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, will
be posted later. LLOYD MICHAUX and APrIGF accept no
liability for any event or action resulting from the
contents of this transcript.
________________________________________________________________________
>>: Good morning. Welcome back to the second day of the
Asian Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum round
table.
Yesterday was a great success. Let’s continue our
discussion today.
APRIGF hosting organisation includes APNIC, APTLD,
DotAsia Organisation, Freedom House, Hong Kong Council
of Social Service, the Hong Kong Federation of Youth
Groups, Hong Kong Internet Registration Corporation Ltd,
Hong Kong Representative of the Multistakeholders’
Advisory Group of the IGF, Internet Professional
Association, iProA, Internet Society Hong Kong, ISOC
Hong Kong, NetMission and the Office of the Honourable
Samson Tam, Legislative Councillor of Information
Technology Functional Constituency.
Also, we would like to thank our adviser, the Office
of the Government Chief Information Officer, OGCIO, to
help enable this event to happen.
To make this event successful, we would like to
thank our sponsors for their kind support, including our
grand sponsor, Microsoft and APNIC. Venue sponsor,
Cyberport, dinner sponsor, the Hong Kong Internet
Registration Corporation Ltd and our community sponsors,
APTLD, IMPACT, Japan Registry Services and Singapore
Internet Research Centre.
Now may I invite Mr Stephen Lau, chairman of the
APRIGF local host organising committee, to say a few
words for us.
>>Stephen Lau: Thank you. Good morning, ladies and
gentlemen.
I understand that we have some newcomers attending
this second day of this regional conference and to them,
may I express my welcome.
Just for background and also from the point of
continuity, this regional round table is to look at
through the eyes and understanding of regional experts
in internet governance, to come together to discuss
issues, specifically related and of topical interest to
Asian Pacific.
This is a regional round table organised really to
synchronise and to support the global IGF, which is the
global Internet Governance Forum responsible for
coordinated by the United Nations, which is held once
a year.
This is in fact in support of that particular event.
Once again, for continuity, yesterday we did discuss
cyber security issues, network confidence. We also look
at the openness issues, in terms of challenges and
criticalitieses, criticalness of an open internet
culture, where we actually look at some case studies
relating to freedom of the press in neighbouring
countries, including the Philippines, in particular
there was a very interesting presentation on a survey in
Hong Kong regarding the attitude and the activities
relating to households in Hong Kong, parents and
children.
We concluded yesterday with looking at the digital
divide in Asia, whereby number of economies including
Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, looking at how we
address the digital divide in the particular situation
in those countries, as well as also looking at how we
should address the digital divide, not only for the
developed nations or economies, but also in terms of the
developing nations.
We had some very interesting discussion, some very
interesting observations and some actions ahead and
we’ll continue today with a number of the other critical
issues, including this particular one, which is to do
with managing critical internet resources.
Followed by looking at the issue of our diversity,
in terms of challenges and opportunities, with regard to
ID and internationalised domain names.
After lunch, we’ll look at emerging issues, what are
the emerging issues with regard to the advance in
technology and also the advance in terms of application
of such technology, and what are the implications to our
society and to our individual rights.
We will conclude with a very appropriate — we will
conclude very appropriate session on the way forward,
when we look at the mandate of the IGF, looking at if
and when IGF most probably when IGF will go forward, how
would IGF be organised or be modified in terms of its
mandate, in terms of its modus operandi, as well as
looking at the issue of this is the first attempt to
look at IGF issues in the region. It’s the first
attempt. And we would like to look at and get your
input and views on how we actually would organise
ourselves to ensure that there could be and there should
be sustainable platform upon which such regional forum
could be conducted, how it should be organised and so
all in all, look forward to the second day, very
interesting discussions and we look forward to your
input as well as the excellent knowledge to be expressed
by the moderators, as well as the panellists.
Thank you.
>>: Thank you, Mr Lau.
The first session of the day is about managing
critical internet resources.
May I now invite Mr Chris Disspain, Chief Executive
Officer, of AU Domain Administration to start the
session for us.
>>Chris Disspain: Thank you. Good morning everybody.
Thank you all vul Mr For coming, especially as today I’m
told is a public holiday here, so dragon boat racing, so
for those of you who have sacrificed that to be here,
thank you very much.
The way it is going to work this morning is each one
of our panellists is going to provide you with a brief
presentation and then we’re going to throw open
discussion to the floor.
I would like to start by asking each one of you to
briefly introduce yourselves.
>>Izumi Okutani: Good morning everybody. My name is Izumi
Okutani. I am from JPNIC, which is a national internet
registry in Japan, managing IP address space.
>>Keith Davidson: I’m Keith Davidson from New Zealand
internet NZ, the.NZ domain name, registry operator and
here today representing APTLD, the Asia Pacific Top
Level Domain Association of which I’m chair.
>>Valens Riyadi: Good morn, I’m Valens Riyadi from
Indonesia ISP association. We are national internet
registry in Indonesia, for the IP address.
>>Hirofumi Hotta: Hi, good morning, my name is Hirofumi
Hotta. I’m with JPRS, which is the domain name registry
for.JP Japan. Thank you for giving me opportunity to be
here.
>>Shariya Haniz Zulkifli: Good morning, my name is Shariya
Haniz Zulkifli. I’m from .my domain registry also from
the ccTLD community, we are the administrator for the
.my top level domain.
>>Paul Wilson: Good morning, I’m Paul Wilson, the head of
APNIC, the Asia Pacific Network Information Centre,
which is the regional address registry for the Asian
Pacific.
>>Chris Disspain: Thank you very much, everybody.
Given the definition of critical internet resources,
which our organisers have very kindly provided for us,
written here in the agenda, you’ll see that critical
internet resources covers a very broad range of issues.
A few of the ones that we’re going to try and cover
this morning include the role of ccTLDs and their
interrelationship with each other and with ICANN,
stakeholders’ roles and responsibilities, which is
where, to a degree, the IVP4 and 6 discussion sits and
also the use and in some cases, abuse of the term
critical internet resources and why, for over certain
years now, it has been such a hot topic.
Any one of these, of course, could fill an entire
session, but hopefully we’ll manage to cover them all,
at least a little bit.
We are going to hear — I’m the ccTLD manager for
.AU for Australia, but you are going to come from other
ccTLD managers this morning, so I won’t talk about that.
I just want to mention briefly to things.
On the IPV4, IPV6 issue, the technical challenges
faced by ccTLDs and gTLDs are readily manageable.
Domain name resolution is something that we obviously
have to make sure works and there need to be some
software and hardware changes. We need to accept
records and there need to be some administrative tools
behind the scenes but it’s actually the policy
imperatives that are critical and these are clearly the
responsibility of government.
