverse DNS. We are now waiting for IANA to sign in-addr.arpa root zone.
New world IPv6. I'm very pleased to report to you that in 2010, the IPv6 delegation has more than tripled, from around 170 in 2009, to over 650 number of delegations in 2010. That is due to the new policy that was implemented last year, that allows us to implement the Kickstart IPv6, both for new members, as well as existing member.
In February, we see 86 people clicking the Kickstart and in December 2010, we got over 400 people clicking the Kickstart. When they click the Kickstart, they actually get the IPv6 immediately.
Paul has mentioned that very important in our strategic planning and operational planning is the survey. We conducted the survey in November and the report of which Prof Ang Peng Hwa of Singapore Internet Research Centre, delivered to you earlier this morning.
In the operational focus, supporting internet development, we are again looking at bridging the old world and the new world. We are very busy in the last six months preparing ourselves for the IPv4 exhaustion. So we have created a website specially to tell people where we are in the IPv4 exhaustion page. So please visit that website. You will know exactly how much IPv4 space we have left. Since 3 February, we have reached stage 2 in APNIC's IPv4 exhaustion planning.
Paul has mentioned briefly about the meeting in Miami. That is when we received our last /8.
APNIC's last /8 is 103/8. You can see the proof over there.
With this happening, then we implement the APNIC stage 2 evaluation mechanism, which is basically that there's no change of policy, in this stage, we just need to set up a queue. So all requests and approvals are basically processed sequentially.
On with some statistics. As you can see, account holders are still growing from year to year. We now have over 3,269 members or account holders. With that, comes member support workload increase. In the last meeting, I reported to you that we have implemented extended working hours, specially to cover the South Asia region, which has quite a significant time zone difference from Brisbane.
Sure enough, in 2010, with the extended working hours, particularly email and phone has increased -- phone particularly, has increased, because phone is the one that is actually affected by the extended working hours. We had close to 2,000 phone calls in 2010.
In resource delegation, it is very encouraging to see the take-up of IPv6. IPv4 probably Geoff showed you in the morning. The whole of 2010, you can probably declare it as a jump of IPv4 requests.
There's no jump after the IPv4 IANA depletion, but there has been a very significant increase in the whole of 2010. But more encouraging is the number of IPv6 delegations that you see. It's 50 per cent of IPv4 already.
But in terms of size, as you know, with the large IPv6 address, we actually have far exceeded the number of addresses deployed in IPv4. Last year, we have 121 million IPv4 addresses delivered to our customers. But we have 212 million /48 networks IPv6 deployed. So now it's a matter of seeing how people start routing them.
That's my report for today. That's a picture of me on the left, working while Brisbane is flooding.
It doesn't stop us from serving you. We maintain, even though we have to evacuate our office for a week and we have to work from home, we are still delivering the services to you.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much, Sanjaya.
I would like to appreciate your, you know, continuous services. I was so impressed that even in the flood period, we have no problem to converse with APNIC Secretariat people and I heard that there's no interruption in the services. That is really great to have established such a business contingency plan.
OK. The next report is from the technical area.
We will have Siamak Hadinia.
Siamak Hadinia: Good morning, everyone. My name is Siamak Hadinia. I'm Infrastructure Services Manager. I'm presenting on behalf of Byron Ellacott, the Technical Director.
The focus of this presentation is on delivering value and also communication and collaboration, as well as the corporate support.
The first thing of delivering value is providing IPv6 and IPv6 for all the services, critical services, and also providing redundancy, in terms of the operations, for the critical services that we provide in APNIC.
In terms of the resource certification, we know the NRO deadline of global RPKI system was 1 January 2011. APNIC actually had the RPKI system production in early 2010. And we continue work with the standards developed by IETF process as well.
The next thing is DNSSEC. In DNSSEC, we actually had three phases for the DNSSEC deployment. The first phase was testing our signing system, for both in-addr.arpa and also ip6.arpa.
The second phase was signing the zones, all the reverse zones that we receive from the IANA.
The third phase actually was publishing the member DS records, which is happening this year.
In terms of chat traffic and the impact on that traffic, we anticipated three to five time loads on the traffic and the DNS traffic. Actually, we saw a three time load and also probably that would increase when we get the DS record from the members.
We also work with IANA, with the reverse delegation, in-addr.arpa delegation. So we provide e.in-addr-servers.arpa for this matter. Basically, we have our devices and our architecture ready in Hong Kong and Japan, serving the e.in-addr-servers.arpa. Also, we collaborate with other RIRs and IANA, in terms of the traffic and also the monitoring.
Another item in delivering value is the APNIC meeting support. As we can see, we have new equipments here, which is providing a more stable system for us and it's very reliable. Perhaps for the next APNIC meeting, we provide other ways of webcasting. At the moment it is Quicktime, but the next APNIC meeting would be flash and also on mobile.
Also, you can see that this time, we get better quality, in terms of the presentations, so it's much more readable for all the people watching from the webcast.
With the NRO collaboration, we will support DNSSEC in the ERX blocks this year. This is regarding those IP addresses or blocks that have their origin from other RIRs. So basically, this year, we are focusing to get those zones signed in terms of DNSSEC and also publishing the DS records and pushing the DS records to their system, to other RIR system.
Also, we had some exchange program. We had someone from RIPE-NCC helping us in IS, with change management and monitoring system. That was very helpful.
Also, we sent Tom Harrison to AfriNIC for helping them for the RPI development and exchanging some knowledge in this regard.
The next one is collaborating and communication.
Basically, Geoff and George -- I don't think I can provide some update on that, because it's already, you know, about all this information.
Basically, what is listed here is a few items.
The first one is traffic measurements of Resource Quality Assurance. Basically, it's coordinated and captured traffic with Merit, AARNet and data management, storage and visualisation. And DNS-OARC measurement activities, which is presentation at DNS-OARC and DNS-OARC meetings, in terms of the reverse DNS, and also characterisation of the DNSSEC. Also, in terms of the in-addr.arpa transition is the measurement of the DNS update across the dot signing.
The last one is the work that our R&D team did regarding the unusual traffic we had in secondaries for the RIPE reverse delegation. So basically we got a DNS key, we notice the traffic and they identified the problem in the software, Bind and, the risk associated to that.
The next one would be corporate support.
Basically, as Paul mentioned, we moved office at the end of last year. It was kind of transparent and we moved all the services across. We actually used our second COLO for this transition period. So everything was smooth and without any problem. So everything is now in place.
Also, we had the Agile methodology in the software team. They adopted this new methodology. So it's basically, with the comprehensive training they had, they now are using this for their software development and also it's much faster and better dealing with all the requests that comes from the services team.
Also, some part of Agile, such as the stand-up meetings. We copied these features from Agile, so we have this stand-up meeting in IS as well and we get so much benefit out of that, because every day we had some collaboration on the problems and also what the issues are.
As you can see in this diagram, at the moment, we have a triangle architecture. Basically, we have two co-los, co-location facilities, in Brisbane and the third one is the office. Actually, we are trying to implement and we are hoping to get site redundancy and systems redundancy by using these two co-lo facilities. As I mentioned, we used the second co-lo for moving office at the end of last year.
Also, helping other departments, in terms of the software support. Basically, the collaboration with the services team, with the MyAPNIC improvements, ARMS and also event registration and also some work around the IPv6, in terms of the -- like the application we have one which is called IPv6 one-click.
Basically, these are the updates from the technical area. Thank you.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much, Siamak.
Go onto the next. The next report is from the communications area, from German Valdez, who is the Communications Director.
German Valdez: Good morning all. This is the overview of the presentation I'm going to make this morning.
I'm going to talk about education services or training services, what we have been doing in APNIC meetings, a review of what has been the policy discussions in the last six months, some work that we have been doing related to publications and the communication work we have been doing for our members. In general, I will talk about the general activities we have been performing related to the Asia Pacific IPv6 Task Force, the Internet Governance Forum and some work as well that we've been doing very heavily, to spread the IPv6 messages across the region, PR activities and the support we are offering to the public affair activities.
Something we have been doing in the last month is to review deeply the content of our training material, so we can update it and revamp, so we are strongly focused on the IPv6 content and of course the IRM courses.
Aligned to that we have upgraded the training lab equipment. This allows now to run parallel sessions, and also there is a seamless integration of the materials that we have now with the IPv6 lab topology.
Also, we've been working on the extending or e-learning sessions that we are offering. We are offering two e-learning sessions per month. We have been constantly reviewing the material and the content we are offering in these courses and we have developed new sessions, which are related to requesting IP addresses, best practices in managing internet resources, how to manage the Whois Database and also some introductions to autonomous system numbers.
This is services we started last year and we have been learning a lot about how is the best way to deliver the e-learning sessions. So we have changed a little bit the extension of the sessions and we have created different models that allow people to acquire more and better information, in terms of the technology we are offering.
Also, in terms of the last year, we have almost 2,300 participants, between face to face and e-learning activities. This represents 15 per cent more attendees than we had in 2009.
In terms of the policy discussion, this is going to be very brief. There were four policy discussions in the meeting on the Gold Coast. None of them reached consensus -- a very different scenario that we had this week here in Hong Kong.
The Secretariat, I'm pretty sure, is going to be pretty busy in working in implementation on the policies that reached consensus here in Hong Kong.
Regarding the meeting on the Gold Coast, we had 183 on-site participants from 35 economies. As we did here as well in Hong Kong, we have been organising remote hubs or remote locations, so we can allow people in two different locations to participate on-line during the policy decisions. We sent members of APNIC staff to coordinate the venue and to help in the discussions of the policies.
The general principle is that one of these venues that is going to participate at remote location is the venue of the next APNIC meeting. In the last meeting on the Gold Coast, we have, at the same time, 165 on-line remote participants.
Regarding some more work related to the organisation of the meeting, we have a clear understanding that this is our opportunity of the APNIC Secretariat, to show ourselves in the best way to our members. So we have been working very hard in having a continuing improvement plan. Siamak just explained that we invested in new webcast equipment. This was something that we did take to this improving plan. We are also improving the timing of publicising the stenocaptions, the videos.
We are aiming to have everything on-line by the end of the day.
Also, in order to bring more expertise in organising this kind of events, we hire a new event manager, Blandine Cousin, who has just recently integrated into APNIC staff five or six weeks ago.
So this meeting represents like a baptism by fire for her.
Also, we've been working with supporting APRICOT meetings. We offer website hosting and also the design. We also offered webcast for sessions with APRICOT. At the same time, we have been working not only exclusively for APNIC meetings, but also in other meetings, like CommunicAsia, IGF and ICANN, organising booths and stands.
Also, we have made some internal improvement about the administration of the website, when we are right now in the first phase of the implementation of the content management system.
It is a fact that the information is generated across the organisation. It's not an exclusive right or condition of the communication area. A lot of information is generated across the organisation.
So this new content management system, allows an improved flow and content of the information we are generating across the organisation.
Also, we have been working to extend the frequency of the information we are offering to the community.
As you know, we have a traditional newsletter, we call it Apster. But starting this year, also we started to produce a monthly Apster bulletin, which is basically a collection of the more relevant information that we collect during the month and is distributed by email.
Also, starting in this meeting, we started to generate the Apster daily report of what were the more relevant activities during the day, during the APNIC meeting.
Also, we have a high eco-culture inside APNIC. We call it ecoAPNIC. Publications has been highly committed to this eco-culture. As you can see, we have been providing some information through postcards. We have information about specific projects, like RQA. We have information like about how we are going to handle the final space of IPv4 in the organisation. We have information about improvement of MyAPNIC. All the information can be found on this postcard. This is a nice way to save paper. We included the link where you can actually go and visit and find more information.
We also include in RQA code that work fantastic with mobile devices. So it's a great initiative.
As a matter of fact, the annual report also will be on-line, production we are going to have.
Regarding our support to the internet development, we are having, right now, the Secretariat of the Asia Pacific IPv6 Task Force. This is a two-year role and we are doing this and supporting Tony Hill, who is the chair of this task force. We have been helping to organise gatherings of this regional task force in Bali and on the Gold Coast. We also have been providing some remote participation tools that can help to be more inclusive in the discussions and deliberations of this task force and also we are working on a website revamp.
For APNIC, it's crucial to give all the support possible to this task force, because we are now in a very critical phase in the transition to IPv6.
Also, we have been supporting the multi-stakeholder model through organising the first Regional IGF. We were co-organiser with other relevant regional organisations. It was last year here in Hong Kong.
In addition to that, we organised, in conjunction with the other NROs, a booth that was displayed in the Internet Governance Forum in Vilnius. At the same time, APNIC, in conjunction with DotAsia, helped to organise four remote hubs that were able to participate in a remote way during the deliberations of the meeting in Vilnius. We organised these remote hubs in Hong Kong, Dhaka, Jakarta and Manila. Basically, we sent staff to those locations to help with the coordination and the discussions of the sessions that were happening in Vilnius and, at the same time, to organise local discussions about internet governance in these places.
We will be very busy across the organisation in our standard activities. This is just an example of how many meetings we have been participating.
I won't go through the detail, because I had to include like two slides, just with examples of how many meetings we have been doing and supporting.
This goes from high-level meetings, like APEC TEL ministerial meeting to Japan, through the traditional network groups in different countries.
We are working in conjunction with other global organisations, like ISOC, in participating in Inet.
Many of the support we are bringing here is about IPv6 messages or perspective about internet resources.
Also, we have been doing, in the last month, a lot of work related to communication and press. It is a fact as well, that the exhaustion of IPv4 is not an exclusive issue of this technical community, it's a global matter that impacts the business continuity of many organisations. So we have been very involved in delivering the right message. We have been working in two different directions: global message and regional message. The global coordination has been made through a number of organisations, through the heads of communication office RIR. We call this group the Communications Coordination Group or CCG, but also we've been working internally in the region, in coordination with ... for example, to spread the right message.
It's a matter of continuity of the internet. The internet is not over IPv4. There has been a lot of work related to IPv6. Many of this message has been in that direction, to keep the calm in the industry and there is a lot more work to do. It is not collapse of the internet at all.
Communication and press work also has been related to some global meetings, like ITU Plenipotentiary meeting in Mexico last year, WDTC and IGF.
Finally, also, we have been supporting the public affair activities. Just a few examples of the kind of work we have been supporting. Pablo, in APNIC.
We have been working with the law enforcement agencies and the message there is to improve or have a better understanding between these two groups.
Also, with the ITU, we fight for recognition of the internet organisations.
But I will allow Pablo to make a more specific delivery and report on this aspect. But we have been very happy to support in these important activities as well.
That will be the content of my report. Thank you very much.
Maemura Akinori: The next report is from the business area, by Richard Brown, who is the Business Area Director.
Richard Brown: Thank you very much, Chair.
Richard Brown is my name. I'm the Director of the Business Area at APNIC.
I'm going to give you an update on the key deliverables for the business area during 2010.
I'll begin by addressing the member fee schedule implementation and plans for the introduction of the revised non-member fee schedule. I'll give you an update on our taxation status, moving on to corporate support. As a number of previous presenters have mentioned, our business continuity plan was put to a test, so I'll give you a bit of information on that event.
Another big project that affected not only the business area, but more broadly APNIC, was the acquisition and relocation to a new home for APNIC.
And, of course, we have ongoing work around the operational plan and budgeting. Sylvia has asked me also to give you all an update of the ISIF program.
Member fee schedule. We implemented the new member fee schedule on 1 January 2010. By the end of 2010, all members have been converted to the new fee schedule. That's been a significant project and that's all worked very well. Non-member fee schedule will be revised and implemented from January 2011. So non-members have started billing under that new fee schedule as well.
Taxation status. This time last year, we advised that we were still working with our taxation advisers on our objection from the revised assessment from the Australian Taxation Office. It was really a review that the ATO were having of their own decisions. I'm pleased to advise that our objection was upheld in full. So all receipts from APNIC members are treated as mutual funds and they confirmed APNIC, the organisation, as a not-for-profit. So that's a very important thing for APNIC membership.
Business continuity planning. I'm sure most of you will have seen that we did have a little event in Queensland back in early January. It was kind of perfect timing, because we had moved offices about three weeks before. We were still transitioning some of our services across. We had, however, in the due diligence in the acquisition of this property, looked fairly closely at where we thought the flood levels might get to. So I'm kind of happy that we did all that work upfront.
These images here are from Monday, 10 January, in a town called Toowoomba, which is about 100 kilometres west of Brisbane. So we had a fair feeling that something was coming our way, by this stage.
