[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Second Draft of NIR Criteria
Hi Yong Wan,Maemura-san and all,
It is an issue of an interest for JPNIC as well, and we appreciate
that you have made this proposal.
We also think it is a good idea to set up a working group, so we can
discuss it more intensely with the people interested in the issue.
izumi
on behalf of JPNIC
From: "ywju" <ywju@nic.or.kr>
Subject: Re: Second Draft of NIR Criteria
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 14:11:53 +0900
> Thank Maemura sang,
>
> As you requested, I will prepare the comparison table between original
> version
> and ours, then let me circulate that paper.
>
> And regarding your suggestion on making WG to deal with these agenda,
> In my humble opinion, that seems to be good idea.
>
> Do anyone have any good idea or opinion ?
>
> Nice day !
>
> Yong Wan Ju
>
> ============================================================
> Yong Wan Ju : Manager of Internet Address Management Team
> in Korea Network Information Center
> E-mail : ywju@nic.or.kr Homepage : www.nic.or.kr
> ============================================================
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "MAEMURA Akinori" <maem@maem.org>
> To: <cmh@nic.or.kr>; <nir-discuss@lists.apnic.net>
> Cc: <ywju@nic.or.kr>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 12:25 AM
> Subject: Re: Second Draft of NIR Criteria
>
>
> > YongWan and Billy,
> >
> > I'm sorry for this very late reply. I as well as other
> > JPNIC people spend a full week conference, including JPNIC's
> > first Open Policy Meeting that is very similar to APNIC's.
> >
> > I appreciate your effort to compile this NIR criteria.
> > Would you please advise what is your point in comparison
> > with Paul's original, to this list, please?
> >
> >
> > Folks,
> >
> > It's time to move forward ;-) .
> >
> > As you can see, this is a modified version of the NIR
> > criteria draft which was originally presented by Paul Wilson
> > in the first NIR meeting at APRICOT2000. That was ported
> > >from RIR criteria.
> >
> > If you have any comment on this revised draft, please
> > present anything to this list.
> >
> >
> > Moreover, YongWan proposed here to discuss about NIR
> > membership structure including fee and vote issues. You
> > can give this list your proposal if you have any, and also
> > you can just present your opinion on this issue and it will
> > be also helpful to start discussion.
> >
> >
> > I feel like just start these two on this list right now but
> > if it seems reasonable we may start up WG for these issues
> > or something like that.
> >
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > -----
> > MAEMURA Akinori JPNIC IP Address Working Group
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > In message <01c801c17c5b$652b76e0$c2d0ffcb@krnicmkmovjx7j>
> > "Re: Second Draft of NIR Criteria"
> > "テオケォネ」 <cmh@nic.or.kr>" wrote:
> >
> > | Dear Maemura-san and NIR folks,
> > |
> > | This is Yong-Wan Ju at KRNIC.
> > |
> > | As you already know, we had discussed NIR position in APRICOT 2000
> > | based on PAUL's proposal, and Paul also suggested NIR's position of
> > | each NIR in Taipei meeting.
> > | Accordingly, for your convenience, I would like to propose NIR
> > | criteria document for discussion, which is the amended version of
> > | the proposed document by Paul Wilson in the last APRICOT2000 through
> > | this mailgroup.
> > | And also, I think that NIR needs to suggest a new category in the
> > | APNIC membership structure including its membership fee and voting
> > | simultaneously.
> > |
> > | Therefore, I would like Maemura-san(NIR chair) to post these two
> > | different agenda in this group.
> > | Please, let's discuss how to proceed these agenda through this mail-
> > | group.
> > |
> > | YW JU from KRNIC
> > |
> > | P.S. The following is KRNIC proposal for NIR criteria
> > |
> >
> | --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------
> > | KRNIC Proposal KRNIC Proposal KRNIC Proposal KRNIC Proposal KRNIC
> Proposal KRNIC Proposal
> >
> | --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------
> > |
> > |
> > |
> > | Second Draft of NIR Criteria : the establishment & operation of National
> Internet Registries in the APNIC region.
> > |
> > |
> Proposed by KRNIC
> > |
> 30th Nov. 2001
> > |
> > |
> > |
> > |
> > |
> > |
> > |
> > |
> > |
> > |
> > |
> > |
> > |
> > |
> > |
> > | Abstract
> > |
> > | This document is the amended version of the proposed document by Paul
> Wilson which described indispensable points in the formation of new National
> Internet Registries (hereafter, NIRs). These are essential set of standards
> that all new & existing NIRs must meet at the initial stage and maintain
> afterwards.
