{"id":351,"date":"2010-06-21T03:07:56","date_gmt":"2010-06-21T03:07:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rigf.asia\/?page_id=351"},"modified":"2024-01-25T06:49:59","modified_gmt":"2024-01-25T06:49:59","slug":"aprigf-roundtable-june-16th-2010-session-1","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/event.rigf.asia\/2010\/aprigf-roundtable-june-16th-2010-session-1\/","title":{"rendered":"APrIGF Roundtable – June 16th, 2010: Session 1"},"content":{"rendered":"

Managing Critical Internet Resources<\/span>
\n________________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n

REAL TIME TRANSCRIPT: Managing Critical Internet Resources
\n APrIGF
\n 9:30-11:00, Wednesday 16 June 2010
\n Hong Kong<\/p>\n

DISCLAIMER: Due to the inherent difficulties in capturing a live
\n speaker’s words, it is possible this realtime transcript may
\n contain errors and mistranslations. An edited version of the
\n realtime transcript which amends the inherent errors, will
\n be posted later. LLOYD MICHAUX and APrIGF accept no
\n liability for any event or action resulting from the
\n contents of this transcript.<\/p>\n

________________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n

>>: Good morning. Welcome back to the second day of the
\nAsian Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum round
\ntable.<\/p>\n

Yesterday was a great success. Let’s continue our
\ndiscussion today.<\/p>\n

APRIGF hosting organisation includes APNIC, APTLD,
\nDotAsia Organisation, Freedom House, Hong Kong Council
\nof Social Service, the Hong Kong Federation of Youth
\nGroups, Hong Kong Internet Registration Corporation Ltd,
\nHong Kong Representative of the Multistakeholders’
\nAdvisory Group of the IGF, Internet Professional
\nAssociation, iProA, Internet Society Hong Kong, ISOC
\nHong Kong, NetMission and the Office of the Honourable
\nSamson Tam, Legislative Councillor of Information
\nTechnology Functional Constituency.<\/p>\n

Also, we would like to thank our adviser, the Office
\nof the Government Chief Information Officer, OGCIO, to
\nhelp enable this event to happen.<\/p>\n

To make this event successful, we would like to
\nthank our sponsors for their kind support, including our
\ngrand sponsor, Microsoft and APNIC. Venue sponsor,
\nCyberport, dinner sponsor, the Hong Kong Internet
\nRegistration Corporation Ltd and our community sponsors,
\nAPTLD, IMPACT, Japan Registry Services and Singapore
\nInternet Research Centre.<\/p>\n

Now may I invite Mr Stephen Lau, chairman of the
\nAPRIGF local host organising committee, to say a few
\nwords for us.<\/p>\n

>>Stephen Lau: Thank you. Good morning, ladies and
\ngentlemen.<\/p>\n

I understand that we have some newcomers attending
\nthis second day of this regional conference and to them,
\nmay I express my welcome.<\/p>\n

Just for background and also from the point of
\ncontinuity, this regional round table is to look at
\nthrough the eyes and understanding of regional experts
\nin internet governance, to come together to discuss
\nissues, specifically related and of topical interest to
\nAsian Pacific.<\/p>\n

This is a regional round table organised really to
\nsynchronise and to support the global IGF, which is the
\nglobal Internet Governance Forum responsible for
\ncoordinated by the United Nations, which is held once
\na year.<\/p>\n

This is in fact in support of that particular event.<\/p>\n

Once again, for continuity, yesterday we did discuss
\ncyber security issues, network confidence. We also look
\nat the openness issues, in terms of challenges and
\ncriticalitieses, criticalness of an open internet
\nculture, where we actually look at some case studies
\nrelating to freedom of the press in neighbouring
\ncountries, including the Philippines, in particular
\nthere was a very interesting presentation on a survey in
\nHong Kong regarding the attitude and the activities
\nrelating to households in Hong Kong, parents and
\nchildren.<\/p>\n

We concluded yesterday with looking at the digital
\ndivide in Asia, whereby number of economies including
\nHong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, looking at how we
\naddress the digital divide in the particular situation
\nin those countries, as well as also looking at how we
\nshould address the digital divide, not only for the
\ndeveloped nations or economies, but also in terms of the
\ndeveloping nations.<\/p>\n

We had some very interesting discussion, some very
\ninteresting observations and some actions ahead and
\nwe’ll continue today with a number of the other critical
\nissues, including this particular one, which is to do
\nwith managing critical internet resources.<\/p>\n

Followed by looking at the issue of our diversity,
\nin terms of challenges and opportunities, with regard to
\nID and internationalised domain names.<\/p>\n

After lunch, we’ll look at emerging issues, what are
\nthe emerging issues with regard to the advance in
\ntechnology and also the advance in terms of application
\nof such technology, and what are the implications to our
\nsociety and to our individual rights.<\/p>\n

We will conclude with a very appropriate — we will
\nconclude very appropriate session on the way forward,
\nwhen we look at the mandate of the IGF, looking at if
\nand when IGF most probably when IGF will go forward, how
\nwould IGF be organised or be modified in terms of its
\nmandate, in terms of its modus operandi, as well as
\nlooking at the issue of this is the first attempt to
\nlook at IGF issues in the region. It’s the first
\nattempt. And we would like to look at and get your
\ninput and views on how we actually would organise
\nourselves to ensure that there could be and there should
\nbe sustainable platform upon which such regional forum
\ncould be conducted, how it should be organised and so
\nall in all, look forward to the second day, very
\ninteresting discussions and we look forward to your
\ninput as well as the excellent knowledge to be expressed
\nby the moderators, as well as the panellists.<\/p>\n

Thank you.<\/p>\n

>>: Thank you, Mr Lau.<\/p>\n

The first session of the day is about managing
\ncritical internet resources.<\/p>\n

May I now invite Mr Chris Disspain, Chief Executive
\nOfficer, of AU Domain Administration to start the
\nsession for us.<\/p>\n

>>Chris Disspain: Thank you. Good morning everybody.
\nThank you all vul Mr For coming, especially as today I’m
\ntold is a public holiday here, so dragon boat racing, so
\nfor those of you who have sacrificed that to be here,
\nthank you very much.<\/p>\n

The way it is going to work this morning is each one
\nof our panellists is going to provide you with a brief
\npresentation and then we’re going to throw open
\ndiscussion to the floor.<\/p>\n

I would like to start by asking each one of you to
\nbriefly introduce yourselves.<\/p>\n

>>Izumi Okutani: Good morning everybody. My name is Izumi
\nOkutani. I am from JPNIC, which is a national internet
\nregistry in Japan, managing IP address space.<\/p>\n

>>Keith Davidson: I’m Keith Davidson from New Zealand
\ninternet NZ, the.NZ domain name, registry operator and
\nhere today representing APTLD, the Asia Pacific Top
\nLevel Domain Association of which I’m chair.<\/p>\n

>>Valens Riyadi: Good morn, I’m Valens Riyadi from
\nIndonesia ISP association. We are national internet
\nregistry in Indonesia, for the IP address.<\/p>\n

>>Hirofumi Hotta: Hi, good morning, my name is Hirofumi
\nHotta. I’m with JPRS, which is the domain name registry
\nfor.JP Japan. Thank you for giving me opportunity to be
\nhere.<\/p>\n

>>Shariya Haniz Zulkifli: Good morning, my name is Shariya
\nHaniz Zulkifli. I’m from .my domain registry also from
\nthe ccTLD community, we are the administrator for the
\n.my top level domain.<\/p>\n

>>Paul Wilson: Good morning, I’m Paul Wilson, the head of
\nAPNIC, the Asia Pacific Network Information Centre,
\nwhich is the regional address registry for the Asian
\nPacific.<\/p>\n

>>Chris Disspain: Thank you very much, everybody.
\nGiven the definition of critical internet resources,
\nwhich our organisers have very kindly provided for us,
\nwritten here in the agenda, you’ll see that critical
\ninternet resources covers a very broad range of issues.<\/p>\n

A few of the ones that we’re going to try and cover
\nthis morning include the role of ccTLDs and their
\ninterrelationship with each other and with ICANN,
\nstakeholders’ roles and responsibilities, which is
\nwhere, to a degree, the IVP4 and 6 discussion sits and
\nalso the use and in some cases, abuse of the term
\ncritical internet resources and why, for over certain
\nyears now, it has been such a hot topic.<\/p>\n

Any one of these, of course, could fill an entire
\nsession, but hopefully we’ll manage to cover them all,
\nat least a little bit.<\/p>\n