ISPs need to seek IPV6 allocations and then they
need to be ready to offer those to their customers, but
there’s in commercial imperative. They can’t promise
a faster, a better or a more reliable internet and they
probably can’t charge a premium. Some IPSs perceive
that they have adequate reserves of IPV4 addresses, so
why bother?
To effect change to IPV6, therefore, this needs to
be another driver.
That could be financial or taxisation subsidies, it
could be best practice leadership, it could be mandating
mandating compliance deadlines, but any one of those is
clearly the role of governments. It’s not the role of
ccTLDs, it’s not the role of regional internet
registries, not ICANN, it’s the role of governments to
provide the policy push to embrace IPV6.
Finally, just a brief observation on the overall
theme of this session, the management of critical
internet resources, the term critical internet resources
first came prominence in the WSIS process which led, in
turn, to the IGF.
Seven years on, I’m still unshire if we yet have
a collective understanding on what critical internet
resources means and how we manage it.
At several IGFs I have moderated sessions on this
topic and they have led to active and vigorous debate.
Sadly, however, there are some stakeholders who have
not adopted and in fact levelly disregarded the current
definition, because it doesn’t meet their long-term
goals.
At the risk of repeating the obvious and to set us
off on this discussion this morning, critical internet
resources broadly refers to the administration of DNS,
IP addressing and route service system, ICANN and so on.
The development of technical standards, something
which the IETF has been doing a magnificent job of for
many, many years and the necessary interconnection,
infrastructure, innovatevation and con ver gent
technologies and it’s in that last part where we would
expect collaboration and leadership from governments.
It’s there the policy promotion for IPV6 logically
sits.
With that, I’ll pass across to Izumi.
>>Izumi Okutani: I would like to discuss how from our
registry’s perspective, we collaborate with our
government and try to do what we can within the role of
the registry.
This is just a very brief introduction.
I think most of you are aware the principles of IP
address management, so I will skip the details here.
What I would like to mention here is that we define
what should be done in IP address management in IP
address policy.
Internet registries like RIRs our regional internet
registries, including APNIC and also national internet
registries, which is where I am from, these are the
registries that distribute and IP address base, based on
our address policies that are defined and policies that
develop RIR region and responsibilities of APNIC and
JPNIC is provide our basic registry function which is
our core business and we distribute address space and
register what we distribute.
In addition to this, we also have what we call
policy development and this part is very important,
because this is how we define, how we distribute address
space. So if this is not adequately defined, then we
will have problems in distributing the address space to
meet the needs of the operations, services, et cetera.
This is what we have been doing lately, but in
addition to this, we also have several activities for
the development of the internet and because we’re now
facing the time of IPV4 exhaustion, I would like to see
what we should do in each of these functions.
For registry function, I don’t think there is
nothing much we should do in addition, simply carry on
with smooth and fair allocation based on address policy.
However, in terms of policy development, we must
ensure that this minimum confusion over how to
distribute the last piece of IPV for address block and
also for the people who would like to prepare and deploy
IPV6, we must ensure that there are no barriers in
policies to be able to receive the V6 space when the
people who need it want to request for the space to
registry.
These are the areas that we must focus in policy
development.
Also, not just this, but we must also make sure that
the whole industry is aware of what’s going to happen
and before address space will be exhausted and we must
do a lot of outreach and raise awareness within the
industry.
Registry function is very simple. So I will skip
explanation on this part.
What we do in policy development in Asian Pacific
region and also in JPNIC is that the policy itself is
defined by APNIC policy forum and anyone can join. It
is open participation. If people feel that there are
any issues in receiving address space, they can given
put, make a proposal and then if it reaches consensus,
general agreement within the community, it will be
reflected as APNIC policy.
In Japan, we follow the policy of Asian Pacific
region, APNIC policies, so we don’t have our own policy
that is totally different, but we have our own policy
forum and it’s discussed in Japanese and we share
discussions, what’s going on in Asian Pacific region and
given put from the Japanese community and vice versa.
Then what is actually reflected and discussed as
APNIC policy, we also reflect it in Japanese policy, in
Japanese, in Japan.
That’s how the policy development works.
Some examples of policy developments in the past are
there have been several policies passed to prepare for
the IPV4 exhaustion which is defining how the last piece
of IPV4 address block should be distributed at IANA to
RIR level so these two are the policies that define how
we should distribute the last piece of IPV4 address
block.
We also have policy to make sure that there will be
no confusion in managing who is the authentic holder of
IPV4 address space. Once registry runs out of its free
pool. This is also very important.
There has been a couple of policies that has been
passed to remove any barriers in receiving IPV4 address
space, for example, there has been some people felt it’s
very hard to receive IPV6 allocations, so criteria has
been changed to make it easier and also recently, there
has been policy that has been passed for simplified IPV6
distribution for those people with IPV4 space, so
existing IPV6 holders can easily receive IPV6 address
space without too much problems.
So these are the areas that has been focused and
discussed and I feel that key measures for issues has
been more or less passed in policy and there might be
minor adjustments for improvements still to go, but then
most of the major issues has been addressed in policy
area at this stage.
In addition to this, this has been regular
responsibilities of internet registries, but we are now
focusing to make sure that the community is aware that
IPV6 address pool will be running out in year 2011,
which is very soon.
So I’m sure APNIC has its own IVP6 project to
conduct outreach activities, but we also have set up
task force on IPV4 address exhaustion in Japan and JPNIC
is participating as its member, because the needs within
Japan, one country, is very different from what’s
necessary within Asian Pacific region as a whole.
The basic idea of the task force is that 21 industry
bodies and MIC, Ministry of Internal Affairs and
Communications, are participating in all these different
industry players within Japan from operators, community,
research community, IPV6 promotion counsel and upper
layer people, like focusing on contents or UNIX users,
all these people are getting together to collaborate and
share issues in each layer of the industry and also two
make sure that the message is passed throughout various
sectors, within the industry.
And the objective is to raise awareness of the
situation as Japan as a whole and also to take
comprehensive measure which is difficult to handle by
individual organisations, even if you’re aware as
a company that this is happening, it’s very difficult to
take measures, for example, maybe the budget is too
tight to start — to make technical testing, to address
IPV6 technical issues, or it’s very difficult to set
a milestone on what to move at which stage.
So what the task force is doing is, for example,
provide a model case milestone for pro suggestion to
IPV6 for each stakeholder, for example, if you’re an
ISP, at this stage, you should be ready for start
testing or provide technical trainings to your staff and
get ready for commercial service.
Or we also conduct regular surveys of awareness and
so that we can monitor what is how the progress is,
within Japan.
We also provide a test bed, so that anyone can join
and join and connect the equipment and test for free.