> > | As Paul Wilson suggested, it is anticipated that all NIRs will follow
> the same set of guiding principles in the longer term.
> > |
> > | グ. Introduction
> > |
> > | Internet resources (such as IP addresses and Autonomous System numbers)
> are currently distributed through a structure of delegated Internet registry
> responsibility. IANA allocates address space to APNIC, as a Regional
> Internet Registry(RIR). Address space is further allocated by APNIC to
> either NIRs or to Local Internet Registries (hereafter, LIRs). While the
> latter assigns addresses to end-users, the NIRs fulfil functions largely
> identical to those of an RIR with responsibility for managing address space
> allocations to LIRs within a particular country.
> > |
> > | NIRs have long existed within the APNIC structure and have fulfilled an
> important role in distributing address space to organizations within the
> boundaries of their respective countries. NIRs reflect the need for
> procedures that take account of local cultural differences. However it is
> important to note that neutrality, fairness, and equitable application of
> APNIC's policy framework remain essential qualities.
> > |
> > | The well established registry system has been developed with the
> community of Internet Service Providers(ISPs) and other enterprises that
> require address space to operate their businesses. It has evolved over the
> past 10 years based on structures and procedures that are transparent and
> firmly established.
> > |
> > | The below list shows the existing NIRs and the countries for which they
> provide services:
> > |
> > | APJII - Indonesia
> > | CNNIC - China
> > | JPNIC - Japan
> > | KRNIC - Korea
> > | TWNIC - Taiwan
> > |
> > | Currently, there are two main issues : Definition of NIR criteria &
> Position of NIR(membership, fee, operation). Issues concerning Position of
> NIR(membership, fee, operation) will be discussed after Definition of NIR
> criteria is fixed.
> > |
> > | This document describes a number of criteria necessary for the
> establishment and operation of an NIR. These criteria are considered
> essential preconditions for the approval of new NIRs by APNIC and basic
> conditions for efficient operation afterwards. These provide APNIC with a
> set of guidelines for evaluating applications for new NIRs.
> > |
> > | ケ. Principles
> > |
> > | The following two sets of numbered list are not meant to imply that any
> one standard is more important than another - they are all equally important
> for NIR operations. The numbering serves only to facilitate reading.
> > |
> > | The first set of numbered list defines prerequisites and these
> conditions are required to be satisfied before launching Internet resources
> allocation services as NIR. The other set of numbered list implies basic
> operational conditions for the efficient Internet resources management as
> NIR. For the approval of APNIC, applying organizations must keep two set of
> conditions, and they must submit the activity plan, inclusive of the
> following items.
> > |
> > | 1. Preconditions
> > |
> > | 1) The region of coverage is that of a particular country only under the
> broad support of any existing LIRs and the ISP community in that country
> > |
> > | The proposed NIR must operate within the borders of a particular country
> that is only recognized with ISO3166 code. In this country only one NIR can
> be established. Multiple NIRs or could possibly lead to:
> > |
> > | fragmentation of address space
> > | competition between NIRs
> > | difficulty for co-ordination and co-operation between the NIRs
> > | confusion for the community within the country
> > |
> > | Therefore, clear consensus must be demonstrated within the community
> that the vast majority of the ISPs and LIRs in the country are prepared to
> support the new NIR. The community must state that it is interested in
> receiving services from this new NIR and that they are convinced the new NIR
> can and will provide this. The community must also show that it is willing
> to support this new NIR vigorously, not only with their active participation
> in its bottom-up development but also financially.
> > |
> > | The new NIR must show that it has made every effort to contact and
> convince existing LIRs in their region to give their support to the
> establishment of a new NIR in that region has been made (For example, by way
> of archives of public mailing lists, web sites, records of contacts with
> individual LIRs).
> > |
> > | The new NIR's membership must include a significant percentage of the
> existing LIRs (those already receiving IP address registration services
> and/or other related services from an RIR and that would receive IP address
> registration services and/or other related services from the new NIR) within
> the new NIR's region of coverage.
> > |
> > | It is preferable that the entire country should be served by the new
> NIR. Therefore, the new NIR's membership should include a significant
> percentage of the ISPs within the NIR's country. However, new and existing
> LIRs cannot be forced to go to the new NIR and may receive service from
> APNIC, if preferred. However APNIC will always refer applications for
> membership from organizations served by NIRs to the NIR.