We are going to hear — I’m the ccTLD manager for
\n.AU for Australia, but you are going to come from other
\nccTLD managers this morning, so I won’t talk about that.<\/p>\n

I just want to mention briefly to things.<\/p>\n

On the IPV4, IPV6 issue, the technical challenges
\nfaced by ccTLDs and gTLDs are readily manageable.
\nDomain name resolution is something that we obviously
\nhave to make sure works and there need to be some
\nsoftware and hardware changes. We need to accept
\nrecords and there need to be some administrative tools
\nbehind the scenes but it’s actually the policy
\nimperatives that are critical and these are clearly the
\nresponsibility of government.<\/p>\n

ISPs need to seek IPV6 allocations and then they
\nneed to be ready to offer those to their customers, but
\nthere’s in commercial imperative. They can’t promise
\na faster, a better or a more reliable internet and they
\nprobably can’t charge a premium. Some IPSs perceive
\nthat they have adequate reserves of IPV4 addresses, so
\nwhy bother?<\/p>\n

To effect change to IPV6, therefore, this needs to
\nbe another driver.<\/p>\n

That could be financial or taxisation subsidies, it
\ncould be best practice leadership, it could be mandating
\nmandating compliance deadlines, but any one of those is
\nclearly the role of governments. It’s not the role of
\nccTLDs, it’s not the role of regional internet
\nregistries, not ICANN, it’s the role of governments to
\nprovide the policy push to embrace IPV6.<\/p>\n

Finally, just a brief observation on the overall
\ntheme of this session, the management of critical
\ninternet resources, the term critical internet resources
\nfirst came prominence in the WSIS process which led, in
\nturn, to the IGF.<\/p>\n

Seven years on, I’m still unshire if we yet have
\na collective understanding on what critical internet
\nresources means and how we manage it.<\/p>\n

At several IGFs I have moderated sessions on this
\ntopic and they have led to active and vigorous debate.<\/p>\n

Sadly, however, there are some stakeholders who have
\nnot adopted and in fact levelly disregarded the current
\ndefinition, because it doesn’t meet their long-term
\ngoals.<\/p>\n

At the risk of repeating the obvious and to set us
\noff on this discussion this morning, critical internet
\nresources broadly refers to the administration of DNS,
\nIP addressing and route service system, ICANN and so on.<\/p>\n

The development of technical standards, something
\nwhich the IETF has been doing a magnificent job of for
\nmany, many years and the necessary interconnection,
\ninfrastructure, innovatevation and con ver gent
\ntechnologies and it’s in that last part where we would
\nexpect collaboration and leadership from governments.<\/p>\n

It’s there the policy promotion for IPV6 logically
\nsits.<\/p>\n

With that, I’ll pass across to Izumi.<\/p>\n

>>Izumi Okutani: I would like to discuss how from our
\nregistry’s perspective, we collaborate with our
\ngovernment and try to do what we can within the role of
\nthe registry.<\/p>\n

This is just a very brief introduction.<\/p>\n

I think most of you are aware the principles of IP
\naddress management, so I will skip the details here.<\/p>\n

What I would like to mention here is that we define
\nwhat should be done in IP address management in IP
\naddress policy.<\/p>\n

Internet registries like RIRs our regional internet
\nregistries, including APNIC and also national internet
\nregistries, which is where I am from, these are the
\nregistries that distribute and IP address base, based on
\nour address policies that are defined and policies that
\ndevelop RIR region and responsibilities of APNIC and
\nJPNIC is provide our basic registry function which is
\nour core business and we distribute address space and
\nregister what we distribute.<\/p>\n

In addition to this, we also have what we call
\npolicy development and this part is very important,
\nbecause this is how we define, how we distribute address
\nspace. So if this is not adequately defined, then we
\nwill have problems in distributing the address space to
\nmeet the needs of the operations, services, et cetera.<\/p>\n

This is what we have been doing lately, but in
\naddition to this, we also have several activities for
\nthe development of the internet and because we’re now
\nfacing the time of IPV4 exhaustion, I would like to see
\nwhat we should do in each of these functions.<\/p>\n

For registry function, I don’t think there is
\nnothing much we should do in addition, simply carry on
\nwith smooth and fair allocation based on address policy.<\/p>\n

However, in terms of policy development, we must
\nensure that this minimum confusion over how to
\ndistribute the last piece of IPV for address block and
\nalso for the people who would like to prepare and deploy
\nIPV6, we must ensure that there are no barriers in
\npolicies to be able to receive the V6 space when the
\npeople who need it want to request for the space to
\nregistry.<\/p>\n

These are the areas that we must focus in policy
\ndevelopment.<\/p>\n

Also, not just this, but we must also make sure that
\nthe whole industry is aware of what’s going to happen
\nand before address space will be exhausted and we must
\ndo a lot of outreach and raise awareness within the
\nindustry.<\/p>\n

Registry function is very simple. So I will skip
\nexplanation on this part.<\/p>\n

What we do in policy development in Asian Pacific
\nregion and also in JPNIC is that the policy itself is
\ndefined by APNIC policy forum and anyone can join. It
\nis open participation. If people feel that there are
\nany issues in receiving address space, they can given
\nput, make a proposal and then if it reaches consensus,
\ngeneral agreement within the community, it will be
\nreflected as APNIC policy.<\/p>\n

In Japan, we follow the policy of Asian Pacific
\nregion, APNIC policies, so we don’t have our own policy
\nthat is totally different, but we have our own policy
\nforum and it’s discussed in Japanese and we share
\ndiscussions, what’s going on in Asian Pacific region and
\ngiven put from the Japanese community and vice versa.<\/p>\n

Then what is actually reflected and discussed as
\nAPNIC policy, we also reflect it in Japanese policy, in
\nJapanese, in Japan.<\/p>\n

That’s how the policy development works.<\/p>\n

Some examples of policy developments in the past are
\nthere have been several policies passed to prepare for
\nthe IPV4 exhaustion which is defining how the last piece
\nof IPV4 address block should be distributed at IANA to
\nRIR level so these two are the policies that define how
\nwe should distribute the last piece of IPV4 address
\nblock.<\/p>\n

We also have policy to make sure that there will be
\nno confusion in managing who is the authentic holder of
\nIPV4 address space. Once registry runs out of its free
\npool. This is also very important.<\/p>\n

There has been a couple of policies that has been
\npassed to remove any barriers in receiving IPV4 address
\nspace, for example, there has been some people felt it’s
\nvery hard to receive IPV6 allocations, so criteria has
\nbeen changed to make it easier and also recently, there
\nhas been policy that has been passed for simplified IPV6
\ndistribution for those people with IPV4 space, so
\nexisting IPV6 holders can easily receive IPV6 address
\nspace without too much problems.<\/p>\n

So these are the areas that has been focused and
\ndiscussed and I feel that key measures for issues has
\nbeen more or less passed in policy and there might be
\nminor adjustments for improvements still to go, but then
\nmost of the major issues has been addressed in policy
\narea at this stage.<\/p>\n

In addition to this, this has been regular
\nresponsibilities of internet registries, but we are now
\nfocusing to make sure that the community is aware that
\nIPV6 address pool will be running out in year 2011,
\nwhich is very soon.<\/p>\n

So I’m sure APNIC has its own IVP6 project to
\nconduct outreach activities, but we also have set up
\ntask force on IPV4 address exhaustion in Japan and JPNIC
\nis participating as its member, because the needs within
\nJapan, one country, is very different from what’s
\nnecessary within Asian Pacific region as a whole.<\/p>\n

The basic idea of the task force is that 21 industry
\nbodies and MIC, Ministry of Internal Affairs and
\nCommunications, are participating in all these different
\nindustry players within Japan from operators, community,
\nresearch community, IPV6 promotion counsel and upper
\nlayer people, like focusing on contents or UNIX users,
\nall these people are getting together to collaborate and
\nshare issues in each layer of the industry and also two
\nmake sure that the message is passed throughout various
\nsectors, within the industry.<\/p>\n

And the objective is to raise awareness of the
\nsituation as Japan as a whole and also to take
\ncomprehensive measure which is difficult to handle by
\nindividual organisations, even if you’re aware as
\na company that this is happening, it’s very difficult to
\ntake measures, for example, maybe the budget is too
\ntight to start — to make technical testing, to address
\nIPV6 technical issues, or it’s very difficult to set
\na milestone on what to move at which stage.<\/p>\n

So what the task force is doing is, for example,
\nprovide a model case milestone for pro suggestion to
\nIPV6 for each stakeholder, for example, if you’re an
\nISP, at this stage, you should be ready for start
\ntesting or provide technical trainings to your staff and
\nget ready for commercial service.<\/p>\n