So this is example of milestone of test case for
ISP.
You can confirm this from the URL of IPV6 exhaustion
task force.
The phase we are at this stage is right over here
and we are at this stage of testing and also giving
technical training to the staff.
This is the survey result of awareness of
preparation in Japan. We conducted two surveys and
awareness in general is very high. Even with the first
survey, about 80 per cent of the people are aware that
before address space will be exhausted, but in the
second survey, the percentage is raised to 6 per cent as
a result of our promotion and seminars.
What are the measures that you plan too take?
Majority of the people mention IPV6, but interestingly,
quite a number of people also mention not and in the
survey the people of the has increased from 40 per cent
to 49 per cent, which was an interesting result.
These are the things that we do within Japan as
a national measure and as industry as a whole.
In summary, we collaborate a lot with APNIC and
policy area, but then we also take our own measure
within Japan to raise awareness and address issues
towards IPV4 exhaustion.
Thank you.
>>Keith Davidson: I think the topic of critical internet
resources is usually or usually leads down a path of
discussion about ICANN and its functions and ICANN’s
functions are to administer the root servers of the
internet, the DNS, that’s the domain name system, and IP
addressing and it’s a relatively narrow set of criteria
about the internet’s unique identifiers and I think
there’s an aspect of critical internet resources that
often isn’t talked about and should be and Chris alluded
to that insofar as his raising the idea of the IETF, the
Internet Engineering Task Force, and its role in
developing the technical standards for the operation of
the internet.
Interestingly, the name used for the policies that
are developed by the IETF are called RFCs, requests for
comment. There’s an interesting background as to how
the word RFC arose, but in historical terms, in the
1970s, when the internet was still the preserve of US
military and academics, the only way to have
instructions or manuals was to have a field manual,
a military field manual, that said you will do this, you
won’t do that, et cetera.
So the academics who were developing the protocols
for the internet decided that they would invent this new
phrase of a request for comment, which would be
a statement of how a protocol might work or the
operation of a standard on the internet and it would be
published and peer reviewed.
That process continues today and it is a critical
part of how the internet operates.
There seems to have been some debate in the past in
Internet Governance Forums over what the status of what
an RFC is today.
It’s not a binding public policy document or
requirement, but by and large, the operators of the key
and unique aspects of the internet abide by the
principles established in the RFCs.
Generally, that’s proved to be quite a satisfactory
several regulatory model by which peers will assess and
bring you back into line should you breach those
regulations.
It’s an interesting concept in terms of the
establishment of policies for the operation of a global
network.
By and large, the RFCs do tend to confine themselves
to technical standards, but there are occasions where
the RFCs do attempt to assert public policy and most
particularly, for the country code top level domain
managers in the world, there is RFC1591, which deals
with the delegation and redelegation of country codes.
By and large, the country code managers around the
world try to subscribe to the best practice concepts
that are contained in that document.
Onto the organisation that I am representing here
today, that’s the Asia Pacific Top Level Domain
Association, it is one of four regional country code top
level domain associations. Our world is divided into
five regions. The logical North America, South America,
Africa and Europe and the rest of us called Asian
Pacific. The country codes since our region extends
from the Middle East, Jordan and so on, through to Fiji,
Pitcairn islands and from the arctic to the antarctic,
so it’s an enormous region and the organisation itself
is a membership based organisation, primarily membership
is for the ccTLD managers, from the region, and around
half of the 72 country code in the region are members of
the organisation.
We do have associate members as well, so generic top
level domain organisation like DotAsia that operate in
the region, members and great supporters of ours and so
are a number of suppliers and providers of services.
Our region is incredibly diverse. It covers
countries the size of China, with a population of
1.2 billion, down to Pacific islands including new way,
with a population of 900 people.
We have the richest and poorest countries and
economies in the world. We have an incredibly diverse
range of cultural, political, religious and language
communities.
Within that, the ccTLDs within the region, there are
some run entirely by governments, some are run
completely at arm’s length from their government, and
some have a mixture of some form of public/private
partnership.
Some of our ccTLD members deal on a very narrow
brief within the confines of RFC1591, in terms of
looking after the country code management and the
policies for that only, others apply a much broader
brief and participate in a wide range of other
activities, including outreach and so on.
Generally, country code managers are left to decide
what they should be doing in terms of satisfying their
local internet communities.
The APTLD organisation meets to discuss issues at
the operational and governance layers of the DNS
operations, generally to share good practice ideas and
enhancements to the security and stability of our own
country code operations.
We participate in a lot of training and we take
leadership roles in a number of issues, including things
like disaster planning and recovery for registries and
more recently, the IDN, the internationalised domain
name fast-track process within ICANN which is currently
going live rapidly as country codes are rolling out own
language, own script ccTLDs.
I think Chris mentioned and in his opening that it’s
not the role of ccTLDs to deploy IPV6. However, I think
our ccTLD managers in our region and elsewhere have
taken some leadership in terms of deploying IPV6 within
the registries, despite the fact that carriers and
service providers may not be offering V6 connectivity,
we have done it to make the point that we need to be
seen to be deploying the next level of technologies or
next generation of technologies.
I think at this stage, about half of the APTLD,
ccTLD members have deployed IPV6. I’m not aware of any
of our members who are not actually in the process of
deploying, so we’re all on the path to our commitment to
IPV6.
Around 75 per cent of our members are also members
of the CCNSO. That’s the country codename supporting
organisation within ICANN, but there’s no requirement
for our members to be ICANN participants. In fact, we
provide a forum entirely neutrally from ICANN for our
members to discuss their business.
In broad terms, I think we support the
multi-stakeholder bottom up consensus based
decision-making forum that ICANN provides and we
participate considerably in inputs to ICANN on a wide
range of issues that relate to the operation of ccTLDs.
We also have expressed in the past our support for
the RIR model within and outside of I can as the
appropriate model for IP address delegation and
management.
APTLD hasn’t been particularly involved with the IGF
as an organisation, although a large number of our
members have participated throughout the WSIS process
and in the Internet Governance Forums that have occurred
in the last four years.
But as a partial sponsor of this event, I think it’s
an indication that we are keen to engage in greater
debate on aspects of the Internet Governance Forum.
In summary, just really a personal observation about
the critical internet resources and governments role,
perhaps, in that.
It occurs to me that RFC1591, which was authored in
1993, at a time prior to the release of the worldwide
web, so when the internet was still a playground for
technical folks rather than what it is today,
governments had no particularly strong interest in
controlling or setting policies for ccTLDs.
Today, where we are dependent on our country code
for domain names that offer banking services, share
trading, eBays and other things, it’s irresistible for
governments to want to be interested in that space.