On Monday, January 10, after a long period of drought in Queensland particularly, and over the Christmas and early January period, we had started to get significant amounts of rainfall. On Monday, January 10, we are starting to see the warning signs. So there is continued heavy rain in dam and river catchments and as the previous slide showed, there's starting to be evidence of flash flooding and a large-scale flooding event is starting to unfold across Queensland more generally.
As I said, we were still relocating some of our services from our Park Road premises. But the authorities start to give us more and more warnings about what may happen.
On 11 January, during our executive team meeting, we are starting to see that the level of those warnings is increasing. In my role as the Business Continuity Coordinator, I kicked off the process.
I think one of the learnings of this whole incident was you have to act early. I think the results from the work we did have really paid off. We had a business continuity plan that we had been working on for over two years. We had been having regular meetings and looking at potential scenarios and how we might react if something happened -- always thinking that nothing would actually happen, but we were glad we had done the work.
Immediately, we engaged the team. So we have members of the facilities recovery team and technical recovery team, who are well versed in our BCP procedures and make up a part of that key team.
So how did we prioritise? Well, first of all, staff safety. That's paramount. So based on the events that were unfolding, we actually asked all staff to go home at midday. The majority of our staff have the ability to work on VPN from home, without disrupting services. So we could see that it was likely that many of the routes home for these people were likely to be cut off. We stepped into a stage where we really had our eagle eyes out and were monitoring all our facilities and infrastructure and ensuring that we maintain services. And, of course, we start communicating to our members and stakeholders what's happening.
January 11 to 12, we are still in monitoring mode.
We don't declare a disaster under our BCP program unless there's an outage of five days or more. So we are still in monitoring mode. We have accounted for all our staff, even those that are on long-term leave. We ensure that our facilities are secure and unaffected by flood. But we start to see that power supply is a big risk for us. Not only in the office, but it looks like large areas of metropolitan Brisbane are starting to lose power as well. So where we have staff working from home, we can see this could be a real problem.
At this stage, based on our triangle of redundancy, as Siamak set out, our co-locations are unaffected. They still have power and are not affected by the flood and services to the community are largely unaffected. But, of course, we're having regular meetings and briefings and we're prepared for the potential disaster that may happen.
13 and 14 January, we did lose power for less than 24 hours. It might have been a different story if we had stayed in our old premises. They lost power for over a week. So I would like to think that was good planning, but I think luck may have been on our side there. But the new office and our co-locations remain unaffected. There's widespread flooding everywhere. There's significant damage to public and private infrastructure and the route to the office for most staff is severely affected.
This image here is a satellite image of Brisbane.
Here we have originally our old office, up on the left there, and where we moved to. This is taken before the flood. You'll see up in the middle there is a football stadium. You can see the nice, green grass that's well maintained in the middle of that football stadium. That was 12 January.
This is 13 January. You can see in the football stadium, the green grass is now mud and water. This is the extent of the flood event. It was a significant flooding event in Brisbane.
Luckily, I took this image from the balcony of our new office. We were probably 15 or 20 metres clear of those flood levels, so that came as quite a relief. Although we were confident we weren't going to get flooded, we just didn't know for sure.
Where do we go from here? What are the learnings?
Well, it's given us a whole lot of new things to think about when we do our scenario testing. We do need to have our comprehensive review of how we responded to the flood and we need to, obviously, make any improvements to our plan where we see they're necessary. We need to continue to increase our resilience. Now that we have moved to the new premises, one of the things that we found is that we were in the middle of transitioning our BCP documentation to the new office. Obviously, we need that to be thoroughly reflected in the plan.
Another big project the business team took a lead on was the office relocation. There's a couple of very nice images there of our refurbished premises in Cordelia Street in South Brisbane.
I just want to report that the refurbishment of that building was completed on time, within budget.
We had a very large project team within APNIC and with outside professionals that allowed us to achieve that.
As Siamak mentioned in his presentation, part of that was improving our redundancy and disaster recovery procedures. The new APNIC building is going to be a new investment in the future and it saved us a lot of exposure to future rental and lease increases.
The relocation was a big project in itself.
Moving 65 staff and the infrastructure took place over the weekend of 18 and 19 December and we were open for business there on 20 December.
We do have some remaining lease commitments in the old premises, but 60 per cent of that has been sub-leased to new tenants, through a complete surrender deal with the landlord, effective from 1 March.
Operational planning. As Paul mentioned in his presentation, this operational plan underpins all we do at APNIC now. It's an iterative process, so we're continually working on it and the business area takes a lead responsibility for that. So during 2012, we will be going through our complete planning process again. So once the findings from this member survey that were presented this morning have been reviewed and incorporated into the strategic guidance from the Executive Council, we'll build some of the expectations and activities around what that survey has identified.
We'll go through a large range of organisational workshops, looking at the internal organisation and how we can actually align our activities better and, of course, we'll continue to analyse what's happening in our external environment.
The plan will establish our activities for 2012 and into 2013 and it's all about aligning the organisation. So it's the individuals who work there, the teams, all aligned and working on the same page.
Sylvia asked me to give an update on the ISIF program. First of all, why would you invest in ISIF? To maintain and diversify support for ICT and internet-related research and development. The Information Society Innovation Fund is a program that is project managed by Sylvia in the APNIC office. They provide a range of small grants in the ICT area, across the Asia Pacific region. It's really important to support this research. It can help internet growth in our region. It's to facilitate networking and information building throughout the internet community.At a glance, the small grants have been awarded so far to 19 projects, totalling around $675,000.
There's Thailand, India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Vietnam, Indonesia, Nepal, the Philippines, Timor Leste, Australia and Butan. So the funding for the ISIF program comes from IDRC, APNIC, ISOC and DotAsia. Sylvia hosted a workshop in November to assist with training on administrative and reporting procedures. The final 2009 reports will be distributed on a creative commons licence and the 2010 interim reports are currently under review.
How can you support ISIF? There's a brochure in each of the delegate bags today that has information that you can access easily. Essentially, your funding will support more projects per cycle, one funding cycle a year, there will be tailored workshops for grants recipients, in-depth publications and promotion and dissemination of grant recipients outcomes to encourage use and adoption. There's a range of different types of support that you can provide, from a standard sponsorship, through to our partnership agreements.
Thank you very much.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much, Richard.
These four are all reports from the areas. We'll have a one brief report from Pablo Hinojosa. He is senior public affairs advisor to the Director General and he's got a brief report.
Pablo Hinojosa: Hello. I don't have any slides, but I did come prepared.
My name is Pablo Hinojosa. I joined APNIC Secretariat in July 2010. I have been with APNIC for more than six months now. I moved from Washington, DC, where I was working for ICANN, as part of the global partnerships team, the one in charge of trying to make the organisation more international.
I would like to start by speaking about the Secretariat of APNIC. The staff has been very welcoming to me and I am extremely grateful for that. I have found that there is a lot of talent in the organisation and many of my colleagues have actually been working for APNIC for many years and they still seem to be happy. It's not easy, actually, to find among the internet organisations, such a slow rate of staff turnaround, and it has been fantastic to see so many of my colleagues being experts in the non-trivial art of managing a Regional Internet Registry. So this means I will be a newbie for a long time and I definitely have a lot to learn from my colleagues.
I joined APNIC as senior public affairs advisor.
If I understand well, I was hired for or it seems to be my job to try to support APNIC in all those things that we can call "political". And try to manage relations with strategic partners, such as governments and other entities in the region or internationally.
In the last six months, I have had the opportunity to help plan for APNIC's representation in different fora. For these, I have had the great privilege to work in these projects with Sam Dickinson and Miwa Fujii, both of them members of the team of communications led by German. I am grateful to German for many reasons, but one of them to allow me to participate and work with his team.
One of these representations of APNIC was last year, at the last of the five IGFs, in Lithuania, where APNIC, under the umbrella of the NRO, the Number Resource Organisation, supported all themes related with the topic tagged as "critical internet resources".
So now a new possible season of the IGF is in the oven and being produced. Sadly, there have been recent efforts that have put some limitations to the participation of the internet stakeholders. We really hope that the governments responsible for these backward efforts find soon the value of the contributions of the internet community.
APNIC put forward the nomination of Sam for a group that represents the internet technical community to make improvements and, hopefully, can prevent IGF to lose its multi-stakeholder fashion.
Sam got the support of the wider community and her nomination was approved. That is why she is not here with us today, because she's in Switzerland for a meeting dealing with the future of the IGF.
With Sam, I also worked in ITU-related matters.
As Paul mentioned, you may have followed her impressive and outstanding work in reporting via Twitter and CircleID, the proceedings of a very important meeting that happened last year, the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference in Guadalajara, Mexico.
I think her tweets were reflective of how the internet world reads the old telco world of the ITU and also, hopefully -- fingers crossed -- provide grounds to bring these two worlds towards a better understanding of each other.
I have also had the privilege to work -- and I was going to say "with" but, to be truthful, actually, I have worked for Miwa, to help her push forward the gospel of IPv6, in particular to push it in a very important forum, which is very dear to me since a long time, the APEC Telecommunications and Information Working Group, APEC TEL.
Miwa worked very hard, as usual, to help APEC TEL organise workshops about IPv6 and I am happy to see that it came to a very nice result. The ministers of 21 economies, members of APEC, agreed on their declaration to include a high-level statement and strong commitment to IPv6 deployment. They also approved a series of IPv6 guidelines.
Under Miwa's firm and rigorous leadership, I was also fortunate to support the push of IPv6 messages to the Asia Pacific Telecommunity, APT, a regional inter-governmental body that is strongly linked to the ITU. On this occasion, I also had the opportunity to work with an APNIC old timer, George Kuo, to help explain to some governments APNIC's registry functions and to address some of their concerns with regards to security and also how the Whois Database actually works.
This work with George and Miwa also gave way to a small project on how to better cope with some security concerns from law enforcement agencies.
Last year, APNIC participated in two events with law enforcement agencies and we talked about network abuse and APNIC's stake in those matters.
The final project I would like to share some thoughts with you, professionally speaking, has been the most enriching to me.
Before going there, if you allow me, let me share a short story. The first day that I went to the office in APNIC, last July, I was jet-lagged and even still with no coffee, I saw a ghost. It seemed to have been a recent arrival to the office and there it was, a ghost flying around. If you allow me, let me use this image of the ghost to describe this moment, when the work of the Secretariat was severely questioned by some parts of its community.
Let's call it the ghost of the doubt and, this time, doubts expressed about the Secretariat.
The language of this ghost was unprecedented in the APNIC community and posed several challenges.
I don't think the Secretariat's role of APNIC had been exposed before publicly with such a light, where there were signs showing lack of confidence in its work.
I didn't find this ghost particularly different from the ones ICANN is exposed to every day. But this ghost was taken very seriously by the Secretariat and raised an important question: what is it that made attractive to this ghost to come and pay a visit to APNIC?
And that question opened a reasoning process on a lot of issues, all very intricate, that arrived to an escalated level of complexity and somehow broke the levels of trust and understanding from some important portions of the APNIC community.
And this is how Paul gave me the opportunity to work a bit and learn a lot about the different issues that are current between APNIC and different stakeholders in India. The application process for an NIR, discussions about representation mechanisms of this community in APNIC and a few more. He kind of put a priority in my work portfolio that I read as: go try and help rebuild levels of trust and explore ways to recover communications with an important part of the community.
In this project, I have learned a lot from Sunny, of course, and also had the opportunity to work with the Chairman of the EC, Akinori, and the treasurer, James. But most importantly, I learned a lot from a very active and energetic part of the APNIC community, which has a governmental component, but mostly a group of different ISPs in India, current members of APNIC, that have a lot to say and, hopefully, can contribute to the general goal of the healthy improvement of the internet in the region.
While I cannot report much progress on this project yet, as it is still ongoing, I am hopeful that the myth of an ill-intentioned Secretariat that has prevailed during the last year, can be broken now and for good; that we can restore trust to communicate better; that we can work together for a capable NIR in India. Also, that the different initiatives coming from this important group find proper ways to persuade with merits the regional community of APNIC without dividing it.
So that got APNIC Secretariat into the business of becoming ghostbusters. We are hopeful that the ghost eventually becomes a friendly one like Casper, and that we can still return to work full time in the region for the public good of a secure, stable and reliable internet.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much, Pablo.
OK. That's all for the part of the Secretariat report. We will have now some reports from the Executive Council.
Just a brief discussion with the colleagues here.
I would like to have a break here and then get back to the next session with my report for the Executive Council.
Before a housekeeping notice will be delivered from Sunny, I would like to invite Jian Zhang -- she needs to depart at this time for another commitment.
She is actually an outgoing Executive Council member and I heard we are now having some words from her to you.
Jian Zhang: Thank you, Maemura-san.
Actually, I just want to thank you all for your support. Thanks for giving me this chance to serve you. I hope I didn't disappoint you much.
Actually, I still remember the day I got elected as a Policy SIG Co-Chair at my first APNIC meeting.
While I was still trying to figure out what's going on here, my name, all of a sudden, got called by Sunny. He said: Jain, would you please come to the stage to chair the next session? So basically that's how I got started. I had no idea what I'm getting into, actually.
But ever since then, I have been working really hard to figure out what's going on here. Now I've got pretty much a good idea.
Anyway, it's such pleasure to work with all of you. Thanks, Paul. Thanks, Maemura. Everybody here, thanks for your help and trust. Actually, I wish I have done more for this community. But, definitely, I'm still going to be around. It's not time to say goodbye yet.
Being on the APIA board, definitely we're going to be working closely on future APRICOT-APNIC meeting together. So, thank you.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much, Jian.
Actually, Jian is right now appointed as a board member of the APIA. Then you will never miss her face. Thank you very much, Jian.
OK. The mic is going to Sunny.
Srinivas Chendi: Thanks, Akinori. Thanks, Jain, for mentioning my name. That was a surprise to me, really.
Thanks for those who visited our member desk, member lounge during the week. It was a great pleasure to meet you all there and hope all your enquiries were dealt with. If you have any pending enquiries, I'm sure the staff, my colleagues, will contact you over email or however you prefer.
We have a small lucky draw prize for the member services lounge. I would like to invite -- I think George is busy with the election, so I would like to invite the services area manager to come and draw the prize, please. Sanjaya.
It's an iPod Touch. Let's see who is the lucky winner.
John from MCV Broadband.
Thanks for visiting the member services lounge.
We'll have the lunch at the usual place and we'll come back at -- sorry. I jumped the agenda here.
The chair would like to invite Francis Lee.
Francis Lee: Just a gentle reminder. Please cast your vote before you go and have your lunch. The booth is just outside. Cast your vote first, then go to lunch. Because we'll close the election at 2 o'clock. OK?
Just to clarify again and correct, the election scrutineers are Anna Lord, Nick Hyrka, Hisham Abraham and Nate Davies. Thank you.
Maemura Akinori: I have one gentleman on the microphone. Rajesh?
Rajesh Chharia: Thank you, Chair.
I'm just a little bit putting my reservation about the statement what Mr Pablo has given, about a very small story, about the ghost which has arisen from India.
We all know that India is a democratic country and we are living into the democracy since our birth.
We are here not to divide the community. We are here to join the community. And you will appreciate that in India, still the joint family system is available, where everyone wants to have into a joint family. I'm just putting my small reservation on the statement of Pablo, that any Indian community has come forward to divide the community.
That's my statement. Thank you.
Satya Gupta: I'm the Vice-Chair of the ISP Association of India. Thank you for giving me the opportunity.
I would like to have some small comments on a few of the reports which have been presented. To start with, the report by the Director General, Mr Paul.
Actually, I like to appreciate the work done in the APNIC for serving the community and most of the communities also have come to our expectation. But there is something more, like about APNIC tomorrow, and that is what was expected, actually. In our Gold Coast meeting, also we suggested the next version of APNIC, APNIC 2.0, what we called, and I think that is what Paul meant about APNIC tomorrow. We would like that some focused work is done on that.
Basically, the idea is to take APNIC to the next generation. Like we were seeing yesterday, the Internet2, the next generation of internet. We are already talking of version 6 as well. So that should make APNIC more inclusive, actually. Maybe we have to go beyond the address management and so many other activities are required. And the perception of APNIC have to change. When we are talking about APNIC tomorrow 2.0, there is a perception that APNIC is not as democratic as it should be.
So it may be a wrong perception, but that is there. So maybe it has to become more all-inclusive. It has to take everyone along, all the stakeholders, and it has to involve more and more stakeholders. It has to enlarge its scope.
That is one.
And regarding --
Maemura Akinori: Excuse me. Make it as concise as possible, please.