Or we also conduct regular surveys of awareness and
\nso that we can monitor what is how the progress is,
\nwithin Japan.<\/p>\n

We also provide a test bed, so that anyone can join
\nand join and connect the equipment and test for free.<\/p>\n

So this is example of milestone of test case for
\nISP.<\/p>\n

You can confirm this from the URL of IPV6 exhaustion
\ntask force.<\/p>\n

The phase we are at this stage is right over here
\nand we are at this stage of testing and also giving
\ntechnical training to the staff.<\/p>\n

This is the survey result of awareness of
\npreparation in Japan. We conducted two surveys and
\nawareness in general is very high. Even with the first
\nsurvey, about 80 per cent of the people are aware that
\nbefore address space will be exhausted, but in the
\nsecond survey, the percentage is raised to 6 per cent as
\na result of our promotion and seminars.<\/p>\n

What are the measures that you plan too take?
\nMajority of the people mention IPV6, but interestingly,
\nquite a number of people also mention not and in the
\nsurvey the people of the has increased from 40 per cent
\nto 49 per cent, which was an interesting result.<\/p>\n

These are the things that we do within Japan as
\na national measure and as industry as a whole.<\/p>\n

In summary, we collaborate a lot with APNIC and
\npolicy area, but then we also take our own measure
\nwithin Japan to raise awareness and address issues
\ntowards IPV4 exhaustion.<\/p>\n

Thank you.<\/p>\n

>>Keith Davidson: I think the topic of critical internet
\nresources is usually or usually leads down a path of
\ndiscussion about ICANN and its functions and ICANN’s
\nfunctions are to administer the root servers of the
\ninternet, the DNS, that’s the domain name system, and IP
\naddressing and it’s a relatively narrow set of criteria
\nabout the internet’s unique identifiers and I think
\nthere’s an aspect of critical internet resources that
\noften isn’t talked about and should be and Chris alluded
\nto that insofar as his raising the idea of the IETF, the
\nInternet Engineering Task Force, and its role in
\ndeveloping the technical standards for the operation of
\nthe internet.<\/p>\n

Interestingly, the name used for the policies that
\nare developed by the IETF are called RFCs, requests for
\ncomment. There’s an interesting background as to how
\nthe word RFC arose, but in historical terms, in the
\n1970s, when the internet was still the preserve of US
\nmilitary and academics, the only way to have
\ninstructions or manuals was to have a field manual,
\na military field manual, that said you will do this, you
\nwon’t do that, et cetera.<\/p>\n

So the academics who were developing the protocols
\nfor the internet decided that they would invent this new
\nphrase of a request for comment, which would be
\na statement of how a protocol might work or the
\noperation of a standard on the internet and it would be
\npublished and peer reviewed.<\/p>\n

That process continues today and it is a critical
\npart of how the internet operates.<\/p>\n

There seems to have been some debate in the past in
\nInternet Governance Forums over what the status of what
\nan RFC is today.<\/p>\n

It’s not a binding public policy document or
\nrequirement, but by and large, the operators of the key
\nand unique aspects of the internet abide by the
\nprinciples established in the RFCs.<\/p>\n

Generally, that’s proved to be quite a satisfactory
\nseveral regulatory model by which peers will assess and
\nbring you back into line should you breach those
\nregulations.<\/p>\n

It’s an interesting concept in terms of the
\nestablishment of policies for the operation of a global
\nnetwork.<\/p>\n

By and large, the RFCs do tend to confine themselves
\nto technical standards, but there are occasions where
\nthe RFCs do attempt to assert public policy and most
\nparticularly, for the country code top level domain
\nmanagers in the world, there is RFC1591, which deals
\nwith the delegation and redelegation of country codes.<\/p>\n

By and large, the country code managers around the
\nworld try to subscribe to the best practice concepts
\nthat are contained in that document.<\/p>\n

Onto the organisation that I am representing here
\ntoday, that’s the Asia Pacific Top Level Domain
\nAssociation, it is one of four regional country code top
\nlevel domain associations. Our world is divided into
\nfive regions. The logical North America, South America,
\nAfrica and Europe and the rest of us called Asian
\nPacific. The country codes since our region extends
\nfrom the Middle East, Jordan and so on, through to Fiji,
\nPitcairn islands and from the arctic to the antarctic,
\nso it’s an enormous region and the organisation itself
\nis a membership based organisation, primarily membership
\nis for the ccTLD managers, from the region, and around
\nhalf of the 72 country code in the region are members of
\nthe organisation.<\/p>\n

We do have associate members as well, so generic top
\nlevel domain organisation like DotAsia that operate in
\nthe region, members and great supporters of ours and so
\nare a number of suppliers and providers of services.<\/p>\n

Our region is incredibly diverse. It covers
\ncountries the size of China, with a population of
\n1.2 billion, down to Pacific islands including new way,
\nwith a population of 900 people.<\/p>\n

We have the richest and poorest countries and
\neconomies in the world. We have an incredibly diverse
\nrange of cultural, political, religious and language
\ncommunities.<\/p>\n

Within that, the ccTLDs within the region, there are
\nsome run entirely by governments, some are run
\ncompletely at arm’s length from their government, and
\nsome have a mixture of some form of public\/private
\npartnership.<\/p>\n

Some of our ccTLD members deal on a very narrow
\nbrief within the confines of RFC1591, in terms of
\nlooking after the country code management and the
\npolicies for that only, others apply a much broader
\nbrief and participate in a wide range of other
\nactivities, including outreach and so on.<\/p>\n

Generally, country code managers are left to decide
\nwhat they should be doing in terms of satisfying their
\nlocal internet communities.<\/p>\n

The APTLD organisation meets to discuss issues at
\nthe operational and governance layers of the DNS
\noperations, generally to share good practice ideas and
\nenhancements to the security and stability of our own
\ncountry code operations.<\/p>\n

We participate in a lot of training and we take
\nleadership roles in a number of issues, including things
\nlike disaster planning and recovery for registries and
\nmore recently, the IDN, the internationalised domain
\nname fast-track process within ICANN which is currently
\ngoing live rapidly as country codes are rolling out own
\nlanguage, own script ccTLDs.<\/p>\n

I think Chris mentioned and in his opening that it’s
\nnot the role of ccTLDs to deploy IPV6. However, I think
\nour ccTLD managers in our region and elsewhere have
\ntaken some leadership in terms of deploying IPV6 within
\nthe registries, despite the fact that carriers and
\nservice providers may not be offering V6 connectivity,
\nwe have done it to make the point that we need to be
\nseen to be deploying the next level of technologies or
\nnext generation of technologies.<\/p>\n

I think at this stage, about half of the APTLD,
\nccTLD members have deployed IPV6. I’m not aware of any
\nof our members who are not actually in the process of
\ndeploying, so we’re all on the path to our commitment to
\nIPV6.<\/p>\n

Around 75 per cent of our members are also members
\nof the CCNSO. That’s the country codename supporting
\norganisation within ICANN, but there’s no requirement
\nfor our members to be ICANN participants. In fact, we
\nprovide a forum entirely neutrally from ICANN for our
\nmembers to discuss their business.<\/p>\n

In broad terms, I think we support the
\nmulti-stakeholder bottom up consensus based
\ndecision-making forum that ICANN provides and we
\nparticipate considerably in inputs to ICANN on a wide
\nrange of issues that relate to the operation of ccTLDs.<\/p>\n

We also have expressed in the past our support for
\nthe RIR model within and outside of I can as the
\nappropriate model for IP address delegation and
\nmanagement.<\/p>\n

APTLD hasn’t been particularly involved with the IGF
\nas an organisation, although a large number of our
\nmembers have participated throughout the WSIS process
\nand in the Internet Governance Forums that have occurred
\nin the last four years.<\/p>\n

But as a partial sponsor of this event, I think it’s
\nan indication that we are keen to engage in greater
\ndebate on aspects of the Internet Governance Forum.<\/p>\n

In summary, just really a personal observation about
\nthe critical internet resources and governments role,
\nperhaps, in that.<\/p>\n

It occurs to me that RFC1591, which was authored in
\n1993, at a time prior to the release of the worldwide
\nweb, so when the internet was still a playground for
\ntechnical folks rather than what it is today,
\ngovernments had no particularly strong interest in
\ncontrolling or setting policies for ccTLDs.<\/p>\n

Today, where we are dependent on our country code
\nfor domain names that offer banking services, share
\ntrading, eBays and other things, it’s irresistible for
\ngovernments to want to be interested in that space.<\/p>\n