But I think as a consequence of that, governments
also need to be aware and cautious that the internet
developed as a free and open form of technology that was
very disruptive, because there were no rules and in
a way for the future, governments paying too much
attention to the technology and trying to second guess
every aspect of policy for the operation of the
internet, can stifle the innovatevation and development
of the internet.
So if you are like me and believe the internet is
still a fledgling technology and has massive potential
for the future, in terms of greater developments, then
be careful in your approach to try and make the internet
a safer place, but don’t try and stifle the
innovatevation and ensure that what you do preserves the
end to end principles and the open access nature of this
network.
That’s it from me. Thank you.
>>Valens Riyadi: I talk on behalf of Indonesian ISP
association. One of our division in the organisation is
national internet registry or NIR. We do allocation of
IP address and other internet resources, like routing IS
number and everything.
Besides the NIR, we do also hosting co-location and
also several trainings regarding the networkings and
also the IP management. Usually we do in collaboration
with the APNIC.
By May 2010, we have allocated IP address to 200
small ISPs and several hundred other for corporate,
government and university.
The internet industry in Indonesia is quite unique.
We have more than 200ISP spread all over the country.
We have allocated about 10 million cyber address and
by June 2010, there are 5.6 million IP address
advertised on our internet exchange.
We monitor that there is a spike of usage in IP4
because on December 2009, it’s only 4 million IP and
by June 2010, it’s 5.6 million, so a lot of company and
ISP try to get the IP version 4 before that line that we
don’t have any IP version 4 any more.
This is the statistics, how from year by year, the
IP4 is allocated quite faster.
>From year by year, the IP is allocated faster and
I think the date of the IP4 is faster than maybe the
calculation.
I’m quite happy that the IP6 migration in Indonesia
is, I think we are doing quite good job, because the
allocation is from date by date is getting higher, like
for 2010, we we allocate more than 800,000 block. One
block is 64.
Last week, we have an IP in Bali, Indonesia. The
government declare and also the telco also declared the
national IP version 6 immigration road map.
The big telco have to be IP version 6 ready by end
of 2010 and all other ISP by end of 2011.
So I hope that Indonesia will be ready for the IP
version 6 before 2012.
Can be offered to public by all ISPs by 2012.
We have a discussion with the government also that
to push that all equipment imported to Indonesia have to
be IP version 6 ready by 2011.
Also, the president of IP version 6 forum, last week
also in.
Host the immigration process in Indonesia, in terms
of other countries in Asia, and I’m quite happy that
from the several statistics in Indonesia, it’s in the IV
version 6 migration, of course after Australia and
Japan.
There are two different statistics here. One from
the BGP monitoring and another from the six S. Also
(six S. Also displayed that Indonesia have a quite good
job in the IP version 6 migration, because the visible
address is more than, almost 50 per cent from the IP
allocated in Indonesia, IP version 6 allocated is 55
blocks and the visible address is 26, so it’s almost
50 per cent of the allocated IP is visible in the
internet.
You can see other country, I think, the percentage
is usually only 20, 25 per cent.
This is not in my organisation, but I have to inform
you that one of the problem we face in Indonesia is
about the .ID domain.
The .ID domain is not IP version 6 ready yet right
now. APJII works together with them for it to be ready
because we need already the domain ready in version 6
and also we have sort of redelegation problem.
That’s all from me. Thank you.
>>Chris Disspain: Thank you, we’ll take questions at the
end.
>>Hirofumi Hotta: Thank you.
Today, let me briefly talk about the community
cooperation in operating and securing domain name
system.
The core functions of a domain name registry can be
categorised into data entry function and names server
function.
Data entry function is data management, in a sense.
Registry assures every registered domain name to be
unique on the internet.
If a domain name is applied for registration,
registry confirms that the same domain label is not
registered. After it’s confirmed, the domain name is
registered in a registry database, along with
information such as registrant’s name, technical
contact, expiration date and so on.
You can see part of such information by whois.
Name server is a part of domain name system, usually
called DNS.
Registry operates a name server containing the list
of domain names that the registry manages.
By doing so, domain names become available for email
and URL and so forth.
Registry is of course responsible for those core
functions as in the previous slide. In addition,
registries do other activities, maim related to domain
names and internet as a whole.
For example, our company JPRS, does these activities
on the slide. The first one is stable and reliable
operation of JP domain name registry system and JP DNS.
These are the core functions and core activities, as
I said, in the previous slide.
Raising security of domain names and DNS.
Since the DNS is not operated solely by domain name
registry, raising its security needs, cooperation among
relevant players. I will touch on this later.
Participation in national drills against cyber
attacks.
This drill was supported by Japanese government.
ISPs and other entities including JPRS participate in
this drill.
For example, assuming a case when all JP DNS servers
stop, I had this, but if in the case, how ISPs and
others should communicate and behave was discussed and
simulated in this drill.
Research on domain names and a registries, promoting
IDN aware environment in order for IDNs to be used more
widely, providing information about the internet and DNS
to various communities, for example, we are distributing
a cartoon booklet showing how the internet works.
Providing information about activities of ICANN,
IETF to the community through periodicals similar
through and web and so on.
And participating in standardisation or making
guidelines related to domain names and DNS in IETF,
ICANN and other forums.
Sharing experiences with other registries in forums
such as APTLD, as Keith described.
And operation of M root server in cooperation with
wide project.
I think this is unique among ccTLD registries.
As you they know, 13 root servers are operated by 12
operators. One of them called M-root server had been
operated by Wide project, which is a research project in
Japan.
In 2005, Wide project and JPRS decided to enter into
joint operation of M-root server, by utilising JPRS
experience and resource in DNS operation.
This figure illustrates how various players come
into a picture of DNS operation. Such players include
ICANN, IANA root servers, domain strange registry,
sometimes called domain name holder or owner and DNS
provider system division of a company, which operates
name server on behalf of the registrant.
Sometimes the individual registrant plays this role
by himself or by herself.
ISPs and manufacturer of equipment such as home
routers and of course internet users in general.
This is a little bit different from the last slide.
This figure last DNSSEC is an abbreviation of — DNS
security extension, which raises security of DNS by
adding some information to DNS. I don’t go into details
here, but additional activities for DNSSEC are shown in
red arrows and red chargeters nor slide.
Basically, the players are the same as in the usual
DNS operation in the previous page.
As shown in two previous slides, registry is not the
only player who can make DNS work properly. So
collaboration among the players are essential for the
internet to work properly.
To make the collaboration better, JPRS does these
kind of activities.
I listed three of them. Hosting DNS operators group
Japan. This group is for sharing DNS related
information, such as software and operation.
The members exchange knowledge and experience and
discuss in pursuing better operation.