Satya Gupta: Yes, sir. Two more only.
Regarding AP IPv6 Task Force mentioned by German, I would like to propose that we should involve the Government of India representative there, because they have led already there from a very good task force, involving all the stakeholders of the industry, including the government. And then about the community, to discuss about the improved relationship with our, you know, organisations, with ITU. Actually, a lot of work is required to be done. Though the item has been flagged well, we need to work with them together, but their mindset is that of telco and we are from the IP side.
So I will propose that we form some working group or a subcommittee to look into that, so that we achieve our objective of taking them along with us or going there, basically a need far harmonisation between ITU and APNIC and maybe we start at their regional level, the Asia Pacific Telecommunity which was mentioned.
Only last one, actually. Regarding, you know, the report of Richard on the business continuity process. Actually, I like to process that we should try to make use of the cloud computing also when we decide or design about our BCP plan and maybe a back-up server is put in some other country than where our main server is.
And we have to set examples for our members by making the leader in use of cloud computing. So that our members and other stakeholders also see example and make use of that. That's all, Mr Chairman.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much.
I'm very afraid to say, but we are now behind our time. As someone shouted out, there is an open microphone session in the afternoon session. Then I would like to ask you to place your statement in that timeframe.
Pavan Duggal: Mr Chairman --
Maemura Akinori: OK. You have 15 seconds, please.
Pavan Duggal: I will take 10.
I will put on record the objection of the Secretariat playing politics. This is for the first time a Secretariat person comes on dais to talk of a ghost, of a community as a ghost, and then specifically goes on to reference to the Indian community. We are here to join hands with the community. Here, the Secretariat is playing politics. The Secretariat, especially Mr Pablo, had no business to talk about this as a ghost. If he thinks the Indian community is a ghost, then I think this is itself polarisation politics that's currently being played, that's being headed by the Secretariat, that the Secretariat has no business to be in. Please understand, we are here as part of the community. The Secretariat or one particular individual, Mr Pablo, has no business to talk to any particular section of the community as a ghost. We would take on record our objection to the same.
I hope the Chair, in his capacity as the Chair, would take substantial notice of this, considering the fact that this should not be an effort to divide the community. We should try to see that we have to work here together. Mind you, I have gone through all the annuls of APNIC. Nowhere in the history of APNIC has this kind of a parallel been made of representing a particular community as a ghost and then saying that it will be a good ghost and it will go away.
Please understand that if office bearers of the Secretariat, including Mr Pablo, have to give their presentations, at least they should be trained enough to say what they are talking. What they are talking is going to be on record. This is nothing but polarisation politics, which I think the Secretariat has no business to be in. We have to be all conducive parts of the community.
By means of this, you're actually giving a signal to the entire other communities: hold on, today is Indian ghost, tomorrow it will be an Australian ghost, third day it will be some other ghost, forth day it will be some other ghost. Hold on. We are here as part of one big family. Where is the question of this ghost process coming in? Mr Pablo, by bringing in the story of a ghost, we were listening, we were quiet, but then he gave the game away by saying he talked to the Indian community.
Hold on. If the Indian community is a ghost and if APNIC is looking at the Indian community as a ghost, then it is very regrettable --
Maemura Akinori: Excuse me. I didn't say 10 minutes.
Pavan Duggal: I am done.
Maemura Akinori: And I believe that Pablo's intention is not for that.
Pavan Duggal: I have put on this objection in that regard. Please understand there is no allegations against the Chair.
Maemura Akinori: No.
Pavan Duggal: We have no allegations against the Chair. Here is the proposition. We are telling you. Please expect that to put it on record. Thank you.
Maemura Akinori: Recorded.
Then, we really running out of time. Let's go lunch break. Thank you very much.
Lalit Mathur: Mr Chair, good afternoon. And good afternoon to the entire community.
Maemura Akinori: Five seconds, please.
Lalit Mathur: I'll take 10 seconds.
Maemura Akinori: Five.
Lalit Mathur: I have only two comments, Chair.
Which is, one is, that we have to understand and appreciate that there is a change which is the only constant that is an accepted norm. The rules or conditions of yesterday cannot be valid today.
Likewise, what is going to be tomorrow will change day after.
If we accepted it is going to be a happy situation for all of us. My country is a democratic country and so is APNIC. If APNIC becomes authoritarian in certain ways, in certain methodology, it will be detrimental to the entire community. Thank you.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much.
Lunch break, please. Be sure to be back at 2 pm.
Thank you very much.
APNIC member meeting.
Friday, 25 February 2011.
Maemura Akinori: Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. Let's start again the APNIC Member Meeting for the afternoon session.
First of all, I would like to mention that it is a regret of mine, as Chair of the APNIC Member Meeting, to have the situation where we have some confusion and have no more progress. Then I would like to ask you for some support for me, as the Chair, for the smooth proceeding of the meeting.
First, I heard that our Director General have some words.
Before proceeding with the items which need to be done in AMM, I would like to allow up to 10 minutes for the attendees to make some comments. But I would like to keep it no more than 10 minutes, please.
Rajesh Chharia (ISP Assoc India, NIXI): It's very unfortunate which has happened pre-lunch session, into this APNIC AMM meeting, which has never been into the AMM.
One of the staff of the APNIC Secretariat has used such unparliamentary language, which is not acceptable to an economy.
Sir, we have no intention to disrupt this meeting.
We are part of the community. But insult to a community by previously prepared speeches, is highly unfortunate, intolerable and tantamount of insult to the population, to the countrymen of India.
What we require. We require that the whole statement whatsoever Mr Pablo has given into his speech or comment should be expunged. We require that a severe action should be taken. We also require that a disciplinary committee should be formed, in which the aggrieved party should be the member, so that apart from the action against the particular officer, we should also discuss the Code of Conduct, which is very important into the community, into the society, so that this type of thing is never repeated again.
Chair, we are talking of a country. If this remark is coming to your country's name or any other country's name, what will be your reaction? It was very unfortunate that the morning session has started half an hour late, but when we were interested in speaking on behalf of our country, you have not given us the time. It was also very insulting to this economy and to this community.
Whatsoever the demand we have put on behalf of this economy, on behalf of the members from this community, I will request to please take immediate decisions on this demand, so that we should get a comfort level within this APNIC.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much.
I think I should give some opportunity for Pablo Hinojosa to state something. Thanks, Pablo.
Pablo Hinojosa: Hello. Thank you for allowing me to speak.
If we can split my message into two parts. The first one, the most important one, the intention.
The story and the image were supposed to stress the fact that we cannot work without trust and that is how internet works. The second part, for which I offer a sincere apology, is about the use of an unfortunate analogy, that may have caused an offence and that was not intended at all.
Sorry about that.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you.
SP Jerath (ISP Assoc India): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen and to the EC members.
I have been really shocked and very disappointed to just go through the morning session last statements of Mr Pablo, where he strongly put certain particular objective statement for the entire community of India.
It's a very, very sad incident, what has happened.
Our President of Association, Mr Rajesh Chharia, has already mentioned certain particular steps which are required, but I would like to just address over here that in the presence of the august EC members, the Chair and the DG, such type of a thing has happened and there was nothing -- no sort of a control at that particular moment.
For such type of meetings, generally, you know, if such type of thing happened and it is spoken against some particular community or some against country, you know, this does not go well with the decorum of the organisation or decorum of the conference.
Therefore, we request appropriate and strong disciplinary action should be taken against the person and, in future, some sort of a Code of Conduct should be observed in the EC, such type of a presentation, so that more economies of the world are respected and such type of incidents does not get repeated, time and again.
So I would once again request that please do this particular thing, so that in case this type of things does not appear and the communities are respected. Therefore, there should be some committee on the EC for observing this type of Code of Conduct, so that major communities, including India, should be presented over there and they can express and they can really control and monitor such type of things.
You know, doing something wrong and then after that, saying apologies, yes, it solves certain things. But, you know, the sentiment which has been heard very badly of all the Indians, and when we go back to our country and when we express to our fellow beings, it is going to be really difficult for us to really convince them. And maybe if our authorities, you know, we explain to them and they will say that, OK, this is not correct, and there may be some appropriate action. So I think, accordingly, this should be done.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much.
Actually, the EC is not of the position the Pablo's statement is inappropriate, but rather, encouraging eliminating the misunderstanding and encourage better communication. But as Pablo already stated, he acknowledged that there is some expression that might have been introducing some misunderstanding then. That point is taken.
Yes. We will consider your comment, as the Executive Council.
As I told, I would like to have the meeting run, then I would like to limit the comments of speakers on the floor, just the four gentlemen currently on the queue. Then next one.
Brajesh Jain (ISP Assoc India): I just want to ask you, have you seen ghost before? If no, here is our ghost looks like. I'm speaking as a ghost.
Number 1, more than the offensive statements which came from the particular officer, it is the post-proceedings that APNIC EC was fully represented, they were in the Chair, and when in the morning, we can delay the meetings by half an hour, what was it that we -- and even after 2 o'clock session, we delayed by another 15, 20 minutes, for whatever reason, which is understood, why could not a few minutes be given to speak at that point in time? This is number 1.
Number 2, there is a strong need for disciplinary committee and for Code of Conduct. Not only the EC is answerable to the community. APNIC staff also needs to be accountable to the community. So there should be Code of Conduct to be followed, even for them. Thank you.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much. Point taken.
Actually, the time control is very difficult and we need to have the morning session ended earlier to allow the catering, in timely manner. Then we had some discussions to prepare this afternoon's session. That's the main reason for the lateness by 15 minutes.
I apologise on that point to, you know, the start of the afternoon session delayed in 15 minutes.
Thank you very much for your comments.
Brajesh Jain (ISP Assoc India): And for all the statement, what Mr Pablo has made, should be removed from the APNIC proceedings and the record.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you. Randy, please.
Randy Bush (IIJ): We should not edit history and certainly complaints of not spending enough time on this seem a little strange.
My country of origin is an international mass murderer and invader of other countries. So I'm not too sure that when trading insults, we're getting too serious here.
I think we have a cultural difference that amplifies misunderstandings. What is acceptable in some cultures is not acceptable in others and what we seem to have here is an enormous gap, with no blame. But would you please take it outside? We have work to do. We only have so much time. I have an early flight. I care about APNIC policy. I do not ask the board of directors to reach around and deal with employees. That's what there's an executive for, et cetera. Can we deflate this, take it outside and do it later?
Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much.
Pindar Wong (APIA): Fat chinaman from Hong Kong.
LAUGHTER I was the first Vice-Chairman of ICANN and this kind of reminds me of an ICANN meeting. When I got onto the board of the ICANN meetings, I was the first ASO representative from the Asia Pacific region. I totally missed this dispute. I guess I left a little bit too early for lunch.
I have heard two apologies so far. One with respect to the time for the lunch and also from the person who made the speech.
There's clearly a misunderstanding. I agree that -- I don't agree. I think let's get back to address policy. Thank you very much.
Rajesh Chharia (ISP Assoc India, NIXI): Thank you, Chair.
I really appreciate the wordings of Randy Bush, but insult is insult, whether any culture. No economy, no country can tolerate any such type of insult done into a community, into a society, where all the economies are representing, with full respect.
I don't accept the apology of Mr Pablo. I restate my demand for severe disciplinary action against Mr Pablo and a disciplinary committee should be formed, so that it should study the reason of this insult, as well as for the future Code of Conduct for the APNIC Secretariat.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much. The point is taken and EC will consider your kind input.
Thank you very much.
OK. That's all for the comment session, for the beginning of the afternoon session.
Then, our plan was EC report, the report from the Executive Council in the morning session, then I would like to start. Thank you very much, Paul.
Need to have the election things first. Francis, please.
I almost missed the most important point of this meeting.
Francis Lee: I already closed it at 2 o'clock sharp. Four minutes before that, I announced in the hall that it was going to close beforehand. That's calling the procedure. 2 o'clock sharp, we close.
No more votes in. Now they are being counted.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much.
Then my part. I would like to ask for your permission, I will deliver my Executive Council report sitting here.
Here, this is the regular contents, which is the APNIC EC report.
This page is showing you about current composition of the Executive Council. We have currently six elected members who are right now sitting in front of you. Let me introduce them. Myself, Maemura Akinori, doing the chair; Ma Yan, right-most from you, who is serving as the secretary; James Spenceley, who is the treasurer of the APNIC EC; Jian Zhang, actually, she has already left from this stage; Hyun-Joon Kwon from Korea and Che-Hoo Cheng from Hong Kong.
These six are the elected Executive Council members and we have one member who has already resigned, whose name is Kuo-Wei Wu. He resigned in April 2010.
We have Paul Wilson, who is the Director General of APNIC, as the ex officio member of the Executive Council.
These seven are the Executive Council, which is responsible for the oversight of the APNIC Secretariat's operations and as the representative of you, the membership.
Why Kuo-Wei Wu resigned is he got appointment as a trustee at the BOT of ICANN. Then following his appointment at the board of ICANN, he resigned as the EC member. Usually, we run the Executive Council as eight members but, right now, we are running that with seven members. His service term is long, like from March 1999. The EC extends our thanks to Kuo-Wei Wu for his long service.
This page shows the functions of the EC.
Represent the interests of the members in the governance of APNIC, have oversight of APNIC activities, to consider broad internet policy issues for APNIC's strategic direction, to set membership dues and to endorse the policy consensus towards implementation.
We had a bit more meetings of the Executive Council in these six months. We have meetings in September, October, November and December we have the two meetings, which are teleconference and the in-person on-site meeting.
Usually, in February, we have the in-person meeting in APNIC meeting, but we had the regulatory conference one week before APNIC meeting here.
These minutes are all found in APNIC EC website, www.apnic.net/ec/, once we approve the minutes.
EC activities. As I mentioned about the role of the EC, we have some regular activity and some project activity. Regular activity is the monthly review of the APNIC financial reports and monthly consideration of the APNIC operational updates, in accordance with the report from the Director General. Also, it is one of the responsibilities of ours, which is the selection of the location of APNIC meetings. Recent decision was Busan in year 2011, August. That's our decision. And, of course, we do the approval of the budget. This annual regularities.
For projects, we have been reviewing the APNIC EC election process. As you heard in the morning session, we have quite a formal, very defined process for EC election, having one independent election chair. That is much improved and we will keep on improving, if there is a need, accordingly.
The second one is strategic planning, which will be delivered as a report from me.
Review of the election process. According to the Election Review Panel's recommendation -- and you can find this recommendation on the web -- we did the review of the election process. Points of review, we have two things. One is eliminating ambiguities on the process and reinforcing the neutrality and independence of the process. That is why we appoint an election chair.
Now we have the brand new process is being launched. It is already applied for the EC election this time, with the election chair, who is Francis Lee this time. Thank you very much for the service again.
Then we have already kicked off the strategic planning. That is the one expression which I contributed to the annual report, but we had a big change, a decade of big change for notice, year 2000 to year 2010 -- sorry about that, decade of growth instead, for the notice. We are now at the corner of change. We have a lot of things to change and we have a very different situation right now.
So we decided to kick off such a process to compile the strategic planning. We started that process in December, when we had the EC retreat meeting in Brisbane.
By the way, this EC retreat meeting is almost the last day of the previous office and we were very delighted to have the site survey. Actually, the new office, we visited that and we are so impressed at that time.
Then strategic planning has some focal aspects, which are IPv4 exhaustion, IPv6 transition, environmental changes, registry function and sustainability of the APNIC operations. They were explained afterwards, in a different presentation slide.
This is not the one-shot strategic planning, but EC determined to keep on doing this kind of planning, with having periodic consideration through the EC conference and sometimes retreat.
2011 budget. The EC determined the 2011 budget and membership fees and that is approved at the December 16 EC meeting, which coincided with the EC retreat at the time. The budget will be presented from our treasurer, James Spenceley, after my reports are finished.
The EC is pleased to announce the membership dues for APNIC members for 2011 will be held at the 2010 levels. There is no change.
That's all for the EC report part. Thank you very much everyone for your hearing.
As I said in the very beginning part, the EC Executive Council is the representative of the membership. Our members are more than happy to hear your comments and questions and possible suggestions.
Membership meeting is the really big chance for you and also for me to meet each other. But you can submit your questions or comments at our executive secretary email address, as shown.
OK. Then minutes of the EC meetings are available in the web page, so please refer if you need it.
Thank you very much. That is all for the EC report.
Then let me move to another one, which is the strategic planning. I prepared another slide for this.
Here is my brief report for the APNIC strategic planning.