But I think as a consequence of that, governments
\nalso need to be aware and cautious that the internet
\ndeveloped as a free and open form of technology that was
\nvery disruptive, because there were no rules and in
\na way for the future, governments paying too much
\nattention to the technology and trying to second guess
\nevery aspect of policy for the operation of the
\ninternet, can stifle the innovatevation and development
\nof the internet.<\/p>\n

So if you are like me and believe the internet is
\nstill a fledgling technology and has massive potential
\nfor the future, in terms of greater developments, then
\nbe careful in your approach to try and make the internet
\na safer place, but don’t try and stifle the
\ninnovatevation and ensure that what you do preserves the
\nend to end principles and the open access nature of this
\nnetwork.<\/p>\n

That’s it from me. Thank you.<\/p>\n

>>Valens Riyadi: I talk on behalf of Indonesian ISP
\nassociation. One of our division in the organisation is
\nnational internet registry or NIR. We do allocation of
\nIP address and other internet resources, like routing IS
\nnumber and everything.<\/p>\n

Besides the NIR, we do also hosting co-location and
\nalso several trainings regarding the networkings and
\nalso the IP management. Usually we do in collaboration
\nwith the APNIC.<\/p>\n

By May 2010, we have allocated IP address to 200
\nsmall ISPs and several hundred other for corporate,
\ngovernment and university.<\/p>\n

The internet industry in Indonesia is quite unique.
\nWe have more than 200ISP spread all over the country.<\/p>\n

We have allocated about 10 million cyber address and
\nby June 2010, there are 5.6 million IP address
\nadvertised on our internet exchange.<\/p>\n

We monitor that there is a spike of usage in IP4
\nbecause on December 2009, it’s only 4 million IP and
\nby June 2010, it’s 5.6 million, so a lot of company and
\nISP try to get the IP version 4 before that line that we
\ndon’t have any IP version 4 any more.<\/p>\n

This is the statistics, how from year by year, the
\nIP4 is allocated quite faster.<\/p>\n

>From year by year, the IP is allocated faster and
\nI think the date of the IP4 is faster than maybe the
\ncalculation.<\/p>\n

I’m quite happy that the IP6 migration in Indonesia
\nis, I think we are doing quite good job, because the
\nallocation is from date by date is getting higher, like
\nfor 2010, we we allocate more than 800,000 block. One
\nblock is 64.<\/p>\n

Last week, we have an IP in Bali, Indonesia. The
\ngovernment declare and also the telco also declared the
\nnational IP version 6 immigration road map.<\/p>\n

The big telco have to be IP version 6 ready by end
\nof 2010 and all other ISP by end of 2011.<\/p>\n

So I hope that Indonesia will be ready for the IP
\nversion 6 before 2012.<\/p>\n

Can be offered to public by all ISPs by 2012.<\/p>\n

We have a discussion with the government also that
\nto push that all equipment imported to Indonesia have to
\nbe IP version 6 ready by 2011.<\/p>\n

Also, the president of IP version 6 forum, last week
\nalso in.<\/p>\n

Host the immigration process in Indonesia, in terms
\nof other countries in Asia, and I’m quite happy that
\nfrom the several statistics in Indonesia, it’s in the IV
\nversion 6 migration, of course after Australia and
\nJapan.<\/p>\n

There are two different statistics here. One from
\nthe BGP monitoring and another from the six S. Also
\n(six S. Also displayed that Indonesia have a quite good
\njob in the IP version 6 migration, because the visible
\naddress is more than, almost 50 per cent from the IP
\nallocated in Indonesia, IP version 6 allocated is 55
\nblocks and the visible address is 26, so it’s almost
\n50 per cent of the allocated IP is visible in the
\ninternet.<\/p>\n

You can see other country, I think, the percentage
\nis usually only 20, 25 per cent.<\/p>\n

This is not in my organisation, but I have to inform
\nyou that one of the problem we face in Indonesia is
\nabout the .ID domain.<\/p>\n

The .ID domain is not IP version 6 ready yet right
\nnow. APJII works together with them for it to be ready
\nbecause we need already the domain ready in version 6
\nand also we have sort of redelegation problem.<\/p>\n

That’s all from me. Thank you.<\/p>\n

>>Chris Disspain: Thank you, we’ll take questions at the
\nend.<\/p>\n

>>Hirofumi Hotta: Thank you.<\/p>\n

Today, let me briefly talk about the community
\ncooperation in operating and securing domain name
\nsystem.<\/p>\n

The core functions of a domain name registry can be
\ncategorised into data entry function and names server
\nfunction.<\/p>\n

Data entry function is data management, in a sense.
\nRegistry assures every registered domain name to be
\nunique on the internet.<\/p>\n

If a domain name is applied for registration,
\nregistry confirms that the same domain label is not
\nregistered. After it’s confirmed, the domain name is
\nregistered in a registry database, along with
\ninformation such as registrant’s name, technical
\ncontact, expiration date and so on.<\/p>\n

You can see part of such information by whois.<\/p>\n

Name server is a part of domain name system, usually
\ncalled DNS.<\/p>\n

Registry operates a name server containing the list
\nof domain names that the registry manages.<\/p>\n

By doing so, domain names become available for email
\nand URL and so forth.<\/p>\n

Registry is of course responsible for those core
\nfunctions as in the previous slide. In addition,
\nregistries do other activities, maim related to domain
\nnames and internet as a whole.<\/p>\n

For example, our company JPRS, does these activities
\non the slide. The first one is stable and reliable
\noperation of JP domain name registry system and JP DNS.<\/p>\n

These are the core functions and core activities, as
\nI said, in the previous slide.<\/p>\n

Raising security of domain names and DNS.<\/p>\n

Since the DNS is not operated solely by domain name
\nregistry, raising its security needs, cooperation among
\nrelevant players. I will touch on this later.<\/p>\n

Participation in national drills against cyber
\nattacks.<\/p>\n

This drill was supported by Japanese government.
\nISPs and other entities including JPRS participate in
\nthis drill.<\/p>\n

For example, assuming a case when all JP DNS servers
\nstop, I had this, but if in the case, how ISPs and
\nothers should communicate and behave was discussed and
\nsimulated in this drill.<\/p>\n

Research on domain names and a registries, promoting
\nIDN aware environment in order for IDNs to be used more
\nwidely, providing information about the internet and DNS
\nto various communities, for example, we are distributing
\na cartoon booklet showing how the internet works.<\/p>\n

Providing information about activities of ICANN,
\nIETF to the community through periodicals similar
\nthrough and web and so on.<\/p>\n

And participating in standardisation or making
\nguidelines related to domain names and DNS in IETF,
\nICANN and other forums.<\/p>\n

Sharing experiences with other registries in forums
\nsuch as APTLD, as Keith described.<\/p>\n

And operation of M root server in cooperation with
\nwide project.<\/p>\n

I think this is unique among ccTLD registries.<\/p>\n

As you they know, 13 root servers are operated by 12
\noperators. One of them called M-root server had been
\noperated by Wide project, which is a research project in
\nJapan.<\/p>\n

In 2005, Wide project and JPRS decided to enter into
\njoint operation of M-root server, by utilising JPRS
\nexperience and resource in DNS operation.<\/p>\n

This figure illustrates how various players come
\ninto a picture of DNS operation. Such players include
\nICANN, IANA root servers, domain strange registry,
\nsometimes called domain name holder or owner and DNS
\nprovider system division of a company, which operates
\nname server on behalf of the registrant.<\/p>\n

Sometimes the individual registrant plays this role
\nby himself or by herself.<\/p>\n

ISPs and manufacturer of equipment such as home
\nrouters and of course internet users in general.<\/p>\n

This is a little bit different from the last slide.
\nThis figure last DNSSEC is an abbreviation of — DNS
\nsecurity extension, which raises security of DNS by
\nadding some information to DNS. I don’t go into details
\nhere, but additional activities for DNSSEC are shown in
\nred arrows and red chargeters nor slide.<\/p>\n

Basically, the players are the same as in the usual
\nDNS operation in the previous page.<\/p>\n

As shown in two previous slides, registry is not the
\nonly player who can make DNS work properly. So
\ncollaboration among the players are essential for the
\ninternet to work properly.<\/p>\n

To make the collaboration better, JPRS does these
\nkind of activities.<\/p>\n

I listed three of them. Hosting DNS operators group
\nJapan. This group is for sharing DNS related
\ninformation, such as software and operation.<\/p>\n