The members are from DNS related entity as well as
academic researchers.
The second one is hosting DNSSEC Japan. In short,
this is DNSSEC version of DNS operators group, the first
one.
The third one, leading cooperation among players in
testing and preparing for DNSSEC.
Since introduction of DNSSEC is not an easy task for
each player in terms of knowledge, DNS readiness of
equipment and software, system research and operational
experience.
Raising knowledge and literacy of how it works and
how we can make it work is essential for smooth
introduction of DNSSEC.
So JPRS leads DNSSEC testing project consisting of
relevant players in order for the community to observe
mature preparation of DNSSEC environment before registry
everything.
Thank you.
>>Shariya Haniz Zulkifli: Good morning, again.
First, thank you and I think congratulations to the
organising committee for hosting the very first regional
IGF in Asia.
It’s a real privilege to be here.
As I mentioned earlier, I’m from .my domain
registry, so my presentation really on.my experience as
far as IPV6 is concerned.
We felt that as the ccTLD administrator, it was
critical for .my to be IPV6 enabled as quickly as
possible and to be one of the pioneers, as far as this
initiative was concerned. So we set about doing this
a couple of years back.
We launched myDNSIPV6 in 2008 for all eight of our
categories. Essentially this means that our network
infrastructure, as well as our primary name servers were
IPV6 enabled. Customers could register IPV6 data via
registration or modifications.
At that time, which were the 127th TLD out of 296,
somewhere halfway down the list. I believe it’s about
150 ccTLD operators today.
We’re also the cochair of the Asian Pacific IPV6
task force and we are a member of the national IPV6
working group, which is very active and it’s really
picking up now that the timelines are drawing nearer.
JPNIC pointed out 2011 and I think APNIC has said 2012.
Last year, our IPV6 research website obtained the
IPV6 forum logo.
So we are happy about that.
We are also participating in the national ISP audit,
so this is compulsory for all ISPs in Malaysia to go
through a IPV6 compliance audit.
We provide the venue for the look up class test.
By the way, I will be obviously leaving these slides
with the secretariat and there’s more detailed
information if you have time and you’re interested, you
can look at it later.
Some of the issues that I would like to share with
everyone today is that to date, IPV6 network and IPV6
addresses are processed by our ISPs still on a request
basis.
So it’s not really part of the commercial every day
service that they’re offering to new customers. You
actually have to make a special request and they will
process it separately.
Some of the feedback that we have received is that
this is actually tied to the fourth bullet, so that the
demand just isn’t there.
But I think for those of you who are starting out,
you really have to take a good look to see whether it’s
a chicken and egg situation.
There’s no demand for IPV6, because IPV6 is not so
readily available.
So take a closer look. I do think that there has to
be a strong push by ISPs to make IPV6 very readily
available.
We also had interesting experience as far as how
equipment is concerned.
One or two were not IPV6 enabled at all, which meant
that we had to buy new equipment and this eats into your
timelines and your deployment time.
I’m raising this again because of the 2011/2012
issue, so when you’re coming up with your timeframes,
please allocate this purchasing time into your process.
Two years ago, when we were buying this equipment,
it took even longer, because it wasn’t that readily
available then.
I’m sure it’s a different story today.
Capacity building remains very important. It is
critical to get IPV6 trained engineers. Paul Wilson
used this word foot soldiers. That’s absolutely right.
These people really have to be well equipped with IPV6
knowledge in order to carry out this transition and
migration process smoothly.
I have an illustration of this a little bit later.
But not only for the engineers, those who are
actually rolling up their sleeves, carrying out the
work. Decision makers also have to be well informed
about what’s happening with IPV6 globally and
regionally.
I touched on low demand issue later. You have to
take a close look and really find out what are the real
issues on the ground.
We had a connectivity incident very recently. This
happened in May, when we were enabling IPV6 addresses
for our secondary servers.
We got a quick call from IANA, so thanks to them for
reacting very promptly, and they told us that there was
no international connectivity through IPV6. Locally, it
was fine, but we were not being seen internationally.
Our ISP corrected this very quickly, but again this
just strengthens the point about capacity building and
trying to get to that stage where IPV6 is just a part of
every day technical life.
Just some last words.
The project really took us two years to do, so we
started really very late 2006, early 2007 and we
launched it in 2008.
We do have just a few more items to clear. Our
secondary name servers were IPV6 enabled very recently.
We are currently working on our website. We have
our email and whois servers to go.
As far as .my domain registry is concerned, we do
think that that is it, as far as IPV6 deployment is
concerned from the ccTLD perspective.
Of course, from the national perspective, from the
whole ecosystem, there’s a lot more that needs to be
done and I’ll touch on that just a little bit later.
Some technical information. The team wanted me to
highlight this, that they really liked the dual stack
approach. They were tabling with tunnelling and
translation and for a knowledge technical person, for
me, that has completely different connotations, but I’m
here to tell you that they really enjoy doing the dual
stack approach.
I would like to press on the coordinated approach.
This is a national initiative and it was very
interesting to listen to JPNIC and Indonesia’s
perspectives on this.
Malaysia does have strong policies to encourage the
adoption of IPV6. What really is required is consistent
and strong follow through. There really has to be
highly interactive dialogue between all parties and
industry players. So in Malaysia, we do have the IPV6
working group. This is set up under the Malaysian
technical standards forum.
It is very activity and it comprises mostly of ISPs,
a few universities, the regulator is there and so are we
and some other players. What I’m really happy to report
is they have also created a subcommittee with hosting
companies on board, so more and more players are coming
to the table, more and more information is being
circulated and everyone is starting to understand
everyone’s perspectives a lot easier.
So you get to hone in on that demand issue and see
what needs to be corrected at your own respective
levels.
We only have 200 .my domain names with IPV6 DNS.
This is really tiny. We have about 100,000 .my domain
names in total.
So you have to be really creative. As a ccTLD
administrator on how to continue pushing raising
awareness on IPV6.
Some of the initiatives that we have is that we have
a website competition coming up.
It would be a bonus if your website is IPV6 enabled
and offers other DNS related technologies, for example,
DNSSEC.
Another thing that I heard from .NZ is that they
have actually got special pages on their registrars who
are offering IPV6 services, so this is certainly
something that I’m going to take back, just what are the
ways that we can recognise or award other parties, other
industry players, who are making an initiative to push
IPV6 out.
But you will face a patchy environment. I do know,
as we were shouting out trying to encourage everyone to
get on board the IPV6 bandwagon, we do have these
hosting providers coming up to us and saying, but some
of these hosting service operations are not IPV6
enabled. So there’s a little bit of this jig of two
steps forward, one step back.
But we are moving along.
As a final point, it’s really important to keep
raising awareness about this.