We sometimes need such strategic planning. The APNIC Executive Council has its role, which is defined as: "to consider broad internet policy issues in order to ensure that APNIC's policies and strategies fully respond to the constantly changing internet environment." So we are taking regular meetings, which is monthly teleconference, but it usually will cover operational and financial things as monthly, but as well as that, we sometimes have the strategic discussion. But we are not so satisfied with taking some time out of the monthly conference, but we need some strategic discussion for more focus and more visibility and transparency. That's one of the background for us to consider about the strategic planning.
To set a strategy, it is very important to have the really, you know, fundamental issues. Consider about some questions. About APNIC, what we do, which is we are doing the Regional Internet Registry, which is mainly administering the IP addresses or some other number resources, to register it or distribute it to the LIRs who needs that.
Why we do it? Because it is needed for the technical and administrative service, to serve the entire internet, which is global, and it is needed to be a single, seamless, routable and global network. That is the single network which covers the entire globe and everyone can communicate to anyone connected to the internet.
And how we do it? We are doing this, serving this kind of thing with the organisation, formulation of the non-profit and mutual organisation. We equip the bottom-up policy process and our APNIC meetings is quite open and bottom up and a transparent meeting and proceed in such manner.
Then strategic planning. We found some need for the strategic planning, which was proposed by the EC during 2010. As I mentioned, in the December retreat, the new process started and ongoing. For our strategic planning, we appoint a facilitator, who helps us for the considering about the strategy and whose name is Colin Adams. He is based in Brisbane and he has a really rich experience with consultation for ICANN and some other management experience. So he much helps for us to consider about the strategic planning, by facilitating our discussion in several measures.
The first meeting, as I told, was already done in December 2010 in Brisbane, in the previous office of APNIC, which is located at Park Road, Milton.
There is almost all EC members there to spend two full days for this discussion.
Future process is still to be determined, but what we have already determined is we will take a continuous process for the strategic planning, to revise it, from time to time, for the need of the changing internet.
The first meeting, I told, which was held in December, we started from the input from the Executive Council member, to raise some concerns and items to be considered. So the EC members, you know, are here because they have the experience and capability to consider about that.
We start with that, I mean for the EC to raise what is the issue, what is the issue to be solved?
Then, afterwards, we invited the APNIC staff, who are within the executive team, that means the directors, for their contributions.
Also, we had the early result of the membership survey at the time. Then that survey is also the valuable input for us to consider.
Then the agenda was challenged. It's actually the issues I just told, were raised. These challenges are identified into major areas. And we consider about the possible responses for that or positions.
And we are now comparing the draft positions and the statement, which is soon to be available, but here I am reporting to you some of them, as compiled in the slides.
Major issue areas. That was actually raised, pointed out in my EC report. We have the six areas: IPv4 exhaustion, IPv6 transition, environmental change of the APNIC business, registry function, sustainability and future process.
For the IPv4 exhaustion, yes, that is our business, to distribute IP addresses. But as you know, we are running out all resources of IPv4 addresses and we need to have some counter-measures.
Then in that case, IPv6 is the only available long-term solution to solve, in a very good shape, the challenges of the IPv4 exhaustion. But we recognise that the transition will take a long time and we need to keep encouraging the community and let them have some good assistance for that.
Actually, the interim measures were already being adopted. You know, the internet service provider sometimes employ NAT -- network address translator -- to save the global IP addresses or, you know, serve the users without any global IP -- very few global IP addresses.
But, you know, such using the NAT is bring the users some degree of degrade, but we can recognise that NAT is one of the solutions, as far as it is acceptable for the users, but the long-term solution would be the IPv6.
Then we have some problem to be solved. If we had the IPv4 address imbalance spread out to be globe, that would be harmful, because, you know, we need to move the IP addresses region to region, then that would be addressed to solve, to have the coordinated manner to serve some other IP addresses.
Policy questions, which is for the IPv4 address, in quite end term of near to the exhaustion, and it's really become critical. That is what the Policy SIG worked on, in previous two days, and we still have something more to do.
IPv6 transition. Yes, IPv6 is the only long-term solution for after the IPv4 address exhaustion. But we still run some transition period there.
Actually, the internet community need a lot of training and a lot of information and education, for ISPs need to have the practical solution and they sometimes need assistance.
Even for governments, they need to have the situation and the issues with the IPv6 and they also need some very good guidance from us, you know, as the experts in the field.
APNIC is now doing some projects for the IPv6 transition, by having the designated specialist for the IPv6 program, whose name is Miwa Fujii, and we work on that for several years.
We will have some issues to, you know, more and more encourage the IPv6 transition and we might need to have some measures, in terms of the budget, so that is what needs to be considered by us.
External environment, which is, you know, a lot of stakeholders, organisations, entities and companies around APNIC business operations. You know, as the internet is becoming the more and more critical infrastructure for the information society, the public sector is becoming more and more concerned about public policy issues for the internet.
So, you know, the government is interested in IPv6, as the opportunities to have development in socioeconomic aspects. At the same time, we have the increased number of threats, in terms of the security.
The APNIC EC thinks that APNIC needs to have some activity outreach and education and advocacy in our area of expertise and responsibility, which is internet technical thing and administering the internet. It is quite a difficult agenda and it is a very complex issue. Then we need to take care of it with some cost increased.
Registry function. Largely what we have been doing in IPv4 address is distributing address space to the LIRs or ISPs. But now the IPv4 address is running out and there is no resource to distribute in IPv6. IPv6 is really huge and there is reduced priority, in terms of the preservation.
Then, APNIC's business is becoming, rather than distributing of resources, but more of, you know, restoring the resource into the database and ensuring that the resources are held by the correct, authentic holders which we allowed and it can be verified. In that sense, we have so much things to do, in the area of registration and the security.
Nowadays, since several years, we are working on the RPKI, which is resource private key infrastructure, which is for the routing security, by being referred by the routing system and also RPKI is some for, you know, our certificate to ensure the holder is quite authentic.
Other than RPKI, we have reverse DNS and DNSSEC.
As the IP address registry, we are serving the reverse look-up services. Because we have the security threat in DNS services, the DNSSEC deployment is very crucial for our services.
Sustainability. APNIC's core responsibilities are established and ongoing. Because we are the infrastructure for running the global internet sustainably, then our business needs to be sustainable.
To secure such sustainable operation of the internet, our business also has to be secured, needs to be secured, as being sustainable. So we need to respond by recognising and analysing future scenarios and doing that in terms of the impact on the revenue and growth.
Actually, we are doing a close watch of the trend and their implication. I mean the IPv6 growth and IPv4 return.
Then there are some sort of agendas and focus areas we will be focusing on. In terms of the future process, we will take a regular strategy review and updating such a strategic plan. That is needed for meeting for the change of the environment and to react to the public or member -- enquiry from the membership. Right now, we are concerned about having quarterly strategic review meeting, for example, as the on-site meeting of the APNIC meeting occasion and one more as the retreat in-person meeting and the last one of four is during the teleconference. By that quarterly update, maybe we pretty much expect that our strategic planning is kept updated.
The next slide is thanks. This is just the beginning of our strategic planning and I delivered this report. I'm sorry it is a bit lengthy, but it is just, you know, what we are now describing in document of strategic planning and which is soon available for you to get, but the material in the slide is pretty much the contents of that strategic planning, which is published to the membership and the broader community.
If you have any questions or comments, I am more than happy to accept. If not, please come up to me and I will talk about that further.
All right. Last from the Executive Council is the EC treasury report. So Mr Treasurer, James Spenceley, is now delivering the report of his.
James Spenceley: Thanks, Mr Chair. I know we're running a little bit behind, so I will try and keep this as short as possible. If you do have questions along the way, I'm happy to answer them.
Finances is a key focus for the APNIC EC, ensuring that we have sustainability going forward. So we certainly are taking this very seriously.
As Richard mentioned in his report, we had a taxation review from the Australian Taxation Office, the ATO. They reviewed our status as a mutual or as a not-for-profit, in the way it relates to membership fees. Membership fees, if you're a mutual, are not taxed.They revised for three financial years -- 2005, 2006 and 2007 -- and we received a revised tax bill of $424,000. APNIC is a membership organisation.
Our advice was that we do qualify as a mutual, so we objected to this view. That was also the view of our accounting firm. So the case was reviewed by the Australian Taxation Office and that objection was upheld.
To be conservative, APNIC paid 50 per cent of the tax bill and that tax bill was refunded. The positive thing here is that the ATO has looked at APNIC's status. It was escalated within the ATO and it was certainly ruled that we are continuing as a mutual and not-for-profit.Financial status summary. APNIC every year undertakes an audit and that audit is performed by one of the global four large audit firms. This year we changed audit partners. Every five years, I believe, we change, just to introduce some fresh views from the audit team. Ernst & Young, which is a very well-known firm across the globe, is our auditor. We declared an operating profit of $250,000.
As you can see there, operating revenue was above budget by 4 per cent. The budget was 12.9 million and the actual results were 13.4. Operating expenses were also up. I'll delve into those a little bit, but they were only up 2 per cent. So that's a good result.
As you can see, the budget was for a revenue of 12.87 and total revenue was 13.4. Most of the growth in revenue there was from per allocation fees and those per allocation fees are now moving into membership fees, with the new fee structure. So as you can see, it's a gold star.
I thought financial reports are actually quite dry and boring, so we'll give gold stars where we can.
Revenue up is a good thing.
The income statement, the expenses are also up.As you'll see, there's quite a large increase in costs where the orange arrow is. That's from rent and outgoings. That was an out-of-budget expense that was approved mid-year by APNIC EC and relates to the break of the old lease when we moved into our own building, also refurbishment fit-out costs and the like. So that was a $700,000 out-of-budget expense, which ended up being at about 800,000.
To counter that, obviously we would have made a significant operating loss if that was the only change in the budget. The team has done a fantastic job. We reduced professional fees and we delayed a number of projects. We reduced professional fees by 379,000. So a big thumbs up.
Salaries and expenses. Staff were delayed and positions not filled, so we recovered 217,000 there.
That would be another thumbs up.
Travel expenses were reduced by 114,000 and that mostly relates to the meeting being moved to the Gold Coast -- obviously, less far for APNIC staff to travel. Again, another thumbs up.So as you can see down the bottom, this time last year, we budgeted for an operating loss of 150,000 and then we managed to turn that around to a $250,000 profit. That was probably the last time for a long time you will see a budgeted operating loss. At our last APNIC meeting, we reaffirm that we do want to operate in a surplus year on year.
That's the loss. That's bad. That's the profit that we actually turned it into, which is good.
Therefore, we get another gold star.
The financial position has obviously increased.
What you'll see up the top there, the current assets in 2009. We had 11 million in current assets. That decreased in 2010, as we obviously purchased the office building. So you will see that while current assets have decreased, most of that shift has gone from current assets into non-current assets, being the property that we own.
APNIC reserves. This is a key focus for the EC and something of a focus for many members, I'm sure.
We ended the year with more money than we had.
That's the goal. So that's a big thumbs up. As you can see, on the adjusted basis, which includes the purchase price of the office, we're a little bit over 13 million. So if you can see there, the important thing is that trend of us maintaining or even reducing cash reserves has been turned around.
Key points for the 2010 was obviously the tax objection was upheld, revenue was greater than budget, expenses were greater but less than revenue, tight control of costs resulted in an operating profit. So a big well done to the finance and management team at APNIC for doing that. We completed the move to our own office, so we'll see in 2011 and onwards a significant benefit in rent and also we obviously increased cash reserves. In summary, 2010 was a three star year.
Any questions on the budget?
Masato Yamanishi (Softbank): It's not a comment for this report, but I have a question about next year's budget. Do you have any analysis of the impact of v4 transition, because I think in transition stage, membership fees will not increase for a while, as previously, and also allocation fee may be decreased. I think so. So you have any complete analysis for that point?
James Spenceley: Yes. I'll actually go into the 2011 budget next in my slides. The team internally do a lot of work on forecasting based on sort of historical trends, but also looking forward. We have increased our expectation of revenue for 2011, only because we think there's going to be a significant larger number of new members joining.
So there will be more resource allocation fees.
I think the question is very valid, but probably relates more to the 2012 budget, the following year.
I'll move onto the budget for 2011. All of our budgets internally are prepared by the APNIC Secretariat and they're a result of the member and stakeholder survey. The way the budget process works is the EC requests the stakeholder survey, we get the results, the Secretariat produce a report and the overall report and budget is looked at by the EC. We then make any changes. We made a number this year. So the budget is modified and returned back to the Secretariat with approval.
The focus of the EC now is entirely on financial stability. We believe that with the uncertainty going forward, we need to maintain a strong operating profit or a reasonable operating profit year on year and ensure that APNIC has a sound financial future.
That really revolves around financial governance, you know, really evaluating the budget as we go throughout the year and then taking decisions throughout the year whether we need to reduce costs or delay projects, if revenues aren't tracking to plan.
The budget for this year, for revenues, is an increase, so we are expecting 14.4. You'll see that most of the revenue has now shifted to the membership fees category rather than the per allocation and that's a result of moving to the new membership fee structure that we implemented 18 months ago. So this will be the first year where that's entirely a new fee structure.
14.2 million down the bottom there is the projected expenses, so we are projecting for an operating profit again for the 2011 year.
You can see the two together, so 14.4 million revenue and 14.2 million expenses, leaving us with an expected operating profit of 200,000.
I thought it might be useful just to compare the two years together. There's comments on what we think will be happening with revenue. So we are forecasting that increase from 13.4 to 14.4. And also an increase in expenses of 13.2 to 14.2. So about a million dollars on each of those categories.
That's the end of the 2011 presentation. Are there any questions on the budget for this year?
OK. Thank you very much.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much, James.
Next is the Policy SIG report. I think Gaurab is delivering the report for the Policy SIG. Gaurab Raj Upadhaya, Chair of the Policy SIG, please.
Gaurab Raj Upadhaya: Thank you, Chair.
I'll read through the slides and present a short report on the progress made in the Policy SIG.
As it was pointed out earlier in the day, compared with the last meeting, we did make a lot of progress this time. In the report, I have categorised or summarised the policies, like we ran the Policy SIG session. We had almost 16 proposals on the table this time. So what we did was we summarised them or, you know, categorised them into four different groups of proposals, of which there were two IPv6 related proposals.
Prop-083, alternative criteria for subsequent IPv6 allocation, reached consensus in the Policy SIG.
The consensus was reached not on the text that was posted to the mailing list, but a slightly revise one. So we'll post the new text to the mailing list soon.
Prop-090, optimising IPv6 allocation strategies.
There was no consensus reached on the proposal, so it is now dropped.
There were a series of proposals about the last /8. Prop-088, distribution of IPv4 addresses once the final /8 period starts. It's reached consensus.
Prop-092, distribution of additional APNIC IPv4 address ranges after IANA exhaustion. It failed to reach consensus, so it has been dropped.
Prop-091 was withdrawn by the author, after the failure to reach consensus on prop-092.
Prop-093, on reducing the minimum delegation size for the final /8 policy, also reached consensus.
Two more last /8 proposals. Prop-089, additional criteria for final /8 allocation and assignments.
We had to defer this to the next meeting, because the author was not present here and we could not get any feedback or had some discussion on that proposal.
Prop-094, adding alternative criteria to re-numbering requirements in the final /8 policy.
This policy reached consensus, but again the text that reached consensus was not what was posted to the mailing list, so there is a slight change.
Then we had two IANA redistribution global proposals.
Prop-086, global policy for IPv4 allocations by the IANA post-exhaustion, failed to reach consensus, so it has been dropped.
Prop-097, global policy for post-exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms by the IANA, reached consensus. Given that this is a global policy, it will probably go through all the other RIRs before it becomes a global policy.
There were two proposals that we categorised in the transfer proposals section.
Randy, you want to say something?
Randy Bush (IIJ): I'm just a little confused about the process here. Did we change the PDP so that we don't ratify these?
Gaurab Raj Upadhaya: No, we'll still ratify it in the meeting.
Maemura Akinori: Yes. Randy, thank you very much.
Randy Bush (IIJ): Individually?
Maemura Akinori: I would like to suggest to you later to seek the consensus collectively first.
Then if there is objection for doing that collectively, then I will do that individually.
Randy Bush (IIJ): I think the PDP is a little explicit here.
Gaurab Raj Upadhaya: Yeah, I agree with Randy here. My intention was to go and ask for consensus on each of them, after I have given the summary.
Maemura Akinori: Yes, we will do, yes, explicitly.