> > |
> > | 2) Bottom-up self governance structure for setting local policies
> > |
> > | The new NIR needs to document clearly defined procedures for the
> development of local IP address allocation and assignment policies. These
> procedures most be open and transparent and accessible to all interested
> parties and ensure fair representation of all constituencies within the
> region.
> > |
> > | These procedures should include holding at least one annual policy
> development meeting that is open and accessible to all interested parties.
> In addition to public meetings, the new NIR needs to maintain public
> archived mailing lists to discuss policy development.
> > |
> > | 3) Communication ability
> > |
> > | The new NIR should be capable of communicating with local community as
> well as APNIC. That is to say, they should have the superior ability to
> handle Internet resource allocation business in both local language and
> English.
> > |
> > | 4) Neutrality and impartiality to all interested parties
> > |
> > | All organizations that receive service from the new NIR must be treated
> equitably. The policies and guidelines proposed and implemented by the NIR
> need to ensure fair distribution of address space and impartial treatment of
> the members/requestors.
> > |
> > | The new NIR should be established as an independent, not-for-profit,
> open membership-based association.
> > |
> > | 5) Funding model
> > |
> > | The NIR needs to be set up as not-for-profit association. A budget
> related to the activity plan must be drawn up and published. Clear support
> from the organizations that will eventually have to fund the activity plan
> must be shown.
> > |
> > | Initial sponsorship, government grants, and private grants and/or
> donations are acceptable but the NIR should operate independently and
> eventually be solely financially supported by its membership.
> > |
> > | 2. Basic Operational Conditions for Internet Resource Management
> > |
> > | 1) Adherence to global policies regarding address space conservation,
> aggregation, and registration
> > |
> > | Policies need to be in place to ensure that global and RIR policies can
> be implemented. The specific goals of the registry system are the
> conservation of IP address space and aggregation of routing information. As
> well, local policies that are developed in addition to established global
> policies need to guarantee these goals. All policies need to be documented
> and publicly accessible.
> > |
> > | 2) Technical expertise
> > |
> > | The new NIR must be technically capable of providing registration
> services to the community in the country. This includes:
> > |
> > | stable Internet connectivity within the country and internationally;
> > | a public whois database server;
> > | name servers' providing in-addr.arpa reverse DNS, and
> > | enough technically capable staff to ensure appropriate service levels to
> the LIRs.
> > |
> > | 3) Record Keeping
> > |
> > | NIRs must maintain proper records about all registry activities. Every
> NIR should keep all information collected from the LIRs in the process of
> making a request for an IP address space allocation. This data is needed for
> the evaluation of subsequent requests for the same customers, for audits by
> the RIR and IANA and for the resolution of any questions that may arise
> regarding allocations.
> > |
> > | Core documents and records should be available in English. This is
> necessary to be consistent with the existing registry system and to
> communicate with the existing RIRs and IANA.
> > |
> > | In addition to that all public documentation needs to be available in
> English.
> > |
> > | 4) Confidentiality
> > |
> > | Information collected by a NIR in the registration process must be kept
> in strict confidence and it must be protected by a confidentiality policy at
> least equivalent to that adopted by the RIR. It is to be used for
> registration purposes only. It must be transmitted only to another RIR or
> IANA in demonstrating address space usage but will not be transmitted to any
> other party unless explicitly agreed to in writing by the end user.
> > |
> > | 5) Requirements Obligatory to APNIC
> > |
> > | The NIRs should observe APNIC in terms of Internet resource management
> policy. This is also needed for making consistency with the global policy.
> > |
> > | All NIRs have a duty to report information about their Internet resource
> allocation to LIRs in allocation evaluation process.
> > |
> > | The payment to APNIC will depend on NIR's position within APNIC's
> membership structure, and it is to be discussed with the membership in the
> future.
> > |
> > | It is also expected that NIRs participate in APNIC activities.
> > |
> >
> | --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------
> > | KRNIC Proposal KRNIC Proposal KRNIC Proposal KRNIC Proposal KRNIC
> Proposal KRNIC Proposal
> >
> | --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------
> > |
> > | ============================================================
> > | Yong Wan Ju : Manager of Intetnet Address Management Team
> > | in Korea Network Information Center
> > | E-mail : ywju@nic.or.kr Homepage : www.nic.or.kr
> > | ============================================================
> > |
>
>
>