The members exchange knowledge and experience and
\ndiscuss in pursuing better operation.<\/p>\n

The members are from DNS related entity as well as
\nacademic researchers.<\/p>\n

The second one is hosting DNSSEC Japan. In short,
\nthis is DNSSEC version of DNS operators group, the first
\none.<\/p>\n

The third one, leading cooperation among players in
\ntesting and preparing for DNSSEC.<\/p>\n

Since introduction of DNSSEC is not an easy task for
\neach player in terms of knowledge, DNS readiness of
\nequipment and software, system research and operational
\nexperience.<\/p>\n

Raising knowledge and literacy of how it works and
\nhow we can make it work is essential for smooth
\nintroduction of DNSSEC.<\/p>\n

So JPRS leads DNSSEC testing project consisting of
\nrelevant players in order for the community to observe
\nmature preparation of DNSSEC environment before registry
\neverything.<\/p>\n

Thank you.<\/p>\n

>>Shariya Haniz Zulkifli: Good morning, again.<\/p>\n

First, thank you and I think congratulations to the
\norganising committee for hosting the very first regional
\nIGF in Asia.<\/p>\n

It’s a real privilege to be here.<\/p>\n

As I mentioned earlier, I’m from .my domain
\nregistry, so my presentation really on.my experience as
\nfar as IPV6 is concerned.<\/p>\n

We felt that as the ccTLD administrator, it was
\ncritical for .my to be IPV6 enabled as quickly as
\npossible and to be one of the pioneers, as far as this
\ninitiative was concerned. So we set about doing this
\na couple of years back.<\/p>\n

We launched myDNSIPV6 in 2008 for all eight of our
\ncategories. Essentially this means that our network
\ninfrastructure, as well as our primary name servers were
\nIPV6 enabled. Customers could register IPV6 data via
\nregistration or modifications.<\/p>\n

At that time, which were the 127th TLD out of 296,
\nsomewhere halfway down the list. I believe it’s about
\n150 ccTLD operators today.<\/p>\n

We’re also the cochair of the Asian Pacific IPV6
\ntask force and we are a member of the national IPV6
\nworking group, which is very active and it’s really
\npicking up now that the timelines are drawing nearer.
\nJPNIC pointed out 2011 and I think APNIC has said 2012.<\/p>\n

Last year, our IPV6 research website obtained the
\nIPV6 forum logo.<\/p>\n

So we are happy about that.<\/p>\n

We are also participating in the national ISP audit,
\nso this is compulsory for all ISPs in Malaysia to go
\nthrough a IPV6 compliance audit.<\/p>\n

We provide the venue for the look up class test.<\/p>\n

By the way, I will be obviously leaving these slides
\nwith the secretariat and there’s more detailed
\ninformation if you have time and you’re interested, you
\ncan look at it later.<\/p>\n

Some of the issues that I would like to share with
\neveryone today is that to date, IPV6 network and IPV6
\naddresses are processed by our ISPs still on a request
\nbasis.<\/p>\n

So it’s not really part of the commercial every day
\nservice that they’re offering to new customers. You
\nactually have to make a special request and they will
\nprocess it separately.<\/p>\n

Some of the feedback that we have received is that
\nthis is actually tied to the fourth bullet, so that the
\ndemand just isn’t there.<\/p>\n

But I think for those of you who are starting out,
\nyou really have to take a good look to see whether it’s
\na chicken and egg situation.<\/p>\n

There’s no demand for IPV6, because IPV6 is not so
\nreadily available.<\/p>\n

So take a closer look. I do think that there has to
\nbe a strong push by ISPs to make IPV6 very readily
\navailable.<\/p>\n

We also had interesting experience as far as how
\nequipment is concerned.<\/p>\n

One or two were not IPV6 enabled at all, which meant
\nthat we had to buy new equipment and this eats into your
\ntimelines and your deployment time.<\/p>\n

I’m raising this again because of the 2011\/2012
\nissue, so when you’re coming up with your timeframes,
\nplease allocate this purchasing time into your process.<\/p>\n

Two years ago, when we were buying this equipment,
\nit took even longer, because it wasn’t that readily
\navailable then.<\/p>\n

I’m sure it’s a different story today.<\/p>\n

Capacity building remains very important. It is
\ncritical to get IPV6 trained engineers. Paul Wilson
\nused this word foot soldiers. That’s absolutely right.
\nThese people really have to be well equipped with IPV6
\nknowledge in order to carry out this transition and
\nmigration process smoothly.<\/p>\n

I have an illustration of this a little bit later.<\/p>\n

But not only for the engineers, those who are
\nactually rolling up their sleeves, carrying out the
\nwork. Decision makers also have to be well informed
\nabout what’s happening with IPV6 globally and
\nregionally.<\/p>\n

I touched on low demand issue later. You have to
\ntake a close look and really find out what are the real
\nissues on the ground.<\/p>\n

We had a connectivity incident very recently. This
\nhappened in May, when we were enabling IPV6 addresses
\nfor our secondary servers.<\/p>\n

We got a quick call from IANA, so thanks to them for
\nreacting very promptly, and they told us that there was
\nno international connectivity through IPV6. Locally, it
\nwas fine, but we were not being seen internationally.<\/p>\n

Our ISP corrected this very quickly, but again this
\njust strengthens the point about capacity building and
\ntrying to get to that stage where IPV6 is just a part of
\nevery day technical life.<\/p>\n

Just some last words.<\/p>\n

The project really took us two years to do, so we
\nstarted really very late 2006, early 2007 and we
\nlaunched it in 2008.<\/p>\n

We do have just a few more items to clear. Our
\nsecondary name servers were IPV6 enabled very recently.<\/p>\n

We are currently working on our website. We have
\nour email and whois servers to go.<\/p>\n

As far as .my domain registry is concerned, we do
\nthink that that is it, as far as IPV6 deployment is
\nconcerned from the ccTLD perspective.<\/p>\n

Of course, from the national perspective, from the
\nwhole ecosystem, there’s a lot more that needs to be
\ndone and I’ll touch on that just a little bit later.<\/p>\n

Some technical information. The team wanted me to
\nhighlight this, that they really liked the dual stack
\napproach. They were tabling with tunnelling and
\ntranslation and for a knowledge technical person, for
\nme, that has completely different connotations, but I’m
\nhere to tell you that they really enjoy doing the dual
\nstack approach.<\/p>\n

I would like to press on the coordinated approach.<\/p>\n

This is a national initiative and it was very
\ninteresting to listen to JPNIC and Indonesia’s
\nperspectives on this.<\/p>\n

Malaysia does have strong policies to encourage the
\nadoption of IPV6. What really is required is consistent
\nand strong follow through. There really has to be
\nhighly interactive dialogue between all parties and
\nindustry players. So in Malaysia, we do have the IPV6
\nworking group. This is set up under the Malaysian
\ntechnical standards forum.<\/p>\n

It is very activity and it comprises mostly of ISPs,
\na few universities, the regulator is there and so are we
\nand some other players. What I’m really happy to report
\nis they have also created a subcommittee with hosting
\ncompanies on board, so more and more players are coming
\nto the table, more and more information is being
\ncirculated and everyone is starting to understand
\neveryone’s perspectives a lot easier.<\/p>\n

So you get to hone in on that demand issue and see
\nwhat needs to be corrected at your own respective
\nlevels.<\/p>\n

We only have 200 .my domain names with IPV6 DNS.
\nThis is really tiny. We have about 100,000 .my domain
\nnames in total.<\/p>\n

So you have to be really creative. As a ccTLD
\nadministrator on how to continue pushing raising
\nawareness on IPV6.<\/p>\n

Some of the initiatives that we have is that we have
\na website competition coming up.<\/p>\n

It would be a bonus if your website is IPV6 enabled
\nand offers other DNS related technologies, for example,
\nDNSSEC.<\/p>\n

Another thing that I heard from .NZ is that they
\nhave actually got special pages on their registrars who
\nare offering IPV6 services, so this is certainly
\nsomething that I’m going to take back, just what are the
\nways that we can recognise or award other parties, other
\nindustry players, who are making an initiative to push
\nIPV6 out.<\/p>\n

But you will face a patchy environment. I do know,
\nas we were shouting out trying to encourage everyone to
\nget on board the IPV6 bandwagon, we do have these
\nhosting providers coming up to us and saying, but some
\nof these hosting service operations are not IPV6
\nenabled. So there’s a little bit of this jig of two
\nsteps forward, one step back.<\/p>\n

But we are moving along.<\/p>\n

As a final point, it’s really important to keep
\nraising awareness about this.<\/p>\n