Gaurab Raj Upadhaya: I have to ask for it explicitly. I understand that. But I wanted to go through all of this quick summary. Thanks, Randy.
Prop-095, inter-RIR IPv4 transfer proposal, reached consensus on the revised text. What was presented on the mailing list got some revision and the final text will be published on the mailing list soon.
Prop-096, it failed to reach consensus, maintaining demonstrated needs requirements in transfer policy after final /8. It will be sent back to the mailing list.
What I would like to point out there is, basically, this policy is in a race condition, because APNIC forecast was that between now and the next policy cycle, we might run into this situation where, you know, by the time we consider this at the next policy session, there might already have been a window where transfers would have taken place under the current policy.
That was all the proposals. I'll go and ask for consensus on each one of them individually now.
Prop-083, I'm going to ask the floor to reaffirm the consensus in the Policy SIG. Alternative criteria for subsequent IPv6 allocations.
Is there consensus from the floor supporting the proposal?
If there is an objection to the proposal?
I think we can record that prop-083 has now reached consensus. Thank you.
Prop-090, optimising IPv6 allocation strategies, consensus was not reached in the Policy SIG.
Can I get a show of hands if there is still support for this proposal in the audience?
Any strong objections?
This is a bit tricky now.
What I'm asking is: do you still want to discuss this in future or we drop it?
Let me rephrase this: is there support for prop-090 in the audience?
No. Thank you.
We'll drop this proposal, because there is not enough support.
Terence Zhang (CNNIC): Can I interrupt?
Gaurab Raj Upadhaya: Yes.
Terence Zhang (CNNIC): I'm not quite sure -- maybe I misunderstand, but I think if we reach consensus in the Policy SIG, then maybe we should ratify it in the AMM. But if it did not reach consensus, I don't think we need to ask for the consensus here again; right? Is that correct?
Gaurab Raj Upadhaya: I think so.
Terence Zhang (CNNIC): Yeah. Because some people already read out something, so I think those people -- yeah. So maybe they express their opinion in that Policy SIG already.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much, Terence.
Gaurab Raj Upadhaya: Thank you, Terence.
Terence has a longer experience being on the Policy SIG than I have, so thank you very much.
Prop-088 reached consensus in the Policy SIG, distribution of IPv4 addresses once the final /8 period starts.
Can we have a show of support for this proposal here, to ratify the consensus from the Policy SIG?
Please raise your hands.
Mark Newton (Internode): I think it might make it clearer if the question you ask is: does the AMM ratify the decision of the Policy SIG? Because that will give us something unambiguous to raise our hands to.
Gaurab Raj Upadhaya: Thank you, Mark. OK.
I think we'll do that. That makes a lot more sense.
So do we ratify the consensus raised in the Policy SIG on prop-088?
Those against ratifying it?
Pavan Duggal: Mr Chair, if you would like to just pause here for a minute?
I think, since there's a lot of people in the AMM who have not been part of the Policy SIG and who don't have the background, it will be a good idea to actually, rather than asking for one blanket consensus and approval, to go through the earlier process that was already being adopted by you, because that was far more clearer.
This doesn't make any sense, whether you approve or we don't approve, without being a part of the debate. Considering that there were questions in the Policy SIG yesterday where there were itself disputes as to whether there was consensus or not.
So I would suggest that you should try to take the earlier approach that you've earlier adopted, which is far more clearer for everybody.
Thank you for your comment.
Gaurab Raj Upadhaya: Can we hold on the comments, because I think I would like Maemura-san to make a judgment on this, because we are short of time.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much for your comments. The point is taken.
Mark Newton (Internode): I disagree with the previous speaker. The minutes from the Policy SIG are on-line and anyone who has been interested in reading them has been able to. All we need to do at this meeting is to ratify the decisions that have been taken by the Policy SIG.
Randy Bush (IIJ): I wish Anne Wilson were here.
Anne, party girl, went out to see Hong Kong.
I don't blame her.
Anne Wilson and I wrote the policy. She's younger than I am, so she might remember. The intent is as the gentleman here, wherever he is, said. This meeting is the problem and why this process is still there. Otherwise, we kind of wanted to remove the re-vote, because, heck, we did it yesterday, but the problem is this very meeting where we meet with APRICOT and even this time, APAN. So everybody wasn't here for the Policy SIG. So this gives people -- you've got it.
To read: "If the proposal reaches consensus, the SIG chair reports the decision at the APNIC Member Meeting at the end of the week. The APNIC membership is then asked to endorse the SIG's decision." Which was his phrasing. But the question, I think, that was raised was, endorsing the SIG's decision, you could enforce it or not endorse it, which would achieve the re-vote issue. The question is how much you explain beforehand what the policy thing is about and whether you really go through it.
I'm not sure how far down that hole you want to go, but right here is the reason we do this thing, this double dam vote, which is a pain in the butt.
Maemura Akinori: Yes, that is one concern. Maybe, yes. This handling is for the APNIC Member Meeting to endorse the consensus at the Policy SIG and it is actually, maybe, could be possibly redundant from taking the consensus in the Policy SIG.
Randy Bush (IIJ): Every other meeting, it is.
Maemura Akinori: OK. Then I would like to suggest that if you don't mind, until you don't have objection, I would like to seek your consensus collectively, all the Policy proposals which has reached consensus in the Policy SIG, I would like to seek your endorsement.
If you don't like me to do that, please raise your hand. If not, I will do that collectively.
Skeeve Stevens (eintellego): I'm not sure you should be asking for us to vote on the consensus, but the whole decisions of the SIG Policy process.
So that means ones that failed to reach consensus, as well as ones that reached consensus. So acknowledging the entire Policy SIG process and voting that in, not ones that just reached consensus, including we are voting on approving the ones that failed to reach consensus as well.
Maemura Akinori: I'm sorry to have you waiting.
Randy Bush (IIJ): Let me take the blame, Maemura-san. I'm a rule-obsessed American. We all are. We bomb you and we hit you with rules.
The document says that we validate the consensus of the SIG Policy meeting. I have no objection to just quickly going through these and saying: do people support the consensus of the SIG Policy meeting? Right? And I think we can just go through this quickly.
But I think this is going to be like the third time that we've said we need to discuss and rethink this. And maybe I am to blame, as one of the authors of this thing, of not stepping up.
Gaurab Raj Upadhaya: Thank you.
Skeeve Stevens (eintellego): I just want a clarification with some of the language on the slides.
Prop-092, for example, where it says "Failed to reach consensus". My view would be it reached consensus, but that was not a positive consensus.
The consensus was for it to be dropped, so it did reach consensus.
Maemura Akinori: Please quickly review and seek the consensus. Will you do that or I?
Gaurab Raj Upadhaya: I'll do it.
Maemura Akinori: Yes, please.
Gaurab Raj Upadhaya: Seek ratification from the AMM for the proposals that actually raised consensus to be passed here. The other proposals that didn't reach consensus in the Policy SIG is here just for your information, of the activity of the SIG.
So we've actually done that for prop-088. The next question here is I would like to seek ratification for prop-093, reducing the minimum delegation size for the final /8 policy, which reached consensus in the Policy SIG. Please raise your hand to ratify this.
Any objections to this ratification?
As I said, prop-089 was not discussed. It is still on the mailing list. It will probably be considered next time.
Prop-094, adding alternative criteria to re-numbering requirements in the final /8. It reached consensus on revised text. I would request the AMM to ratify this consensus. If you would like to ratify it, please raise your hands.
Thank you very much.
If you object to this, please raise your hands.
Then there were two of the IANA redistribution global proposals. I would like to request the audience to ratify the fact that we reached consensus on prop-097, global policy for post-exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms by the IANA.
Those of you who support this proposal, would like to ratify it, please raise your hands.
Well, there is fewer hands now. This is for prop-097.
Is there strong objection to this proposal being passed?
Then we had two transfer proposals. Prop-095 reached consensus on revised text. This is for the inter-RIR IPv4 transfer policy. Well, I will do it the other way around this time.
If there is any strong objection to ratifying this proposal, please raise your hands.
We read that as support.
Any procedural things?
I wanted to point out the case with prop-096. It is now in the next policy cycle, but it will go back to the mailing list where we can continue discussing it. Thank you.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much, Gaurab.
It has already come to the end of the session, time of that. But I would like to make the SIG report done, then I would like to invite Izumi, who is the Chair of the NIR SIG, to deliver to you the report from the NIR SIG.
Izumi Okutani: Hello, everybody. I'm Izumi Okutani from JPNIC. I would like to make an update of what we discussed in NIR SIG, on behalf of my co-chairs, Wendy and Ji Young.
NIR SIG is basically a SIG with like a small number of attendees, roughly 30 people attending on-site and 15 remotely. It discusses about what activities NIRs are doing and how we can collaborate with APNIC. So it's focusing on information sharing usually, but sometimes we also get proposals.
These are the co-chairs and chairs. Ji Young Lee from KRNIC, Wendy Zhao from CNNIC and myself from JPNIC. This time we didn't have any proposals.
Three presentations and one of the presentations was focusing on research on the use of IP address and the other two is focusing on the issues on how we should address transition to IPv6 in each of our economies.
So just to give you a brief idea of what major activities have been reported in NIR SIG, for example, CNNIC is conducting research on IP address, such as how they can efficiently allocate address space within a network or security considerations such as IPsec and IP protocol and also revision of IPv6 format.
TWNIC is focusing on sharing information to its community to help prepare for IPv6 and some of the things they're doing is providing a list of products in Taiwan that are IPv6 ready or providing a list of websites that supports IPv6. They also have a dedicated website on IPv4 exhaustion.
KRNIC has developed a national plan on transition to IPv6. So they're working on projects to support commercial service for IPv6, in terms of our content or for smartphones, those areas, and they also have set a national flag date as June this year to get the whole industry prepared for the transition of IPv6.
As a part of the discussions, it was suggested, as a part of CNNIC's presentation, it mentioned that they're considering the revision of IPv6 format. So it was suggested that such kind of discussions should be introduced or proposed in IETF, if they're seriously considering it.
It was also strongly emphasised that registries such as APNIC or any of the NIRs, shouldn't be responsible for trying to predict an accurate date of IPv4 run out, because that's just not something possible for anybody.
What we should do is just keep the community informed about the latest situation. What KRNIC is doing is not to give prediction, but to make sure that the community is informed and try to prepare by the date and they give a guideline of the date that they should be prepared.
We had a little bit of extra time, so we had open mic and we exchanged information on how we did an outreach on keeping our communities informed about the run out of IANA's IPv4 pool. We'll be expecting the run out of APNIC pool some time this year. So we agree that we should have closer collaboration.
So that's what we discussed in the SIG and we'll also keep very close information exchange on-line as well, to get us all prepared within our community for the coming run out of APNIC's IPv4 pool.
That's all from me.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much.
That's all for the report from the SIG.
Let's take afternoon tea break. I think I should ask you for a shorter break time. Please be back here at 4 pm. So you have 20 minutes for afternoon tea break.
Thank you very much.
APNIC member meeting.
Friday, 25 February 2011.
Maemura Akinori: This is the last session of the APNIC member meeting, the AMM, the last session is planned until 5.30 pm, but we have a lot of things to go. Please let me have your cooperation to make it happen.
I would like to begin the session with announcing the election result. Then I would like to invite Francis here and leave everything other than that to him.
Francis Lee: Well, I'm happy to say the results are here with me. I have been holding onto it, just now, not letting it out of my sight. It's always in my hand. I'm happy to say that no disputes have been brought up.
I would like to call on Nate Davies, who's one of the scrutineers, to make a comment before I go and announce the results.
Nate Davies (ARIN): Yes, hello. I just wanted to inform everybody here, as one of the many scrutineers that we had today, that there were no anomalies to report, there were no irregularities with the counting of the ballots, everything went well.
Francis Lee: Thank you.
The envelope is sealed here and I open it.
The total ballot count is 151. Total valid ballot is 151. Total invalid ballot is 0.
Gaurab Raj: 1,822; James Spenceley: 1,757; Kenny Huang: 1,391; Wei Zhao: 1,370; Kim Yoonjeong: 245; Michael Sawej: 130 and Imtiaz Ahmed: 105.
The candidates who are successful elected into the EC are Gaurab Raj with 1,822 votes.
James Spenceley: 1,757.
Kenny Huang: 1,391.
Wei Zhao: 1,370.
I will now hand the results to the Chair.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much.
Congratulations for all successful candidates and thank you very much for their running for the election, to all the candidates, thank you very much.
The result of the election is kept in the Secretariat.
OK. Let's move on. The fourth session is beginning with the working group's report. I would like to invite Desi Valli, who is the chair of the voting rights working group.
Desi Valli: Thank you, the Chair and the EC. Good afternoon, everyone.
Unfortunately, I couldn't make my presentation properly. In fact, I made it, but I couldn't edit and send it at the right time. So I will give a very brief report on what's happening and the purpose of this working group for those members who haven't been there in Australia, who haven't read this communication which is going on.
This working group is made responsible to understand possible changes in the voting system that APNIC is following at this time. So this report is primarily an in-progress report. It is not the final report. The final report is expected in APNIC 32.
Currently, the scenario is like every member gets a different number of votes based on the category in which they fall, I mean the tier in which they fall.
The tiers, as we all know, vary between associate and extra large and the votes vary between 1 to 64.
So the proposer, who is Mr Pavan Duggal, has identified a problem in this and the problem which he has highlighted is a large section of the membership community are being deprived due to the highly irrational proportional voting system.
That's what he has identified as a problem and the example which he has mentioned is only 9 out of 56 economies are getting elected for EC, et cetera.
The proposal, what he has placed over here, is one member, one vote system. Every member instead of having proportionate voting system, every member will be having equal votes. Based on the recommendations of the members and AMM last APNIC 30, a working group was formed in August 2010. The objective is to discuss possible changes to APNIC membership voting rights and report back at APNIC 32.
Currently, the number of members are around 67 and different postings you can get to see in the discussion forum. There are many discussions which are happening and the discussion is primarily to do with -- to understand the possible problems which we have right now and so we can make a problem statement as soon as possible.
Once the problem statement is made, the working group will work upon that problem statement and come up with different solutions. Members are invited to give their views, ideas and different solutions, if any.
The working group's responsibility is to formulate a solution or select a solution based on the merits of the different solutions which are getting placed in the working group. Even though there are three proposals which are available with the working group right now, unless we define the problem statement of the working group, the solutions currently are only in the stage of debate.
As far as the suggestions are concerned, the suggestions are varying between having the status quo to new proposals other than what Pavan has proposed already.
So that's the status of the working group and I expect more ideas to come and henceforth I request as many members as possible to participate to understand the problem and so giving your own ideas, if any.
That's it. Any questions, please?
Pindar Wong (APIA): You mentioned economies which is -- how do you define an economy?
Desi Valli: Could you repeat that?
Pindar Wong (APIA): I think you referred to "economies" at some point. How do you define what is an economy? What relevance does it have in this forum?
Desi Valli: Not in this forum, I referred to what the proposers' proposal was stating in the last APNIC 31. That's it.
Thank you very much.
Maemura Akinori: OK. Next is the Government Advisory Working Group by Naveen Tandon.
Naveen Tandon: Very good evening to all of you.
I'm Naveen Tandon and I'm here as the Chair of the Working Group and will be reporting the in-progress report on behalf of my other two co-chairs, Yi Lee and Mr Shyam Nair.
Unfortunately, I couldn't work on the presentation, but I'm here to report the progress.
This proposal is basically to have an all inclusive specialised body to support APNIC which has both the important stakeholders, the industry, as well as the government, to work in a cohesive manner, on an ongoing basis, and suggest policies for the growth of internet.
This was originally conceived by Mr Rajesh Chharia, the President of ISPAI, and later on presented by one of my colleagues as a revised proposal.
Some of the facts on the Working Group that this was, as earlier proposal, this was also formed in the last APNIC at Gold Coast, APNIC 30, and the original charter was to discuss specific proposals in which government can further develop their involvement and report again back to APNIC 32, as a final recommendation.
As on date, the present strength of the Working Group subscribers is 61 and some of the discussion statistics based on the responses and very important comments and input which has come -- the community has been kind enough to devote time and give their comments, so around 28 posts have been reported and the number of people so far who have joined the discussion are more than 12. And as I mentioned, it's not a conclusion any more. We are still in the discussion mode and more and more inputs are coming.
Of all the discussions which have happened so far, more questions have been asked about how the committee will function, whether it will override any existing framework or how it will report, what will be the structure and some clarifications have also been offered, that this committee in no way plans to replace existing structure but plans to institutionalise the government and industry framework which will work on an ongoing basis to support the various policies for the growth of internet.
