[Wg-rms] Summary of discusstion

[Shin Yamasaki <yamasaki@nic.ad.jp>]

All RMS-WG participants,


The following is mid-term summary of the discussion in this working
group.  I apologise for those who expected this earlier.

Please advise if you have comments.  After the review from the WG
participants, I would like to post this to the policy mailing list.

---------------------------------------------

1. Co-chair resignation

Terry Manderson stepped down from the co-chair position due to his
concern about his status as secretariat.

Nobody has declared as a candidate yet.  Please let the chair know or
post to ML if anyone would like to take the role.


2. E-mail deprecation proposal (prop-037)

The URL of the proposal can be found at:

http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/proposals/prop-037-v001.html

2.1. Pro opinion:

- Thinking about new system would be good idea since this discussion for
this kind of topic may take for a long time.
- Considering new technologies such as DNSSEC and resource
certification, increasing security for bulk updating method for APNIC
RMS would be good idea.
- E-mail registration interface isn't user-friendly.
- MyAPNIC doesn't address secure automated registration.  The new
proposed XML interface solves this.

2.2. Con opinion:

- This affects existing in-house IT systems which are optimized for
current e-mail application.  This could be pressure costwise for small LIRs.
- MyAPNIC already exists for who prefer secure registration.

2.3. From the APNIC Secretariat:

In the proposal, the implementation periods as follows:

    -  4 months after adoption:     Stop accepting email updates for
                                    domain objects
    -  8 months after adoption:     Stop accepting email updates for
                                    inetnum, inet6num, and aut-num
                                    objects
    -  12 months after adoption:    Stop accepting email update for the
                                    remaining object types

The secretariat asked if these periods are appropriate.

2.4. Alternative/Counter proposal

No counter proposal has been brought up.  In addition, no compromise has
been proposed yet.

---------------------------------------------

I think our next step is bringing more participants then having further
discusstion, then getting conclusion and recommendation for the proposal
(prop-037) by APNIC 23.


Wish you all have wonderful holidays!


Cheers,
Shin

-- 
Shin Yamasaki
Japan Network Information Center (JPNIC)