I think as a ccTLD registry, we can only do so much,
\nbut at any given opportunity, where we are able to talk
\nabout IPV6, we try very hard to spread the message.<\/p>\n

Thank you.<\/p>\n

>>Paul Wilson: Thanks very much, Chris, and thanks to
\neveryone for being here.<\/p>\n

It’s my privilege to finish up the presentations
\nhere and hopefully leave some time for questions.<\/p>\n

I’m going to be talking about IPV6 and the role of
\nthe RIRs.<\/p>\n

I think it’s worth talking and referring initially
\nto reviewing what are the fundamentals of the internet
\nvery briefly that have led to its success and Keith gave
\na nice summary earlier of the RSC system, which is tied
\nup with the internet and the evolution of the internet
\nwith an open network with open standards. When the
\ninternet came along, there were plenty of competitors to
\nthe internet and they all fell by the wayside. That was
\nno accident. It succeeded because of its openness and
\nit may seem surprising to say that, but the internet and
\nit’s infrastructure level is a pretty dumb network.
\nIt’s a simple network and that allowed it to be layered
\nthrough a layered networking model over almost any
\ncarrier technology that you could find, whether it was
\nmodems or ethernets or anything that came along.<\/p>\n

It spread quickly and imbecame this incredible
\nplatform for competition and for innovation with huge
\nbenefits to consumers, as I think everyone here knows,
\nas active internet users.<\/p>\n

That layered model can be shown as a sort of an
\nhourglass here of protocols and in the earlier days, we
\nhad, in a simplified form, we had a simple network layer
\nin the middle, which was envisaged generally with
\ncarrying data and video and voice and above that,
\nvarious applications, including the internet as one of
\nthose applications, and beneath that, a bunch of
\ndifferent infrastructure technologies.<\/p>\n

But it’s important to understand that that’s really
\nchanging now and that middle layer of the network is
\nsimplifying even further down to just IP and so the
\ninternet itself, the IP protocol, is now or if not now,
\nit soon will be carrying absolutely everything that you
\nwant to seasoned over any wire at all.<\/p>\n

The internet has gone from being an application to
\nactually being infrastructure. It still runs over
\nanything, so that you have, whether it’s cable or 3G or
\n4G or fibre into the home, any technology you like will
\ncarry IP and anything you want to do on a network will
\nbe carried over IP. It’s important to see that as both
\na fantastic testimony to the success of the internet,
\nbut also has great implications for the fact that that
\nnetwork is still growing very rapidly and it will
\ncontinue to grow through the type of broadband and
\nmobile deployments that we are seeing.<\/p>\n

IP requires IP addresses and of course, so far, the
\npredominant IP on the internet has been IPV4 and the
\nIPV4 addresses, as you would know by now, are running
\nout.<\/p>\n

The chief scientists of APNIC Jeff Houston has been
\nproducing this chart through automatic software on
\na daily basis for quite some years now and it tracks,
\njust using a straightforward numerical projection of
\nwhat the lifetime of IPV4 is expected to be. As we
\nheard before, there are a couple of key dates. The
\nfirst one in not much more than a year from now is when
\nthe IANA allocates its last\/8 or large block of IPV46.<\/p>\n

Some year or so later, 14 months later, according to
\nthe current projection, the RARs will finish. That is
\nthe regional registries will finish with their pools of
\nIPV4 address bake.<\/p>\n

After that point, with the exception of special
\nreservations which have been made, there won’t be IPV4
\naddresses left for general description.<\/p>\n

Another way to look at the IPV4 address pool is this
\nunwith. It’s a pie chart which shows you the five RIRs
\nin blue on the right-hand side having allocated now the
\nmost of, nearly half of the IPV4 address base which is
\nin production, there is a large orange slice there of
\nIPV4 address space that was allocated earlier than the
\nRIRs. I think as we all know, were actually introduced
\n15 plus years ago in order to precisely address that
\nproblem of the way that addresses were being allocated.<\/p>\n

So there is a pool there of some address base which
\npotentially could be reclaimed, but we are more looking
\nforward to IPV6 as the long-term solution, because even
\nin terms of the total maximum amount of V4 that’s
\navailable, it’s not going to be enough for the type of
\nubiquitous global networking that we are looking forward
\nto.<\/p>\n

This chart, of course, keeps changing and we have
\njust recently had a further allocation of two more from
\nthe IANA, reducing the available pool to 18, which is
\nwell under 8 per cent of the total pool.<\/p>\n

The RIRs I think, Izumi my gave a very nice summary
\nbefore of what JPNIC, as one of the NIRs in the APNIC
\nregion has been involved with in terms of policies for
\nIPV4 address management and there are all sorts of
\ndiscussions which have been going on through the
\nregional policy forums about what we do, about IPV4
\naddress base as it is being consumed, what we do in
\nterms of allocating the last amounts. There are many
\ndifferent approaches, there have been proposals for hard
\nlandings, where we simply go on allocating until we get
\nto the bottom of the pool.<\/p>\n

Then ISPs will be forced to respond accordingly.<\/p>\n

There have been — there hasn’t been too much
\nserious consideration of a pure hard landing approach on
\nthe contrary, a number of soft landing approaches have
\nbeen taken and numerous measures which I won’t go into
\nhere, have been adopted, both globally and regionally,
\nto give us a soft landing, as the IPV4 address base runs
\nout.<\/p>\n

What we do know is that the exhaustion of the V4
\naddress base is absolutely inevitable. It’s coming up
\nin a couple of years time. IPV6 is supposed to be and
\nit should certainly be inevitable as the replacement.<\/p>\n

It’s the only solution to address exhaustion. We
\ncould get by without IPV6 through a whole lot of
\nmeasures to extend and take uncomfortable and
\ninefficient measures with respect to IPV4 utilisation,
\nbut IPV6 is where we need to be to continue the internet
\nin the form we know and normally love it today.<\/p>\n

IPV6 is under a spotlight, it has been for the past
\n18 months or so, specifically as we approach a deadline
\nthat we can see coming over the horizon that’s well
\nwithin business planning horizons and it’s something
\nthat we are all now working actively towards.<\/p>\n

This transition is process. It’s not an event, so
\nit’s expected to take at least 10 years before the last
\nof the IPV4 addresses in use come out of the network and
\nwe have a pure IPV6 network, but the critical date is in
\none to two years time. The critical period is when we
\nwill not have more IPV4 addresses to all date to new
\nnetworks.<\/p>\n

IPV6 address space management is actually very
\nsimilar to IPV6 address space management.<\/p>\n

The RIRs will continue to provide equitable
\nservices, globally to everyone who has a demonstrated
\nneed for IPV6 address space. It’s a proven, a stable
\nstructure that’s, as I said in my opening yesterday,
\nit’s supported the mainstream internet for the last 15
\nplus years, in stable and extremely rapid growth.<\/p>\n

The policies for IPV6 address space I’m glad to say
\nare pretty simple these days. We are able to allocate
\ngenerous amounts of address space, quite easily and
\nsimply to anyone who needs that.<\/p>\n

As I said, we have allocated at least 500 times the
\ntotal size of the IPV4 addresses into the IPV4 space in
\nterms of IPV6 and those policies are really unrelated to
\nthe challenge that we have of deploying IPV6 as
\na network.<\/p>\n

So the message here is that all of our efforts
\nreally have to go to the deployment of IPV6 in the core
\nof the network, that is the ISPs, the equipment vendors
\nwho support them, at the edges of the network, that is
\nthe users, everyone in this room, but also the
\nbusinesses who use the internet, either as content
\nproviders or as content users, the software developers
\nthat support them, governments have a very strong role
\nhere and particularly in the Asian Pacific region,
\ngovernments take a very strong interest in the
\ndevelopment of the internet, but through things like
\nnational policies and national facilitation of IPV6
\ndeployment, and also very importantly, through
\nprocurement policies, so that all government procurement
\nthat is going on right now, all tendering processes,
\nshould include IPV6 compliance as a must have in that
\npolicy and by doing so, in government, you will
\nencourage your providers to be thinking about IPV6.<\/p>\n

They don’t need to deliver it to you right now, but
\nthey need to tell you now how they are going to deliver
\nit within the next one to two years.<\/p>\n

The good message is and we heard it today from
\nIzumi, we heard in Indonesia, IPV6 is in active use, in
\nMalaysia IPV6 is in active use. India that IPV6 is
\nstarting to be used. It’s no locker experimental. ISPs
\nare rolling it out. We are probably not seeing as much
\nopen disclosure of plans for IPV6 deployment as we used
\nto, after all, the internet is a highly competitive
\nenvironment these days and people don’t necessarily say
\nwhat they are doing to their competitors.<\/p>\n