As a next step and recommendation, as a Working Group Chair, I would suggest that this is not the end, perhaps there is a need to have more discussions, so hopefully we'll be able to submit a final framework in the next APNIC 32. Thank you.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much.
Naveen Tandon: Are there any questions?
Pindar Wong (APIA): Again, a suggestion or perhaps a friendly amendment. The issue of doing governments is complex, as we all know, in another sphere, I mentioned ICANN before. Perhaps we can talk about the involvement of government networks.
That may be an easier problem to solve, because governments are very important user of the internet.
They have networks and this is about networking. So I think the easier problem might be to look at how to get government networks and who they represent participating in this, not necessarily governments.
Governments is a really hard problem, especially given the way the circuits work, do we also include the US Government? Thank you.
Naveen Tandon: Thank you for your comment. At this time, I can just reiterate what the original proposer has mentioned, that wherein the role of government has been seen as a policy formulator and enabler, so perhaps whenever this committee gets constituted, with the view of the community, it will be jointly working on driving policy, so obviously when there is more and more engagement of the government and industry, perhaps new avenues can be fostered and developed.
Thank you. This will not be a conclusion of my presentation and I again look forward to continued discussion on the emailing thread. Thank you very much.
Maemura Akinori: Move on to next, RQA BoF, Resource Quality Assurance is what RQA stands for.
Reported by Frank.
Frank Salanitri: Good afternoon, I'm Frank Salanitri, project and system services at APNIC.
I held an RQA BoF that I chaired on Wednesday, 23rd. We started a little bit late. We were meant to start at 5.30, but there was a last minute room change. We started at 5.45 and ended at 7.15.
The BoF was all about RQA, which is Resource Quality Assurance, to do with discussing activities to minimise problems with routability and that can be through a number of different activities, communication, training and testing.
I had a great line up of speakers. I had Leo Vegoda from ICANN IANA, George Michaelson from APNIC -- he was a last minute substitute for Geoff Huston. He was the one who should have spoken.
I also had Arturo Servin from LACNIC, Ingrid Wijte from RIPE-NCC, Tomoya Yoshida from NTT Communications and Cecil Goldstein from Team Cymru.
And I guess we were competing with a social and it was late in the day. We had 25 people present in the room.
Now, we had some great discussion and sharing of information. The way I structured the speakers was so that we would have a good spread of the internet community at different levels.
So from ICANN IANA, Leo Vegoda spoke about measuring and reporting on unauthorised use of IPv4 address space. George Michaelson, from an RIR point of view, spoke about testing address box for dark traffic. Arturo and Ingrid also spoke from an RIR perspective about the activities that they're currently undertaking for RQA.
Followed by the RIRs. We spoke to Tomoya -- well, Tomoya presented, being an APNIC member. So he spoke representing a voice from a member and he spoke about an RQA trial in Japan that he did as well as some other collaborative testing with APNIC.
Lastly, we heard from Cecil Goldstein being, I guess, frontline security and he spoke about IP quality assurance to bogon or not to bogon and he talked about Team Cymru's now full debogon list.
Now that all the /8s have now been allocated, Team Cymru now publish a list of addresses that are held by the RIRs, but not allocated to be used in their router feeds.
So all in all, we had -- well, I had a good response from the audience. They really liked the material. It was a bit of a shame it was so late in the day. But we will endeavour to do follow-up activities at the next meeting at APNIC 32.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much. Move on.
Next slide, please.
Next is from Tomohiro Fujisaki, who is the Executive Council's appointee for the NRO AC from the Asia Pacific region, to deliver the address council report.
Tomohiro Fujisaki: Good afternoon. I'm Tomohiro Fujisaki and I report our ASO AC activities from after the APNIC 30, on behalf of three ASO members from APNIC region.
At first I explain about ASO AC. We are the NRO Number Council, Number Resource Advisory Body and we consist of 15 members, three from each region. In these three, two elected members and one appointed member by RIR board.
Our term is two years for elected members and one year for the appointed member.
Our job is advising the ICANN board at IP address policy and select ICANN board and select ICANN NomCom member. Our activity is monthly teleconference and one face-to-face meeting.
This is our member of this year. This year, we have two new members Fiona in AfriNIC and Ron in ARIN. We had the Chair election start of the first meeting of this year and Louis Lee from ARIN is selected as the Chair and this year we have two Vice-Chairs from APNIC region. Naresh is the Vice-Chair.
Next I explain about our activities. We have six teleconferences monthly after APNIC 30. More activities, we had a session last year. From our region, Naresh joined this session and spoke about the policy status of APNIC.
And about global policy management, as I said, this is our main job and the AS number global policy, this was discussed for decision as prop-074.
This was ratified by ICANN board last September and implemented.
As you know, we have currently two global policies on the table and we discussed this yesterday and prop-097 reached consensus and prop-096 did not reach consensus.
This is also our main job. This year, we selected Wilfried Woeber from RIPE region as ICANN NomCom member.
... is future plan and we have face-to-face meeting at next ICANN meeting at San Francisco and these are our working plan of this year.
We do not have the ICANN board election this year, so we are trying to revise ICANN board appointment procedure and of course global policy management is our main task and ASO update presentation, we will do ASO activities, we will outreach ASO activities more and more by presenting at every ICANN.
This is the end of my presentation and our activities including the meeting minutes is provided on this website, so if you all have interest in our activities, please visit this website.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much.
Next is IANA report, Leo Vegoda.
Leo Vegoda (ICANN): Thank you very much. I have a relatively brief update about what we're doing in delivering the IANA functions.
I have very brief content about addressing, then some information about DNSSEC, root management, business continuity and a business excellence program and I'll finish up with something that isn't actually on the slides.
So obviously everyone knows this, but I really like the picture. This is the state of our IPv4 address pool. I wish you well with what you have.
But, there is much, much better news and this is -- I found this picture on Guillaume Leclanche's blog and if you go to his blog, you can download the software that he used to create this, so if you want to go and -- he's giving away the code, you can go and reuse it and put it somewhere and have updates as things change.
But isn't it fantastic how much we've got left?
I just thought this was so wonderful that I wanted to share it.
Moving away from addressing and towards the DNS, as you know, we began DNSSEC signing the root zone some time last year. We recently had the fourth DNSSEC key signing ceremony in El Segundo in California and we have another one which is scheduled for May and that's on the east coast and then we have one in July back in El Segundo.
What I wanted to draw your attention to is that we don't just do these alone. These are things which are done with trusted community representatives and some of those trusted community representatives do come from this region and in fact this room -- well, if Andy hadn't gone home.
I have extracted from the web, Andy Linton, who is one of the trusted community representatives, has put his declaration about attending the last ceremony and saying he saw it and it was all good and it went on and I think it's worth recognising that while we go and do some of this, it is really very much a community effort and, you know, the trust that we have in the DNS is something that is generated by us all and so I wanted to recognise and thank Andy for his participation.
And moving on more in the DNS, we have been working quite closely with the RIRs on a system which is going to replace the relatively manual system we've had up until now for managing reverse DNS. It's going to make it much easier to manage the DNSSEC information that the RIRs obviously want to publish in the reverse tree and we're in the process of making this change now. We're midway through re-delegating the in-addr.arpa domain. It's going to these new nameservers and basically, all these new nameservers, which are run by ICANN and the RIRs, are already serving in-addr.arpa and 12 of the route DNS servers used to serve it and they're slowly dropping support for it, as it's moving gently towards this new set of nameservers.
Now, we already did this last year for ip6.arpa.
At that time, Dave Knight, who is in our DNS Operations Group, sent me an email pointing out that it had all been re-delegated and everything had IPv6 addresses and he said, "We're in the future." And I said, "No, we're not." I said, "We're in the future when in-addr.arpa is served from a set of nameservers that are all reachable over IPv6." Well, it now is. We are in the future, because in-addr.arpa is served from a set of nameservers run by ICANN and the five RIRs and they're all accessible over IPv6. Obviously IPv4 as well, but IPv6.
So what's changing is the zone edit function is moving from ARIN to ICANN and we've had great cooperation from ARIN on this and we have to recognise and thank them for the excellent way they've worked with us on it.
It's moving off the root DNS servers. It is going to be signed and rather than give you lots of detail, there is this blog which we have been maintaining. It's got all the history in there and it will be updated as changes proceed. I would recommend it to you.
As I mentioned, we already did this with ip6.arpa.
It moved in December, it's been signed since April last year and no one really noticed. It all works beautifully.
A little bit about root management. I know that root management isn't something that is of direct interest to this audience, but I thought it was worth pointing out that last year, we completed the highest number of root change requests that we have ever completed.
Last year was also the year that we delegated the first IDN top level domains and we also introduced DNSSEC and obviously, delegating those IDN top level domains and introducing the relevant DNSSEC records into the root zone increased the number of changes.
So these contributed to this increase, but we are very happy that we've been providing a steady level of service while the number of changes has been increasing.
Continuity. We recently ran in the last couple of weeks, a table top exercise for the L-root single operations and the exercise went really quite well.
The people who dreamed it up were hoping that it was going to be really very challenging for the L-root management team and the L-root management team weren't so challenged by it, which is because they've got these great procedures, they understand the technical side, they understand the communications side, and it has gone very well. So we are going to be doing more of these continuity exercises in the future.
Finally, we did our second business excellence self-assessment in January. This is an ongoing program we have to basically reassess how we're doing our work and look for areas where we need to make improvements and work out where we're doing very well.
We have seen strong progress over the last year in standardising our process documentation and making sure that we have a consistent format for documenting our processes, so that we can measure ourselves against them.
What we're going to be working on this year, in addition to continuing with that, is introducing better measurements for success. Obviously, that's going to allow us to review our key performance indicators, so that we can make sure that we're providing the right level of service on the services that we provide.
The one thing that I wanted to add in here is something which I know was mentioned in the update that we gave at the last APNIC meeting, which was that we would begin doing an annual review for multi-cast address assignments. We have actually begun that annual review process. We've taken 25 assignments and are currently testing the process of performing an annual review on those assignments.
It's possible, if you have an IPv4 multi-cast address assignment, you will have received an email from me and it would be nice if people replied.
But we will be evaluating the success of the process that we designed, working out how well it went and perhaps making improvements before we basically push it out, so that it's something which is far more automated than it is at the moment.
Thank you very much.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much. Any questions? If not, thank you very much, Leo.
Now we will have the NRO statistics report from Arturo Servin.
Arturo Servin (LACNIC): I'm the CT of LACNIC, but I'm also one of the resource managers of the NRO, so I'm going to give you the presentation about the internet number resource status report.
We do this report every quarter, so the last one that we made, it was on December 2010. There are some updates for this presentation. There are just minimal changes, we just run out of IPv4 addresses, but I will point out all those updates.
So this graph, we can see the IPv4 address space.
There is a small update there. IANA reserved 7.
Right now it is 0, so there is no reserved space for Unicast space.
There is another graph, another circle there, that says there is some reserved addresses. Before you ask, no, we cannot use them, at least not right now.
So basically, IPv4 is out.
So there is also a small graph in the bottom and you can show how the distribution of a /8 is going to any of the regional registries.
This is how the evolution of the IPv4 addresses in time. It's not as exciting as the presentation of Geoff, but you can see the evolution of IPv4 addresses, also you can see which one of the registry holds how many /8s.
In this one, it's a bit more clear. Also, the update here is that APNIC -- well, you can add three more, so it's 40.97 and add another one to each one of the registries. So this is the distribution of IPv4 addresses for all the registries.
And this is the ASN assignment. This is 4 and 2 bytes ASNs. As you can see also there are some fluctuations during time since 1999 to 2010. It's similar to the behaviour of IPv4 addresses. There are some slight differences. This is how ASNs are distributed among all the registries. So also you can see ARIN and RIPE-NCC, they have the majority of ASNs.
This is a small graph about 4 byte ASNs. You can see RIPE-NCC and LACNIC, they are taking the lead in assignment of 4 bytes, behind is ARIN, APNIC and AfriNIC. As you know, right now, IANA doesn't make any distinction between 4 byte and 2 byte ASNs. So if we as a registry need to go to IANA and say, OK, we ran out of 2 byte ASN, they will say, OK, so sorry, this is just a pool. So if this is your assignment or ASN, if there are 2 bytes there, it's lucky for you. If not, well, there are no more.
Eventually, there will be no more.
The big advantages of 4 byte is that they can leave together 2 byte and 4 bytes, in the same network, so we don't have to replace the 2 bytes with 4 bytes, so this is a bit better than IPv4 and IPv6 that you need two networks and two stacks.
This is the distribution. Just a quick graph.
This is IPv6. As Leo mentioned, we have some assignment, but it's a tiny little bit of all the IPv6 space. So we have a space for long time. You can see the /12 of each one of the registries. This is how we are allocating IPv6. As you can see, compared with 2009 and 2008, in 2010, IPv6 is really taking off. So we expect next year to really see a growing in IPv6 assignment and allocations.
This is how IPv6 is distributed among registries.
The graph on the left -- well, I don't know, that one, shows the number of our assignments and the other one is the number of assignments in /32s. As you can see, there are some slight differences.
That is because normally, in AfriNIC and in LACNIC, we assign /32s and in APNIC, they have larger providers, so they assign larger space. So that's why it's a little bit different distribution.
This is assignment to end users. So also is taken off for all regions. Hopefully, this will be much better next year.
If you want to know more about these stats and where they come from, there are some links there.
And that's all. Thank you.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much. We are now starting the RIR and NRO reports. First I would like to invite John Curran and would like to change the order a little bit to have the NRO report and ARIN consecutively.
John Curran (ARIN): Thank you for letting me be here. I'm the Secretary of the Number Resource Organisation Executive Council. Raul would normally be performing this presentation, but he's not here.
He's our Chairman this year. The roles of Chairman, Treasurer and Secretary rotate among the executives of the NRO, so I'm stepping in to perform this presentation.
So NRO, Number Resource Organisation. The vehicle for RIR cooperation and representation. We are responsible for protection of the unallocated number resource pool, promoting and protecting the bottom up policy development process and we're a focal point for community input into the RIR system.
Established the ASO within the ICANN framework by an MOU signed in 2004. The NRO acts as the address supporting organisation that's specified within ICANN's bylaws.
Current office holders: Chairman, Raul; myself; Paul Wilson watches the money this year as Treasurer.
NRO coordination groups, we actually take the directors of our staffs who are involved in particular service areas and they get together and work to coordinate between them operational matters, because we tend to run into similar issues and want to make sure we can leverage each other's talents.
So there's an engineering coordination group, chaired by Arturo; a communications coordination group, chaired by Ernesto; and registration services managers get together and Leslie helps with that.NRO expenses. We have expenses, we have one big expense at the bottom of the slide. We send US$823,000 every year to ICANN. When I was first getting started, this was a big number. Now ICANN is $60 million and so this is a relatively small number. But we do send them a bit of money every year to help support the organisation. That expense, the expense related to travel, our outreach activities, all add up to a budget. That budget is divided and distributed among the RIRs by a formula based on the resources in the region and the size of the organisation in terms of budget. For 2010, the distribution is AfriNIC 3.5, APNIC 32.4, ARIN 24.7, LACNIC 4.7, RIPE-NCC 34.6. That's how we divide the expenses.
APNIC went up a little bit this year, but you can go look at the statistics and figure out very quickly why that was.
NRO and ICANN. So we do a lot of work with ICANN.
We have an NRO presence in one form or another at almost every ICANN meeting. We were in Kenya at the Nairobi meeting to help address ITU IPv6 concerns.
I'll talk a little more about the ITU shortly.
We were in the Brussels meeting of ICANN. We met with the ICANN IANA Vice-President, Elise. We had an NRO retreat there. We also engaged with getting us involved in the accountability and transparency review that ICANN has, a review where periodically they look at their policies and procedures and make sure they're compliant with their goals as specified by the bylaws.
We were in Cartegena where we gave an update to the community. The did our first session where the address supporting organisation stood before the ICANN community and gave an update on policy proposals and what developments were going on. This was actually well attended by the board and some members of the GAC, the Government Advisory Council of ICANN. We think it's been pretty useful. It provides guideposts to people in the ICANN organisation, who might want to know what's happening with number resources.
So there's an upcoming ICANN meeting, we intend to do another run of this, though obviously we'll tune it based on what makes sense.