I think as a ccTLD registry, we can only do so much,
but at any given opportunity, where we are able to talk
about IPV6, we try very hard to spread the message.
Thank you.
>>Paul Wilson: Thanks very much, Chris, and thanks to
everyone for being here.
It’s my privilege to finish up the presentations
here and hopefully leave some time for questions.
I’m going to be talking about IPV6 and the role of
the RIRs.
I think it’s worth talking and referring initially
to reviewing what are the fundamentals of the internet
very briefly that have led to its success and Keith gave
a nice summary earlier of the RSC system, which is tied
up with the internet and the evolution of the internet
with an open network with open standards. When the
internet came along, there were plenty of competitors to
the internet and they all fell by the wayside. That was
no accident. It succeeded because of its openness and
it may seem surprising to say that, but the internet and
it’s infrastructure level is a pretty dumb network.
It’s a simple network and that allowed it to be layered
through a layered networking model over almost any
carrier technology that you could find, whether it was
modems or ethernets or anything that came along.
It spread quickly and imbecame this incredible
platform for competition and for innovation with huge
benefits to consumers, as I think everyone here knows,
as active internet users.
That layered model can be shown as a sort of an
hourglass here of protocols and in the earlier days, we
had, in a simplified form, we had a simple network layer
in the middle, which was envisaged generally with
carrying data and video and voice and above that,
various applications, including the internet as one of
those applications, and beneath that, a bunch of
different infrastructure technologies.
But it’s important to understand that that’s really
changing now and that middle layer of the network is
simplifying even further down to just IP and so the
internet itself, the IP protocol, is now or if not now,
it soon will be carrying absolutely everything that you
want to seasoned over any wire at all.
The internet has gone from being an application to
actually being infrastructure. It still runs over
anything, so that you have, whether it’s cable or 3G or
4G or fibre into the home, any technology you like will
carry IP and anything you want to do on a network will
be carried over IP. It’s important to see that as both
a fantastic testimony to the success of the internet,
but also has great implications for the fact that that
network is still growing very rapidly and it will
continue to grow through the type of broadband and
mobile deployments that we are seeing.
IP requires IP addresses and of course, so far, the
predominant IP on the internet has been IPV4 and the
IPV4 addresses, as you would know by now, are running
out.
The chief scientists of APNIC Jeff Houston has been
producing this chart through automatic software on
a daily basis for quite some years now and it tracks,
just using a straightforward numerical projection of
what the lifetime of IPV4 is expected to be. As we
heard before, there are a couple of key dates. The
first one in not much more than a year from now is when
the IANA allocates its last/8 or large block of IPV46.
Some year or so later, 14 months later, according to
the current projection, the RARs will finish. That is
the regional registries will finish with their pools of
IPV4 address bake.
After that point, with the exception of special
reservations which have been made, there won’t be IPV4
addresses left for general description.
Another way to look at the IPV4 address pool is this
unwith. It’s a pie chart which shows you the five RIRs
in blue on the right-hand side having allocated now the
most of, nearly half of the IPV4 address base which is
in production, there is a large orange slice there of
IPV4 address space that was allocated earlier than the
RIRs. I think as we all know, were actually introduced
15 plus years ago in order to precisely address that
problem of the way that addresses were being allocated.
So there is a pool there of some address base which
potentially could be reclaimed, but we are more looking
forward to IPV6 as the long-term solution, because even
in terms of the total maximum amount of V4 that’s
available, it’s not going to be enough for the type of
ubiquitous global networking that we are looking forward
to.
This chart, of course, keeps changing and we have
just recently had a further allocation of two more from
the IANA, reducing the available pool to 18, which is
well under 8 per cent of the total pool.
The RIRs I think, Izumi my gave a very nice summary
before of what JPNIC, as one of the NIRs in the APNIC
region has been involved with in terms of policies for
IPV4 address management and there are all sorts of
discussions which have been going on through the
regional policy forums about what we do, about IPV4
address base as it is being consumed, what we do in
terms of allocating the last amounts. There are many
different approaches, there have been proposals for hard
landings, where we simply go on allocating until we get
to the bottom of the pool.
Then ISPs will be forced to respond accordingly.
There have been — there hasn’t been too much
serious consideration of a pure hard landing approach on
the contrary, a number of soft landing approaches have
been taken and numerous measures which I won’t go into
here, have been adopted, both globally and regionally,
to give us a soft landing, as the IPV4 address base runs
out.
What we do know is that the exhaustion of the V4
address base is absolutely inevitable. It’s coming up
in a couple of years time. IPV6 is supposed to be and
it should certainly be inevitable as the replacement.
It’s the only solution to address exhaustion. We
could get by without IPV6 through a whole lot of
measures to extend and take uncomfortable and
inefficient measures with respect to IPV4 utilisation,
but IPV6 is where we need to be to continue the internet
in the form we know and normally love it today.
IPV6 is under a spotlight, it has been for the past
18 months or so, specifically as we approach a deadline
that we can see coming over the horizon that’s well
within business planning horizons and it’s something
that we are all now working actively towards.
This transition is process. It’s not an event, so
it’s expected to take at least 10 years before the last
of the IPV4 addresses in use come out of the network and
we have a pure IPV6 network, but the critical date is in
one to two years time. The critical period is when we
will not have more IPV4 addresses to all date to new
networks.
IPV6 address space management is actually very
similar to IPV6 address space management.
The RIRs will continue to provide equitable
services, globally to everyone who has a demonstrated
need for IPV6 address space. It’s a proven, a stable
structure that’s, as I said in my opening yesterday,
it’s supported the mainstream internet for the last 15
plus years, in stable and extremely rapid growth.
The policies for IPV6 address space I’m glad to say
are pretty simple these days. We are able to allocate
generous amounts of address space, quite easily and
simply to anyone who needs that.
As I said, we have allocated at least 500 times the
total size of the IPV4 addresses into the IPV4 space in
terms of IPV6 and those policies are really unrelated to
the challenge that we have of deploying IPV6 as
a network.
So the message here is that all of our efforts
really have to go to the deployment of IPV6 in the core
of the network, that is the ISPs, the equipment vendors
who support them, at the edges of the network, that is
the users, everyone in this room, but also the
businesses who use the internet, either as content
providers or as content users, the software developers
that support them, governments have a very strong role
here and particularly in the Asian Pacific region,
governments take a very strong interest in the
development of the internet, but through things like
national policies and national facilitation of IPV6
deployment, and also very importantly, through
procurement policies, so that all government procurement
that is going on right now, all tendering processes,
should include IPV6 compliance as a must have in that
policy and by doing so, in government, you will
encourage your providers to be thinking about IPV6.