The main questions about IPV6 actually have answers.<\/p>\n

There’s this idea of is it a chicken or egg and who has
\nto start first. The first is, the fact is the eggs are
\nbeing laid, the chickens are clucking around in the IPV6
\ngarden right now.<\/p>\n

We had Google turns on IPV6 on its Youtube services,
\njust in February this year, and a chart from Monash
\nUniversity in Melbourne showed an immediate appearance
\nof 10 gigabites a day of traffic of IPV6 traffic, purely
\nas a result of that Youtube activation of IPV6.<\/p>\n

That might tell you how much students like to watch
\nYoutube, but on the other hand, it also shows you there
\nare an awful lot of computers out there that are ready
\nready to talk IPV6 as soon as therefore services ready
\nto deliver.<\/p>\n

As I say, it’s no longer a chicken or egg in terms
\nof the way IPV6 is going to happen. We used to ask
\nwhat’s the killer application for IPV6, what would be
\nthe new thing, a voice application, a peer to peer
\napplication, what’s the killer application. The answer
\nis simple. The internet is the killer you are not going
\nto have an internet the way, as I say, that we know and
\nlove it, after another 10 years or so, without that
\nbeing fully deployed on IPV6.<\/p>\n

So we here some really impressive plans happening at
\nthe moment, in terms of broadband deployment, for
\ninstance, the apeck tell has at the ministerial level,
\nhas adopted 2015 as a deadline for a goal for IPV6
\ndeployment, ubiquitously. That is not going to happen
\nunless IPV6 is also happening at the same time in 2015.<\/p>\n

The same goes for every likewise, every similar aim
\nthat we have for growth of the internet over the next
\ndecade.<\/p>\n

So some time in 2012 as an ISP us you might need
\nsome new addresses for your infrastructure. You are
\nonly going to get IPV6 for that infrastructure. You end
\nusers are going to start receiving IPV6 addresses for
\ntheir services.<\/p>\n

The enterprises and businesses who provide
\ninformation via websites are going to have to do so
\nthrough IPV6. Everyone is going to be affected so the
\nquestion of everyone, depending on how exactly you use
\nthe internet is exactly what are you going to need to
\ndo.<\/p>\n

That’s IPV6.<\/p>\n

I hope we may have some time for some further
\ndiscussion about it.<\/p>\n

On the internet governance question, Chris asked
\nsome good questions earlier about our approach as
\na panel to internet governance. The RIRs, we are open
\nup, bottom up, neutral, nonprofit multi-stakeholder
\norganisations. We pre-date ICANN by many years, but we
\nfully support ICANN itself financially and as
\nparticipants and at the policy level. We are satisfied
\nwith the way the IANA is operating at the moment under
\nICANN.<\/p>\n

We are also at the broader level, participating in
\nInternet Governance Forums and discussions very actively
\nand have done sis the WSIS days.<\/p>\n

We have members who have been involved as members on
\nthe working group on internet governance who are now
\ninvolved in the multi-stakeholder advisory group for the
\nInternet Governance Forum.<\/p>\n

We believe the IGF has a very important role to play
\nas the only forum in which all of these issues, not just
\nthe issues on this panel, but all the issues, in fact,
\nthat we have seen spoken about yesterday and today, the
\nIGF is the only place in which those things can happen
\nin the appropriate way and we support the continuation
\nof the IGF.<\/p>\n

Finally, on a historical note, Chris asked for what
\nexactly is a critical internet resource.<\/p>\n

I asked the same question on a number of mailing
\nlists back in November 2007.<\/p>\n

There is a link there, I won’t expect you to copy
\nthat down, but I found a lot of very interesting answers
\nfrom the 300 or so people who responded.<\/p>\n

This presentation will be on the meeting website for
\nyour reference later as well.<\/p>\n

Thanks very much.<\/p>\n

>>Chris Disspain: I commend that document to you, not just
\nbecause I was one of the people who responded, but
\nbecause it is actually a very valuable and useful
\nexplanation of what is critical internet resources.<\/p>\n

As is always the way with these things, we are of
\ncourse rapidly running out of time.<\/p>\n

However, let us see if there are any questions or
\ncomments from the floor.<\/p>\n

>>: Thank you very much. This is another Izumi.<\/p>\n

There is some misunderstanding on my end that I was
\nperhaps going to the panel, but besides that, the
\nquestion or comment is this critical internet resources
\nhas been managed very well by the so-called internet
\ncommunity and I hope it’s going to be.<\/p>\n

At the same time, we are facing some complex
\nsituation that IP addresses will have V4 and V6. In
\nJapan, I think it’s only problem in Japan because the
\ntelco, the NTT, deployed the IPV6 into their new NGN,
\nnext generation networks, which is already commercially
\navailable with the high-speed fibre to the home and
\nbusinesses.<\/p>\n

Sounds OK, but they employed IPV6 as an underlying
\nkey component, so that ISPs have interesting
\ninterconnection problem between telcos IPV6 and their
\nISPs own address for the source address and it’s
\nso-called multi-prefix problem and there has been hard
\nnegotiation with the ISPs and the telco and the
\ngovernment has some interesting intervention or not to
\nintervene, because the internet has been well managed by
\nthe internet community.<\/p>\n

I think this may not be applied to most other
\ncountries, if you do things right, but there is no
\nguarantee.<\/p>\n

What I heard also is to the home gateway problems,
\nthat the end users may have to switch their machines,
\nI mean, the routers if you want to use broadband, then
\nyou have to configure the way that most of the users
\nhave no idea what to do with.<\/p>\n

These are the area of highly complex things, not to
\nmention the domain names of the IDN. We may have not
\nexactly same, but in Japan at least, we are trying to
\nhave some open process for selecting the registries,
\nincluding the existing registry, but how do you really
\nopen up the wider sort of choices while maintaining some
\nkind of unity, which makes internet so innovative and
\nfree to grow.<\/p>\n

So these are the kind of challenge, what I hear
\nfrom, say, Paul and others at ITU and some other
\ngovernments very much interested in managing the IP
\nresources, for example, in the V6 and I hope that these
\nguys do understand our sort of long tradition of, you
\nknow, sharing all experiences, but in the world, there
\nare different views, maybe outside this room, there is
\na big task for us to really go outside to try involve
\nthem.<\/p>\n

So that’s where I think the IGF started and I’m
\nreally glad to see thises here, but also elsewhere as
\nwell.<\/p>\n

Thank you.<\/p>\n

>>: Sunny from APNIC. Just for the record for this forum,
\nthere’s two more \/8 blocks allocated this month for
\nAPNICso the global address pool is now down to 16, which
\nis less than 7 per cent.<\/p>\n

>>Chris Disspain: Can’t you guys keep up to date?
\nHonestly.<\/p>\n

>>: Narish Adjwani from Cyber Cafe Association of India.<\/p>\n

I agree with the speaker of Japan, that emerging
\ncountries have got a different scenario all together.
\nEvery month in India, we add 17 million mobile phones,
\nbut in case of internet, we are at a very low figure of
\nless than double digit achievement.<\/p>\n

For us, IPV6 absorption has to be through dual
\nstack. I personally feel there has to be a global
\nfunding, because internet business in emerging countries
\nis not something which is a viable business.<\/p>\n

It’s not a viable business for ISPs, it’s not
\na viable for people to go to IPV6 transition so fast.
\nI think somewhere there is a proportion of a global fund
\nwhere some kind of a help shall be extended to emerging
\ncountries to bring the viability to accept and adopt
\nIPV6.<\/p>\n

In my opinion, APNIC is an effective body, vis-a-vis
\nsomebody referring about ITU, to manage the resources,
\nbut, yes, APNIC shall now bring more participation from
\nthe countries as a CIR or NIR. That will make it more
\neffective in terms of implementing IPV6 transition more
\neffectively and more better.<\/p>\n

Thank you.<\/p>\n

>>: My name is Norbert Klein. I’m from Cambodia.<\/p>\n

I would like to make a observation which maybe is
\na little bit related to our discussion yesterday about
\nthe digital divide.<\/p>\n

The assumption with the introduction of IPV6 is that
\nthe governments or the major operators in the country
\nwill do it, but, again, the capacity in the different
\ncountries is very different and my question is come from
\nCambodia, I created the ccTLD many years ago
\nadministered it for some years, I cannot get any
\ninformation what is going on in Cambodia about IPV66.
\nMaybe Paul you know more, but I’m concerned about this
\nsomewhat digital divide question between different
\ncountries, how is IPV6 promoted in countries where the
\ncapacity is low? You spoke about the human resources
\nnecessary for it.<\/p>\n