But while we may not be a big part of ICANN, ICANN spends a significant amount of time worried about DNS issues, a lot more of their consensus building happens at the ICANN level for DNS issues. We tend to come to them with a lot more pre-built consensus between the five RIRs. We do want to make sure we're visible and that we're involved and there are from time to time cross organisational issues within ICANN between numbers and DNS or security or the stability of the organisation.
So one of our big involvements is of course participating in ICANN, but we're a small part of ICANN overall.
Internet governance forum. There is an internet governance forum which was formed underneath the UN to help address discussion, a forum for discussion of policy issues related to the internet. It's a non-decisional body. We've been heavily involved.
We actually participate in their multi-stakeholder advisory group which helps set the agenda and organise the meetings.
Raul and Cathy Handley, who works for myself in policy, have been participants. We're also represented on the commission of -- the UN CSTD Working Group. Sam and Oscar handle that job.
The IGF is a place where governments, public policy, parties from civil, can all come together and work on these issues and talk about them, not make decisions, but just make sure we have an understanding of what the issues are and how they affect everyone.
Some of the discussions that happen in IGF hopefully enlighten everyone, let them understand what other players are involved in internet governance. The last meeting was in Vilnius. We actually met with the UN Assistant Secretary. We had an NRO booth there to help people understand how we're doing these things. We gave financial contribution to the IGF Secretariat.
We issued a press release, saying we're running out of IPv4 and IPv6 is coming. And we issued the NRO brochure on continuing cooperation. Some of you have that on your desk.
It helps to explain to folks in the IGF and the government communities, for example, what the NRO is, how the Regional Internet Registries work together.
ITU. Earlier today I noticed a speaker at the mic called for increased cooperation with the ITU. I'll say we have made enormous progress in the last year, year and a half regarding the ITU.
We actually have had several meetings. The ITU has an IPv6 study group which has met and we've been participants in to look at the issues of originally IPv6 but also IPv4 distribution and try to make sure that the ITU members have a forum for discussing these.
The ITU is an interesting body. They've made great strides in being more open. In fact, their meetings are now defined as, these working group meetings are now defined as open. "Open" means it's possible to get an invitation at the approval of the Chairman to participate where participation is defined as: you may read an introducted statement and point to your contribution.
It is not a participation in the RIR model. RIR's is we have large meetings like this, we not only allow people to participate here, but we allow remote participation and questions that are read in on the mics. So there is a different model of interacting between the RIRs and the ITU, but we are heavily engaged with the ITU. We are participating in their study groups in this matter. We are inviting them to spend more time to come to us and actually participate with this community here and hopefully we'll make progress.
There was a plenipotentiary of the ITU which occurred last October. And in the plenipotentiary there were several motions that called for enhanced cooperation between the ITU and some of the established internet governance bodies, such as the Regional Internet Registries, the NRO, the Internet Society, ICANN, the IAB and the IETF. We hope as a result of those motions that potentially the ITU will adopt some more flexible procedures on how it does outreach beyond its own processes to work with the rest of us.
OECD, we are a founding member of the ITAC and we continue to advise the OECD on policy matters relating to the internet as well.
Ongoing activities this year. In terms of what we do within the NRO as opposed to engaging with other bodies, we have done quite a bit of inter RIR coordination on RPKI obviously. The RPKI system is envisioned to be one system, so that requires coordination.
Our communications and outreach, all of this messaging is common to the RIRs, so it's good to develop it in one place, rather than have all of us try to write the same document.
The NRO workshop. We had a workshop on 3 February, where the final allocations were made, where we met with our counterparts from ICANN, ISOC IAB and IETF and talked about mutual cooperation and how to proceed in that.
So it has been a very productive NRO. It lets us work together to do things that we would otherwise have to do five different times, five different ways.
This year, the workshop outcome, we are going to continue to work on RPKI, we are going to look at the communication group work plan to make sure we are developing the materials that we need to communicate about the RIRs and NRO system. We are going to prepare items to review at the ISOC and ICANN executives. They have common interests. When we look at areas such as how internet governance has performed, how we work with other international bodies, it turns out there is quite a bit of overlap between the RIRs and some of the other internet bodies, such as ISOC and ICANN.
We'll continue our ITU IPv6 Working Group coordination. There's a big meeting next month in Geneva. We'll have attendees there on behalf of the entire RIR system and we'll continue to support IGF, because we feel it's an important discussional body that helps inform people about the nature of the internet and some of the issues from a governance perspective.
That's all I have. Thank you. I'll take questions.
Satya Gupta: Thank you, Mr Chairman. ... about your cooperation with the ITU and that is what exactly I meant as an example to be taken up by APNIC members or APNIC EC, to have a similar kind of relationship or collaboration with ITU. Thank you.
John Curran (ARIN): Your comment is noted. I will say that the cooperation I talked about between the RIRs and ITU is actually with APNIC as one of the RIRs and the ITU. APNIC was involved, was at the IPv6 study group with us. The challenge is all this is happening in ITU forms. I have the honour of getting to go to Geneva, sometimes Paul Wilson goes, we get to go to New York where the ITU meets. Those meetings are not as accessible to you, the community here, so while they are going on, we can't broadcast them to you. We can't write about the proceedings in some cases, because ITU's philosophy of openness doesn't necessarily include rebroadcasting of the materials.
So I can only say there's a lot of cooperation going on and hopefully our work with the ITU will let us share more of it directly with you, as we go forward.
Any other questions?
Thank you very much.
Welcome. I'm back. I'm here to give the ARIN update.
2011, ARIN focus. A big push for ARIN is we're rolling out our web-based system, ARIN Online.
ARIN, in its first five or six years, didn't do a lot of development of our user interface. We were known for the email based user interface, what we affectionately call the SWIP and template system, but we decided we really needed to catch up, so the last three or four years, Mark Kosters, our CTO, and the development staff have really been working hard and we have not only made great progress, but next month, our major release, our sort of tipping achievement shall be rolled out just before our ARIN meeting in San Juan, so it's a big push for us this year to bring us up to the type of capabilities we think the folks in the ARIN region really want.
Outreach on IPv6 adoption, we are doing an enormous amount of outreach. I'll show some of that in the future, but recognise that all the RIRs are heavily involved, ARIN in north America, I have done dozens of speaking engagements in any given week and it's a huge investment to make sure people understand. This is real. We really are running out.
DNSSEC and RPKI are big pushes. We actually, and I'll talk about it, have our zones signed for DNSSEC. We're getting ready to start putting in the DS records that members want when they actually are ready to have their particular piece appropriately delegated.
RPKI is another big push for ARIN. I've talked a bit about that, and our participation in internet governance.
Public facing development, I already touched on this. We also rolled out a revised Whois, which is based on a restful interface.
Our DNSSEC progress. RPKI, we're the laggers at RPKI. Yeah, go ARIN.
All the RIRs committed to rolling out RPKI on January 1. In the ARIN region, we operate in Canada, US and parts of the Caribbean and we're based in the United States which, for people who may not be aware, is a somewhat litigious environment to operate in.
The board, doing their most natural responsible duties, asked us to make sure we had double-checked everything about the service and that we understood the liability and exposure.
We tend to spend a little more time looking at the legal aspects of what we do, because it's prudent for the organisation, given where we are.
And in RPKI, we realised that as much as everyone knows how PKI work, public key infrastructure and we all understand what's appropriate, how usage works, how CP, certificate policy, and certificate practice statements are appropriate and how you should follow RPKI, it turns out there's not a legal binding framework there that lets me go to a judge and say, "Your Honour, people using ARIN's RPKI are bound by those documents." We spend a lot of time trying to solve this. We actually have a solution. We will be talking about it with the board and we will be talking about it at our upcoming meeting.
So we were a little delayed on our January rollout, but we are going to catch up and we hope to have something out in the second or early third quarter. We are looking at both offers. We are looking at hosted RPKI, where we would generate certificates based on our ARIN Online interface for people who just wanted to have their own certificate and their own routing announcement, their own ROWA.
We are also looking at the up down feature, where a major organisation might want to run their own certificate authority and link to ARIN's RPKI. The up down one is pretty straightforward from a liability and risk management, the hosted one a little more so. Both of these are ultimately the decision of the ARIN board. I hope to have good progress to report, but I have to deliver them the package before they decide.
Our ETA is RPKI in the ARIN region coming out in the second quarter and I'll keep you folks apprised as we go.
Outreach. We do an enormous amount of outreach.
We speak and present, we have booths at many different technology conferences throughout the region. You'll see the little sign here: "IP v6, I'm on it". At one of our events, every time someone came by, if their network or product was v6 capable, we had them sign the wall, so that you could see the people who were supporting v6.
These are just some of the shows that we have spoken or presented at. It's a long list. Some 60 speaking engagements in the first half of the year is what I've been able to count. So it's pretty impressive.
Policy. I'm going to go through three pages of policy very briefly, just to let you know what's happening. Recently implemented, waiting list for unmet IPv4 requests. Once we're out of IPv4, people who request and get approved, get put into a waiting list. We need a way to determine who gets what block if anything should happen to become available in the ARIN region.
IPv6 subsequent allocation. Subsequent allocations will be allowed for IPv6 if, for example, you got an IPv6 allocation and then your needs changed, you might need an additional one, even though your first allocation did not hit a high utilisation rate. This allows us to accommodate those.
So those are recently implemented.
Soon to be implemented, rework of IPv6 assignment criteria, to allow more flexible assignments on nibble boundaries, a standardised IP reassignment registration requirements to make those people who are broadband service providers have a more consistent policy.
Draft policy discussions. I'm not going to go into these on a high level. They are all on-line on our website, but recognise that we're spending a lot of time dealing with a number of different things, how to manage the end of v4 in the ARIN region, how to deal with legacy address holders, and how to keep our database accurate. So for people who like email, there's a mailing list called PPML, Public Policy Mailing List, in the ARIN region, which has ample email if you really don't have enough in your inbox today and that's where all these are being discussed. I would recommend jumping right on that.
Another page of them. There is actually one more page, because they came in after these slides.
So this is again 133 and 134, addressing policy proposals with respect to legacy address holders, 135 regarding return of address space, all of these are active and in discussion, a lot of them will be presented at the public policy meeting in San Juan.
Speaking of which, ARIN meeting, San Juan in April, if you can somehow break away, San Juan, Puerto Rico is a wonderful city, particularly that time of year. We would welcome everyone from this region who can come and ARIN Philadelphia will be in October this year. We have two public policy meetings a year and that will be our latter one.
That's all I have. Questions?
Thank you for having me.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much, John.
Let's move onto the AfriNIC. Actually Adiel Akplogan was here, but he left earlier for another commitment. So I will have Hisham Abraham to deliver the AfriNIC report.
Hisham Abraham (AfriNIC): Ladies and gentlemen, allow me first to introduce myself. I am Hisham Abraham. I am the recently appointed IPv6 program manager at AfriNIC and for those of you that have attended the IPv6 discussions throughout this meeting have probably heard the name AfriNIC pop up a couple of times, which is kind of cool and kind of not.
You all know why.
AfriNIC is the Regional Internet Registry that serves the African region and the Indian Ocean.
Our headquarters are based on the tropical island of Mauritius, which is a very nice place to work, by the way. Our operations are in South Africa and our disaster recovery is hosted in Egypt.
Thank you very much.
LAUGHTER To give you a quick briefing of what we've been doing, we finally broke the barrier of being under 20 employees, so we now have 21 staff working at AfriNIC, which is an increase of 40 per cent since last year.
You can imagine the burden it is to run an entire RIR with 21 staff. Our budget is 2.8 million for 2011. Last year, we allocated 8.3 million IP addresses. We had 54 new IPv6 allocations and 131 new members, which is 100 per cent increase for us.
I know for some of the other regions, these may seem like very small numbers. However, for our region, these are actual big leaps and we actually predicting in the next year or two, to actually have bigger numbers and more allocations within the region.
We have two public policy meetings, semiannual.
We have three new policies adopted that have reached consent. We have over 200 travels, we participated in 30 events all over the world and we did 11 trainings within Africa alone.
Here is a list of some of the policies we are discussing. Again, because of all the discussion about the space that AfriNIC has and probably will have for a while, so you can imagine the policies, as you may see, that are talking about similar issues, like limiting the IPv4 resources to not be allocated out of the region, how to reclaim unrouted IPv4 resources, the transfer of IPv4 resources to any other entity. Of course, Whois, we have a global policy for IPv4 allocation post-IANA exhaustion. All of these are being discussed in our meetings and we have two policies that have reached last call, which is the IPv4 soft landing and the abuse contact information.
For more details about these, please visit our website, you will find the detail of each and every one.
A quick recap of what we've been doing for the past couple of years. If you see the one to your left, you would see the increase of membership since 2005, when we started, until 2011. As you see, we have had a healthy growth of membership. Again, the numbers might seem smaller compared to other regions, but we are the horse coming from behind.
We are actually gaining up as fast as we can and we're doing this at a pace that we feel is very suitable.
The bottom chart shows you the IPv4 allocations and before anybody asks me why 2008 has such a low peak, in 2008, we changed our billing policies, so if you refer to the third chart, you would see that actually, although -- if you go to the one on the left, you see we maintain the same number of new memberships, which is 83 new members, however, the address space allocated during that year was mostly /22s instead of what we normally would give out, which are /18s or /19s. So this is why you would see 2008 being down there. But the curve, however, still indicates itself of the growth that's happening within the region.
IPv6 allocations. In Africa, like in any other region, the curves are going up. We've actually had a steeper curve within last year. I think I said we had 54 new allocations and we are expecting within the next two years, that curve to be steeper and steeper.
The web kind of chart over there indicates the countries that have allocations, so South Africa is right there on the top, you have other countries like Kenya, Mauritius, Nigeria, Egypt, all of these have IPv6 allocations and are running IPv6 as we speak.
New offices. We moved to new offices last year.
We are still located in the cyber village. However, we moved to Raffles Tower and here are a couple of snapshots of our new premises. However, we do have more furniture than this. These are old pictures, but to get an indication. Because if you see the one to the right, it's actually the same one of the reception that's on the left, but I think Adiel put it as before and after picture or something. This is our office.
Last but not least, I would like to invite you all to our next meeting, which will be from 4 to 10 June, which is an AfriNIC AfNOG meeting. It will be in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania. This is the first time we will be announcing this, that we are now going to change the name of the AfriNIC AfNOG meeting and we are going to call it The Internet Summit Africa. This will be an annual thing. It will be bigger and better, so first of all for those of you that have been coming to AfriNIC AfNOG meetings, I know how it is. I guarantee you'll find a bigger audience, better programs, more diverse topics that we're talking about and we really want to take it to the next level, because in the African region, we would really -- like I said, we are the horse coming from mind, but we are coming quickly.
Thank you and that's it.
Maemura Akinori: If no questions, then I'd like to move to the next one, which is from LACNIC, Arturo again.
Everyone is trying very hard, but please make it concise, as we are running out of time.
Arturo Servin (LACNIC): Hello again. This is the presentation of the LACNIC update. I will try to be brief.
This is our membership update. We reached 1,616 members this year, at the end of 2010. This is distribution about the membership is on the side of the graph.
We are growing. There is not as much as 2009 to 2010, but there is a growing membership. We have no staff updates, but we are hiring, so if you are interested.
Resource update. We received a new /8. We have four /8 and a half. We think that probably around 2014, we will run out of IPv4 addresses. This is a bit different number than Geoff, but we did a very basic analysis. That will change. So we will keep looking at that date.
This is how we are allocating IPv4 and IPv6. As you can see, each month in 2010, we are increasing the rate between IPv6 and IPv4. The other graph is the number of /8s that we allocate each month. It keeps changing. There is not a specific pattern there, so sometimes it's kind of difficult to predict how much we will assign in the next month.
This is the number of ASNs of 4 bytes, they are growing, so we are assigning more 4 bytes than 2 bytes.
This is our participation in public forums. As other registries, we participate in IGF, technical meetings, ITU, Plenipot and some other regional events that gather technical and global and community people.
So this is our participation.
We have some projects and part of that is to provide security training around the region. FRIDA, that support funding for research, digital innovation in Latin America; we have Roots, or Raices, that we install -- well, we have some agreement with root server operators to install copies of roots around the region.
Also, we are working in public affairs. We have other technical projects there that are not highlighted. One is the RPKI. We start operation with other registries on 1 January 2011.
Also, we are working very hard on DNSSEC to sign our delegated zones and we are pushing very hard IPv6, we are working with ISOC, Google, Yahoo and some other operators to -- well, working in the IPv6 World Day. We are working very hard to push IPv6 in the region.