They don’t need to deliver it to you right now, but
they need to tell you now how they are going to deliver
it within the next one to two years.
The good message is and we heard it today from
Izumi, we heard in Indonesia, IPV6 is in active use, in
Malaysia IPV6 is in active use. India that IPV6 is
starting to be used. It’s no locker experimental. ISPs
are rolling it out. We are probably not seeing as much
open disclosure of plans for IPV6 deployment as we used
to, after all, the internet is a highly competitive
environment these days and people don’t necessarily say
what they are doing to their competitors.
The main questions about IPV6 actually have answers.
There’s this idea of is it a chicken or egg and who has
to start first. The first is, the fact is the eggs are
being laid, the chickens are clucking around in the IPV6
garden right now.
We had Google turns on IPV6 on its Youtube services,
just in February this year, and a chart from Monash
University in Melbourne showed an immediate appearance
of 10 gigabites a day of traffic of IPV6 traffic, purely
as a result of that Youtube activation of IPV6.
That might tell you how much students like to watch
Youtube, but on the other hand, it also shows you there
are an awful lot of computers out there that are ready
ready to talk IPV6 as soon as therefore services ready
to deliver.
As I say, it’s no longer a chicken or egg in terms
of the way IPV6 is going to happen. We used to ask
what’s the killer application for IPV6, what would be
the new thing, a voice application, a peer to peer
application, what’s the killer application. The answer
is simple. The internet is the killer you are not going
to have an internet the way, as I say, that we know and
love it, after another 10 years or so, without that
being fully deployed on IPV6.
So we here some really impressive plans happening at
the moment, in terms of broadband deployment, for
instance, the apeck tell has at the ministerial level,
has adopted 2015 as a deadline for a goal for IPV6
deployment, ubiquitously. That is not going to happen
unless IPV6 is also happening at the same time in 2015.
The same goes for every likewise, every similar aim
that we have for growth of the internet over the next
decade.
So some time in 2012 as an ISP us you might need
some new addresses for your infrastructure. You are
only going to get IPV6 for that infrastructure. You end
users are going to start receiving IPV6 addresses for
their services.
The enterprises and businesses who provide
information via websites are going to have to do so
through IPV6. Everyone is going to be affected so the
question of everyone, depending on how exactly you use
the internet is exactly what are you going to need to
do.
That’s IPV6.
I hope we may have some time for some further
discussion about it.
On the internet governance question, Chris asked
some good questions earlier about our approach as
a panel to internet governance. The RIRs, we are open
up, bottom up, neutral, nonprofit multi-stakeholder
organisations. We pre-date ICANN by many years, but we
fully support ICANN itself financially and as
participants and at the policy level. We are satisfied
with the way the IANA is operating at the moment under
ICANN.
We are also at the broader level, participating in
Internet Governance Forums and discussions very actively
and have done sis the WSIS days.
We have members who have been involved as members on
the working group on internet governance who are now
involved in the multi-stakeholder advisory group for the
Internet Governance Forum.
We believe the IGF has a very important role to play
as the only forum in which all of these issues, not just
the issues on this panel, but all the issues, in fact,
that we have seen spoken about yesterday and today, the
IGF is the only place in which those things can happen
in the appropriate way and we support the continuation
of the IGF.
Finally, on a historical note, Chris asked for what
exactly is a critical internet resource.
I asked the same question on a number of mailing
lists back in November 2007.
There is a link there, I won’t expect you to copy
that down, but I found a lot of very interesting answers
from the 300 or so people who responded.
This presentation will be on the meeting website for
your reference later as well.
Thanks very much.
>>Chris Disspain: I commend that document to you, not just
because I was one of the people who responded, but
because it is actually a very valuable and useful
explanation of what is critical internet resources.
As is always the way with these things, we are of
course rapidly running out of time.
However, let us see if there are any questions or
comments from the floor.
>>: Thank you very much. This is another Izumi.
There is some misunderstanding on my end that I was
perhaps going to the panel, but besides that, the
question or comment is this critical internet resources
has been managed very well by the so-called internet
community and I hope it’s going to be.
At the same time, we are facing some complex
situation that IP addresses will have V4 and V6. In
Japan, I think it’s only problem in Japan because the
telco, the NTT, deployed the IPV6 into their new NGN,
next generation networks, which is already commercially
available with the high-speed fibre to the home and
businesses.
Sounds OK, but they employed IPV6 as an underlying
key component, so that ISPs have interesting
interconnection problem between telcos IPV6 and their
ISPs own address for the source address and it’s
so-called multi-prefix problem and there has been hard
negotiation with the ISPs and the telco and the
government has some interesting intervention or not to
intervene, because the internet has been well managed by
the internet community.
I think this may not be applied to most other
countries, if you do things right, but there is no
guarantee.
What I heard also is to the home gateway problems,
that the end users may have to switch their machines,
I mean, the routers if you want to use broadband, then
you have to configure the way that most of the users
have no idea what to do with.
These are the area of highly complex things, not to
mention the domain names of the IDN. We may have not
exactly same, but in Japan at least, we are trying to
have some open process for selecting the registries,
including the existing registry, but how do you really
open up the wider sort of choices while maintaining some
kind of unity, which makes internet so innovative and
free to grow.
So these are the kind of challenge, what I hear
from, say, Paul and others at ITU and some other
governments very much interested in managing the IP
resources, for example, in the V6 and I hope that these
guys do understand our sort of long tradition of, you
know, sharing all experiences, but in the world, there
are different views, maybe outside this room, there is
a big task for us to really go outside to try involve
them.
So that’s where I think the IGF started and I’m
really glad to see thises here, but also elsewhere as
well.
Thank you.
>>: Sunny from APNIC. Just for the record for this forum,
there’s two more /8 blocks allocated this month for
APNICso the global address pool is now down to 16, which
is less than 7 per cent.
>>Chris Disspain: Can’t you guys keep up to date?
Honestly.
>>: Narish Adjwani from Cyber Cafe Association of India.
I agree with the speaker of Japan, that emerging
countries have got a different scenario all together.
Every month in India, we add 17 million mobile phones,
but in case of internet, we are at a very low figure of
less than double digit achievement.
For us, IPV6 absorption has to be through dual
stack. I personally feel there has to be a global
funding, because internet business in emerging countries
is not something which is a viable business.
It’s not a viable business for ISPs, it’s not
a viable for people to go to IPV6 transition so fast.
I think somewhere there is a proportion of a global fund
where some kind of a help shall be extended to emerging
countries to bring the viability to accept and adopt
IPV6.
In my opinion, APNIC is an effective body, vis-a-vis
somebody referring about ITU, to manage the resources,
but, yes, APNIC shall now bring more participation from
the countries as a CIR or NIR. That will make it more
effective in terms of implementing IPV6 transition more
effectively and more better.