How is this going to be done if there is not
\na strong initiative by the relevant government agency
\nresponsible for it?<\/p>\n

This is, I think, a very serious problem and I just
\nwanted to mention it.<\/p>\n

Thank you.<\/p>\n

>>Chris Disspain: Paul, do you want to briefly respond to
\nthat?<\/p>\n

>>Keith Davidson: Just a partial response to the question,
\nI think, for example, my organisation, internet NZ, has
\nparticipated with APNIC and other organisations in the
\nPacific region in particular to provide training and
\nsometimes equipment to smaller Pacific islands to enable
\nat least test bed experimentation with IPV6 and
\ncertainly we provide free access to technical support to
\nassist in those countries.<\/p>\n

Sometimes it’s not a question of government support,
\nbut a true bottom up technical assistance.<\/p>\n

>>Chris Disspain: It’s a combination of both, really, isn’t
\nit? It’s the only way it’s going to work.<\/p>\n

>>Paul Wilson: We do provide as much support as we possibly
\ncan within, as a fairly small organisation, in the
\ndeployment of IPV6 and the information that operators
\nneed in order to make best use of their IPV6 addresses,
\nto deploy addresses, to create an operational IPV6
\nnetwork.<\/p>\n

We have a small training team, a training team that
\ntravels very widely, that also works with others in the
\nregion and is training, for instance, in Indo-China,
\nincluding Cambodia, on a reasonably regular basis.<\/p>\n

There are information resources on the APNIC website
\nwhich would allow you to find out which IPV6 addresses
\nhave been allocated in Cambodia and to find out through
\nwhois, which ISPs it is that actually hold those
\naddresses.<\/p>\n

The information is there, but if you need, if
\nanyone, in fact, nor bet or for that matter anyone needs
\nany assistance, then there are public help desk lines
\navailable by email and phone at APNIC for any enquiries
\nat all.<\/p>\n

We are really very eager, particularly on the IPV6
\nfront, to help if we can, to Narish’s comments, I think
\nthey are really good comments, very relevant about the
\nstruggle that ISPs have, particularly in developing
\ncountries, with the pace of technological change, with
\nthe security challenges, with the technical human
\nresource retention challenges as the point that I made
\nyesterday.<\/p>\n

The internet is a highly competitive environment and
\nwhether you’re in a developing or a developed country,
\nI think the business challenges of investment and
\ncapital return for an ISP are really pretty dire these
\ndays.<\/p>\n

As I say, there’s huge benefits for the consumer in
\nthe way that the internet has developed, but there are
\nhuge challenges for businesses who are trying to do it.<\/p>\n

I think I would only say, again, that APNIC is
\na fairly small organisation and our mandate is in the
\nmanagement of IP addresses. We are very interested in
\nthe efficient and secure operation of an internet
\ninfrastructure, but the size and scale of the internet
\nacross the Asian Pacific is much bigger than any of us
\nin this room.<\/p>\n

The business challenges are deep and very meaningful
\nand I think we have many different approaches that would
\napply in different countries to solving specific needs.
\nI think as Narish said, the national strategies are very
\nimportant as well and I would hope that all governments
\nwould also be leading in creating a viable environment
\nfor ISPs to be operating successfully, competitively for
\nthe benefits of both business and the consumer end of
\nthat market.<\/p>\n

>>Chris Disspain: We are out of time. I’ll take one more
\nquestion.<\/p>\n

>>: I’m Atit Suriyankhun from Thailand.<\/p>\n

As IP addresses, especially IPV6 has a highly
\npotential to be in many times is personal identifiable
\ninformation, as a resource low day for and policy maker,
\nwhat is the social responsibility of the national
\ninternet registry and also what will be the recommendses
\nfrom the Internet Governance Forum regarding on the
\nprotection of the individual rights and also civil
\nsecurity?<\/p>\n

>>Chris Disspain: Thank you. Gosh, a very large question
\nwith a very short period of time.<\/p>\n

Just in dealing with your second question about the
\nInternet Governance Forum making recommendations, it
\ndoesn’t. It’s not a body that actually produces
\nrecommendations. It’s a body that discusses issues in
\nan open and public way.<\/p>\n

>>Valens Riyadi: For the IP version 6, in my experience,
\nit’s not only for networking, but some organisation also
\nadopt the IP version 6 system and numbering for
\nlogistics for some other social security number
\nsomething like that.<\/p>\n

In Australia, I knew that one big body applied for
\n\/20 for IP version 6 and I think they do it for not for
\nnetworking, but for more logistic and numbering.<\/p>\n

But in terms of human rights, privacy and any other
\nthings, I think it’s just the same with what we have
\nright now. It’s only a number and the policy is back to
\nthe government policy, not to the IP systems.<\/p>\n

>>Izumi Okutani: Regarding the role of national internet
\nregistry, in terms of national IPV6, I think there are
\ntwo areas that we can work on. One is smooth
\nallocations, then that would be something that we can
\nencourage and work with the community. Second, is raise
\nawareness. This is not something that we can do on our
\nown. We need to collaborate with our government and
\noperator bodies and that’s the thing, we have to pass
\nthe message and make sure that we collaborate and that’s
\nsomething that we can do as our NIR.<\/p>\n

>>Paul Wilson: Just two things. I’m not sure about the
\ncomment about the use of IP addresses for
\nidentification, because the role of IP addresses is for
\naddressing devices on the internet and the only purpose
\nfor which IP addresses are allocated by any RIR for any
\npurpose is for addressing devices on the internet.
\nThere have been all sorts of proposals for use of IPV6
\naddresses for other purposes, RFID identifiers and all
\nsorts of things but I can tell you absolutely that there
\nis no application that has ever been approved by any RIR
\nfor addressing which is not for use on the network.<\/p>\n

It is important to understand that.<\/p>\n

About the privacy issue, I think as I said, the
\ninternet is a global point to point network and you
\ncannot have a global point to point network without
\nglobal unique identifiers and of course, the role of the
\nglobal unique identifier is to identify an end point of
\nthe network and no provides some privacy issues that
\ncome with the network and can’t be solved by changing
\nsomething about the network without changing the network
\nitself.<\/p>\n

It’s like the telephone system. You expect to use
\nthe telephone system for a private call unless you
\nbelieve someone is listening in. The internet is the
\nsame. It’s then your responsibility or your ability,
\nI hope, to encrypt your communications and to carry out
\na private communications on the network, but it’s unwise
\nto try and overload the network itself with encryption
\nprivacy or mechanisms that sort out those applications
\nspecific ideas or concerns, because it takes away from
\nthe function of the network as a simple point to point
\nglobal datagram service which is exactly why the
\ninternet has succeeded today.<\/p>\n

>>Chris Disspain: We are going to finish the session now.
\nWould you please join me in thanking all of our
\npanellists.<\/p>\n

>>: Thank you. So now we will have the coffee break. Tea
\nand coffee will be served on my left-hand side outside
\nthe room.<\/p>\n

Today, open WiFi is available to all of you. Power
\nsockets are on the floor, so you can charge your laptop.<\/p>\n

Besides,.<\/p>\n

Just a reminder, for all our moderators, panellists,
\nspeakers and the honoured guests, we will have a VIP
\nroom for us today where coffee and tea will be served
\nand where you can have off line discussion there.<\/p>\n

If you go out through one door on my left, this is
\nthe first room along the corridor. So now we will be
\nback at 11.15.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Managing Critical Internet Resources ________________________________________________________________________ REAL TIME TRANSCRIPT: Managing Critical Internet Resources APrIGF 9:30-11:00, Wednesday 16 June 2010 Hong Kong DISCLAIMER: Due to the inherent difficulties in capturing a live speaker’s words, it is possible this realtime transcript may contain errors and mistranslations. An edited version of the realtime transcript which amends the inherent errors, … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “APrIGF Roundtable – June 16th, 2010: Session 1”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"class_list":["post-351","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/event.rigf.asia\/2010\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/351","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/event.rigf.asia\/2010\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/event.rigf.asia\/2010\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/event.rigf.asia\/2010\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/event.rigf.asia\/2010\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=351"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/event.rigf.asia\/2010\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/351\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":553,"href":"https:\/\/event.rigf.asia\/2010\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/351\/revisions\/553"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/event.rigf.asia\/2010\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=351"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}