We have our meeting in October in 2010 in Sao Paulo, Brazil. That was LACNIC 14. We also organised the meeting with LACNOG. It was the first edition of LACNOG. We also held the fourth PTT forum in Brazil. It was beyond our expectations, so it was very good technical content. A lot of participation. We have almost 300 participants.
Also, in the policy public forum, where people present five policies, four of them reached consensus. Also, we have a panel with ISPs talking about IPv4 exhaustion and how can they do IPv6 transition. So it was very positive that LACNIC 14.
About the policies, those three policies are very related. The idea of those was to relax a bit the requirements for initial allocation and assignment to ISPs and end users, to deal with some problems that we have in the region, that is monopolic markets, so sometimes for them it is very difficult to get initial allocation, so the consensus was to be more flexible on that.
Also, we have another policy that includes the original ASN in all the prefixes. It's optional for the members to include that. The rationale behind that is to prepare the database to RPKI and I will stop on that, because I have my own view on this.
But it reached consensus.
Then the global policy. It was presented. This is the policy, the same or very similar to your 086, so this proposal was presented in Sao Paolo. It was some discussion and people decided to return the policy to the email list to have more discussion.
Our next meeting is in May in Cancun, Mexico. We are going to have the general meeting with members, the policy forum, also LACTLD and some technical forums about security, IPv6 internet changes and we are not going to have a LACNOG there. It was decided to have LACNOG 2011 for the next, LACNIC 16, that is going to be held in October. We don't know where, but possibly it's going to be Santiago in Chile or Buenos Aires in Argentina.
Thank you very much.
Maemura Akinori: Last of the report from RIR is from RIPE-NCC. Axel Pawlik.
Alex Pawlik (RIPE-NCC): I don't do much presentation here. Basically I want to talk about things a little bit on a higher level. All our graphs are up and to the right. We also do policy development and, yes, we do meetings as well, not always at pleasant and sunny locations, but we do meetings, you're welcome.
Basically, I had a question earlier today or a couple of questions about strategy, what are we doing, as the world as we know it is clearly coming to an end and I want to quickly speak to that.
Probably you have seen some of this before.
These three pillars and people turn away when I mention that at home, because we have been thinking about this for about three years, together with our staff, of course and our executive board.
Basically, the three pillars, trusted source of data, we have lots of it and now we should be the authority and be seen as the authority on that. Our resource lifecycle management basically is a fancy term for allocating addresses, but since we are not allocating that much any more in future, it's more about the whole lifecycle, taking back and making sure our data is correct.
And of course, the last one, developing the role of the RIPE-NCC, and the NCC in case you forgot about that is short for the Network Coordination Centre. I have seen some slides earlier that said, I think, it was Maemura, saying we are the Regional Internet Registry. And I've been making a point for a couple of years already, saying that the RIPE-NCC performs the role of the Regional Internet Registry for the region, but we are Network Coordination Centre. We have started doing different things and I think this is where we will go back to as well.
Our expectation is that the work emphasis will change quite radically away from allocation and towards maintaining registrations and as you see, it's up to the right and what I just said is not reflected in the graphs, because, well, it's allocations basically and requests for allocations.
The quite dramatic upturn on the right hand is happening around or just after the Miami IANA last five /8s allocations to the RIRs with the PR that came with it.
So there is a lot of allocations right now and we continue, of course, and some of our policies, the soft landing or what we call the run out fairly, makes it a little bit worse, but, yes, in the mid-term future, we'll go away from that. The bulk of our work will probably not any more be in registration related activities.
The main point that we have here is that the RIPE-NCC is supposed to be of some utility to its membership. They pay our membership fees, so we do things that they want us a do, hopefully.
This is how it should remain. We have also said earlier that if you don't like us any more, if you don't need us, we can go away.
No, I don't expect that to happen, really quickly.
So in terms of utility to membership, what is that we are doing? Public policy, governments, regulators, we go out inform, manage expectations, this is based on a membership survey that we have done together with John Earls, I think in 2002 and from that we do regional meetings, we go talk more to governments and that is going really well and I think this is something that strengthens the industry, self-regulatory, bottom-up processes.
Members needs, like I said, we want to do what our members want us to do. What are the tools that you need? We need to listen to our members, we need to understand what they are meaning and then go and work on that.
Of course, infrastructure, we are maintaining the number registry, the RIPE database. A root nameserver we have been doing for a very long time already and we have lots of data that we are sitting on which we want to make more available and more easily available and we do develop some new tools and there's one of the screenshots from the RIPE Atlas Project, atlas.ripe.net, if you don't know.
Examples, source of data, registration data, quality, we are working on this for quite a long time already. We are making improvements there so we are getting some results. Certification goes into this thing as well and of course, yes we are implementing the system further, up down protocol needs to be done, and the like.
We go out, go to lots of meetings like all the other RIRs and the ITU and IGF and things like that.
That is very important. Last week, our CFO, Joachim, went off to Canada to the ARIN region governmental Working Group, learnt something that we see as very important and has got us and the whole community quite a bit of goodwill from the governmental sides.
New tools. RIPE labs as a platform for community exchange on interesting projects. I think you have seen that before, RIPE Atlas and certification, stuff like that.
That's all relatively straightforward. This is the real challenge for the next couple of years.
Maintaining stability -- of course, I say that as the managing director. For the organisation, of course, we want to be stable and stay in place, but we need to do that in a way that makes this reasonable for our membership.
There is change. There will be change. We don't know exactly what that will look like. If we look at this year's statistics or last year's statistics, we are still growing. There are new members coming.
Our turnover is fine, our income is fine, the number of requests, as you see, is going up, but this will all change. We don't know exactly how. We are keeping a very close eye on this and this is the real challenge, to remain stable, adjust our charging model accordingly.
Of course, we will go and have another set of strategic retreats with our management, with our board over the next couple of months, weeks actually.
Next RIPE meeting. Do come and participate if you have the time. I can't guarantee it will be sunny, but it will be nice anyway.
Pindar Wong (APIA): I find this presentation fascinating, it's really lovely to see you re-emphasising the network coordination aspect.
So an observation and a question. The observation is, as we all know the internet is made up of different networks which have to cooperate in some form for this whole thing to work and that cooperation and coordination role at the networking layer will not go away irrespective of whether or not we use IPv4 addresses or IPv6 addresses.
So my question is that you had three pillars and you mentioned the discussion that you have had in RIPE has lasted several years. We heard earlier today, that the APNIC is starting a strategy session to look at, you know, all these life cycle and other issues. Do you anticipate a fourth pillar? Is this an ongoing process or do you begin to -- when do you think you will be able to bring that process to a close or is it going to be ongoing four pillars, five, six and seven?
Alex Pawlik (RIPE-NCC): I'm not sure about more pillars. I think these are fairly general. These are big sections of activity and attention. This is an ongoing process certainly. As I said, we are not fully sure what this change will look like. We need to be ready for it when it happens, while it happens.
And I think because we have a fairly stable ground layer for strategy, and we have talked about this not only here, but of course also to our own community at home, extensively, you know that we do membership service. The next one will be launched about now, in a couple of weeks, and from this, from interaction with our members, our community and governments and the like, we take our clues of what we should be doing and from what we have seen so far, this all can be nicely put into those major pillars.
Anybody else? Thank you.
Maemura Akinori: That's all for the reports from the RIRs.
Here comes the open mic segment of the time and I heard that Raphael is reporting about APIX. Is that correct?
Raphael Ho: I am another fat Chinaman from Hong Kong, here to report on the APIX meeting number 3.
Toyama-san is not available here, so I'm making the presentation on his behalf.
What is APIX forum? This is an association of internet exchange providers in Asia Pacific region, somewhat analogous to Euro-IX, where we aim to share information about the technical, operational and business issues about internet exchanges. I'm also the Chair of the IX SIG, which is more of a wider audience, which includes any ISPs and network providers also interested in appearing. So that is how it is different.
So this is actually the fourth meeting. We started meeting in August 2009, just a small group of us, that hoped to initiate this forum.
In this meeting it was more of an open invite to all the ISP operators around the region and about 33 people showed up, including 10 of the APIXs operating in the AP region, as well as some IXs that operate outside the AP region to share their experience with us. We had SISCO there doing a presentation and also we had APNIC there to help us with the session as well.
So roughly this was what we talked about and we had some discussion on route servers and other networks set up that each of us has.
In summary, the meeting was very successful. It was a half day meeting held on the Sunday afternoon.
Just an administrative update, we have had set up the email servers and the portal server, so we are going to set up the mailing list, et cetera, and we talked about some administrative issues and we also talked about some technical issues.
So the next meeting will most likely be in Busan, Korea, assuming that we can get some time from the program.
And we thank you to APNIC and the local hosts for allowing us to have this meeting in Hong Kong.
So just for your information, these are the interim co-chairs, myself, Che-Hoo from Hong Kong IX, Gaurab from MPIX, Akira Kata from DIXIE and Tiama-san from JPNAP.
So if you are an IXP operating in the AP region or if you are thinking about starting an IX in the AP region, please come to any of us and we'll work with you on that and we'll certainly be happy to invite you to the next meeting.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much.
Now the open microphone session.
Because of the constraint of time, I would like to limit it to one or two comments, if any.
If not, I just proceed the meeting to the end.
All right. Then after open microphone, we would like to invite Ms Yoonjeong Kim from KRNIC of KISA, to make an introduction to the next APNIC meeting 32 in Busan, South Korea.
Yoonjeong Kim (KRNIC, KISA): Thank you. It's too late, so I give a presentation as briefly as I can.
Even if I give a presentation in detail, but you can't remember at the end of this, August, I think.
It will be very important meeting in Busan. There are many policies to be decided in Busan.
Approaching final /8 season and so I think many APNIC members will attend the APNIC meeting.
So Busan is the city which is ready for the important APNIC meeting.
Let me start with brief introduction of Busan.
Busan is the number 2 city in Korea, with 4 million population and 5th largest container port in the world. Every late autumn, famous movie stars are invited to Busan for PIFF, means that Busan International Film Festival. PIFF is very famous in these days, so I'm sorry that APNIC 32 is not correspondent with PIFF, so you miss the chance to meet the movie stars, I think.
Anyway, Busan is very interesting and amusing city for visitors. Let me show you the multimedia screen for introducing Busan.
There are many things to recommend. I will show you some of the sightseeing examples. You can have many kinds of exciting memories. There are many good places to see.
If you have more time, there are historic and heritage places near around Busan. You can find those cultural heritages in one or two hours from Busan.As of now, the venue is not decided yet, but the most possible venue will be decided to the area around Hyundai Beach. The distance between the international airport and the Hyundai area is about 20 kilometres and it takes 40 minutes by limousine bus. So it costs around below US$10 and more cheap, I think, than Hong Kong.
Air transportation for overseas accessibility to Busan. Several flights to Busan are proposed.
There are direct flights from Japan, China, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam to Busan. If you don't have direct flight to Busan from your country or city, you can transit at Incheon and come to Busan.
Incheon has direct flights from 35 countries and 116 cities. We have six or eight domestic flights between Incheon and Busan City per day and other tours could be proposed from Seoul, Gimpo and Busan.
For getting a visa, we have many countries on the visa exemption agreement, so you can visit Busan without visa to Korea and if you need confirmation for getting a visa, please visit visitkorea.or.kr.
This is the sponsorship. If you want to sponsorship for Busan, please contact to APNIC or KRNIC.
This is end of presentation. Thank you.
Pindar Wong (APIA): As many of you know, I have not participated in this forum for perhaps over -- almost half a decade and I just want to share with you an observation. It's lovely to see it, it's lovely to see the APNIC and APRICOT back in Hong Kong. I hope we don't forget what this is all about. In order for the internet to function it requires cooperation and coordination and next year is going to be incredibly challenging, to keep this whole global system working and in order to do that, I think we have to learn to see past our differences and see where we can cooperate.
Because that really is the spirit which makes this whole thing work and I think we're going to see challenges going forward and it's lovely to see at least that spirit still being maintained in this meeting and I hope you can keep that spirit alive going forward.
Thank you very much.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much.
If you have anything you want to mention in front of the participants, then I would like to accept one or two.
If not, I would like to let Paul Wilson to make thanks for a lot of contributors.
Paul Wilson: Thank you. Before we close, I think it's important that we thank various people who have been involved with supporting and making this meeting happen.
I would like to start firstly with thanks to Yoonjeong Kim for the presentation about the coming meeting in Busan and my sincere apologies for the technical problems there.
So moving on, I think you all know that the sponsors of APNIC meetings are extremely important to us in helping us to bring you a successful meeting that's also affordable and sustainable as an APNIC activity in the longer term. We really are deeply grateful for the support and also the attendance and participation of our sponsors for APNIC 31.
So in order, the plenary sponsor today is PHCOLO and our friend Judith is here in the audience.
I would like you to all thank Judith and I would like to present to her a gift of presentation.
Thank you, Judith.
PHCOLO is starting to be a longstanding sponsor of APNIC meetings and so that really is appreciated.
Thank you, Judith.
The Policy SIG sponsor this time has been CNNIC.
So Wendy Zhao, if Wendy is in the audience, I would like to say thanks to CNNIC, with Wendy.
We have something for you here. Thanks, Wendy.
So if you would like to come up, I'll give it to you.
Just to keep things moving along, the social event sponsor was Hurricane Electric. I'm not sure if Martin is still in the audience, but thanks to Martin -- we did give Hurricane a token earlier on, but thanks to Hurricane for that fantastic social event.
And Wendy for CNNIC.
The training sponsor, once again, has been Google.
If Jake is in the audience.
OK. Jake is not with us, but Google has come back again this time to sponsor training activities at APNIC and that is as you know, a really essential part of our program. So thanks to Google.
The supporters of the meeting today, there are three of them, three APNIC NIRs, TWNIC, KRNIC of KISA and JPNIC, all of whom have come back again to sponsor this APNIC members meeting, the last and possibly most important and exciting day of the APNIC program. I'm sure you'll agree.
So do we have our representatives Zhang Wei and Ji Young and Isuko.
The remote hub sponsors are not here, because they have been busy making the remote hubs happen, so we have had Telikom PNG for our PNG hub that's been happening this week, APJII and Indosat for the Indonesian hub and this we found is a much valued and exciting sort of activity and mechanism for people to get involved with the APNIC meetings from afar. So we are always looking for people to support more of these remote hubs. I think we've only managed a couple of them at each meeting, but there's no reason, with sufficient support, that we couldn't do more, so thanks very much to those two, again, this time for their contribution.
So more thanks go to the SIG chairs and the co-chairs and moderators for the various sessions we have had, Izumi, Wei Zhao, Ji Young, Gaurab and Terence, also of course Andy Linton, whose name should replace the four question marks that you see here, obviously this was composed before the last election for the Policy SIG chair.
Masato Yamanishi, thanks to you again for coming back such a long way to APNIC. Always welcome.
APNIC EC, staff, RIR colleagues and speakers, too many to list here. I want to put in a plug again for the APNIC staff as I did at the APRICOT closing yesterday, because we do have a pretty reasonable group of staff here, but I think we've managed to squeeze in yet more into this meeting than we have in the past, so we're kind of getting more efficient, I think hopefully smoother and more error free or problem free in terms of the way the meetings run.
We've had the biggest APRICOT ever here. It makes it the biggest APNIC meeting ever as well and the APNIC staff have really done a fantastic job in keeping it all together and bringing this whole event to you, so I would like you to thank them heartily, please.
We have a new stenocaptioning service at this meeting. Nicky Misso has been working the magic down there. People keep on, when they see that service going, thinking there's some advanced technology or magic or something robotic going on.
It is magic and it is very advanced, but Nicky is a human being down here who has been doing this for us and it's fantastic.
Finally, of course, everyone who participated and attended, special thanks to the local hosts of APRICOT 2011 and also therefore of the APNIC 31 meeting, Edmon from DotAsia and of course Charles from ISOC HK.
So thanks very much to these guys.
I would suggest Edmon that you share that with the DotAsia staff and volunteers, but there are like about 200 of them, so you would each get a sip.
Finally, as you have heard, the next meeting with thanks sincerely to KISA for volunteering and committing to being the host of the next meeting, APNIC 32 will be in Busan in South Korea. The dates you see there, 29 August to 2 September of this year.
So I do look forward to seeing the staff from KISA as hosts and I look forward to seeing all of you, plus more, in Korea next August.
Thanks We will see you there. Thank you very much.
Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much for everyone for participating in the APNIC meeting. So it's a long day and we had substantial staff here and I really enjoy the active discussion. See you in Busan. I am now adjourning this meeting. Thank you very much.