Thank you.
>>: My name is Norbert Klein. I’m from Cambodia.
I would like to make a observation which maybe is
a little bit related to our discussion yesterday about
the digital divide.
The assumption with the introduction of IPV6 is that
the governments or the major operators in the country
will do it, but, again, the capacity in the different
countries is very different and my question is come from
Cambodia, I created the ccTLD many years ago
administered it for some years, I cannot get any
information what is going on in Cambodia about IPV66.
Maybe Paul you know more, but I’m concerned about this
somewhat digital divide question between different
countries, how is IPV6 promoted in countries where the
capacity is low? You spoke about the human resources
necessary for it.
How is this going to be done if there is not
a strong initiative by the relevant government agency
responsible for it?
This is, I think, a very serious problem and I just
wanted to mention it.
Thank you.
>>Chris Disspain: Paul, do you want to briefly respond to
that?
>>Keith Davidson: Just a partial response to the question,
I think, for example, my organisation, internet NZ, has
participated with APNIC and other organisations in the
Pacific region in particular to provide training and
sometimes equipment to smaller Pacific islands to enable
at least test bed experimentation with IPV6 and
certainly we provide free access to technical support to
assist in those countries.
Sometimes it’s not a question of government support,
but a true bottom up technical assistance.
>>Chris Disspain: It’s a combination of both, really, isn’t
it? It’s the only way it’s going to work.
>>Paul Wilson: We do provide as much support as we possibly
can within, as a fairly small organisation, in the
deployment of IPV6 and the information that operators
need in order to make best use of their IPV6 addresses,
to deploy addresses, to create an operational IPV6
network.
We have a small training team, a training team that
travels very widely, that also works with others in the
region and is training, for instance, in Indo-China,
including Cambodia, on a reasonably regular basis.
There are information resources on the APNIC website
which would allow you to find out which IPV6 addresses
have been allocated in Cambodia and to find out through
whois, which ISPs it is that actually hold those
addresses.
The information is there, but if you need, if
anyone, in fact, nor bet or for that matter anyone needs
any assistance, then there are public help desk lines
available by email and phone at APNIC for any enquiries
at all.
We are really very eager, particularly on the IPV6
front, to help if we can, to Narish’s comments, I think
they are really good comments, very relevant about the
struggle that ISPs have, particularly in developing
countries, with the pace of technological change, with
the security challenges, with the technical human
resource retention challenges as the point that I made
yesterday.
The internet is a highly competitive environment and
whether you’re in a developing or a developed country,
I think the business challenges of investment and
capital return for an ISP are really pretty dire these
days.
As I say, there’s huge benefits for the consumer in
the way that the internet has developed, but there are
huge challenges for businesses who are trying to do it.
I think I would only say, again, that APNIC is
a fairly small organisation and our mandate is in the
management of IP addresses. We are very interested in
the efficient and secure operation of an internet
infrastructure, but the size and scale of the internet
across the Asian Pacific is much bigger than any of us
in this room.
The business challenges are deep and very meaningful
and I think we have many different approaches that would
apply in different countries to solving specific needs.
I think as Narish said, the national strategies are very
important as well and I would hope that all governments
would also be leading in creating a viable environment
for ISPs to be operating successfully, competitively for
the benefits of both business and the consumer end of
that market.
>>Chris Disspain: We are out of time. I’ll take one more
question.
>>: I’m Atit Suriyankhun from Thailand.
As IP addresses, especially IPV6 has a highly
potential to be in many times is personal identifiable
information, as a resource low day for and policy maker,
what is the social responsibility of the national
internet registry and also what will be the recommendses
from the Internet Governance Forum regarding on the
protection of the individual rights and also civil
security?
>>Chris Disspain: Thank you. Gosh, a very large question
with a very short period of time.
Just in dealing with your second question about the
Internet Governance Forum making recommendations, it
doesn’t. It’s not a body that actually produces
recommendations. It’s a body that discusses issues in
an open and public way.
>>Valens Riyadi: For the IP version 6, in my experience,
it’s not only for networking, but some organisation also
adopt the IP version 6 system and numbering for
logistics for some other social security number
something like that.
In Australia, I knew that one big body applied for
/20 for IP version 6 and I think they do it for not for
networking, but for more logistic and numbering.
But in terms of human rights, privacy and any other
things, I think it’s just the same with what we have
right now. It’s only a number and the policy is back to
the government policy, not to the IP systems.
>>Izumi Okutani: Regarding the role of national internet
registry, in terms of national IPV6, I think there are
two areas that we can work on. One is smooth
allocations, then that would be something that we can
encourage and work with the community. Second, is raise
awareness. This is not something that we can do on our
own. We need to collaborate with our government and
operator bodies and that’s the thing, we have to pass
the message and make sure that we collaborate and that’s
something that we can do as our NIR.
>>Paul Wilson: Just two things. I’m not sure about the
comment about the use of IP addresses for
identification, because the role of IP addresses is for
addressing devices on the internet and the only purpose
for which IP addresses are allocated by any RIR for any
purpose is for addressing devices on the internet.
There have been all sorts of proposals for use of IPV6
addresses for other purposes, RFID identifiers and all
sorts of things but I can tell you absolutely that there
is no application that has ever been approved by any RIR
for addressing which is not for use on the network.
It is important to understand that.
About the privacy issue, I think as I said, the
internet is a global point to point network and you
cannot have a global point to point network without
global unique identifiers and of course, the role of the
global unique identifier is to identify an end point of
the network and no provides some privacy issues that
come with the network and can’t be solved by changing
something about the network without changing the network
itself.
It’s like the telephone system. You expect to use
the telephone system for a private call unless you
believe someone is listening in. The internet is the
same. It’s then your responsibility or your ability,
I hope, to encrypt your communications and to carry out
a private communications on the network, but it’s unwise
to try and overload the network itself with encryption
privacy or mechanisms that sort out those applications
specific ideas or concerns, because it takes away from
the function of the network as a simple point to point
global datagram service which is exactly why the
internet has succeeded today.
>>Chris Disspain: We are going to finish the session now.
Would you please join me in thanking all of our
panellists.
>>: Thank you. So now we will have the coffee break. Tea
and coffee will be served on my left-hand side outside
the room.
Today, open WiFi is available to all of you. Power
sockets are on the floor, so you can charge your laptop.
Besides,.
Just a reminder, for all our moderators, panellists,
speakers and the honoured guests, we will have a VIP
room for us today where coffee and tea will be served
and where you can have off line discussion there.
If you go out through one door on my left, this is
the first room along the corridor. So now we will be
back at 11.15.