[apnic-talk] [apnic-announce] APNIC Member and Stakeholder Survey - Exec
[Note "reply-to:" field]
APNIC Member and Stakeholder Survey
Executive Committee Response
20 February 2002
During 2001 the APNIC Executive Committee commissioned KPMG Consulting
to conduct a survey of APNIC members and stakeholders. The intent of the
survey was to provide input to APNIC to ensure that it continues to
serve the needs of the APNIC membership in conducting its core service
functions, and in setting future directions.
The consultant's report has been published, and provides a comprehensive
summary of the inputs received, according to major issues raised in the
survey, geographic areas of concern, and the various types of members
and stakeholders who responded. A full description of the survey and
the manner in which it was conducted is also provided in the report.
The APNIC Executive Committee has reviewed the findings of the survey
report, and this document is the Executive Committee's response to the
report. The Executive Committee has highlighted a number of areas of
potential development of APNIC services, and of APNIC as an
organisation.
This latest survey represents an important step in the ongoing
development of APNIC, and the efforts of KPMG, Dr John Earls and Dr Tan
Tin Wee are gratefully acknowledged. Membership comment is now sought
on both the Survey Report and on this response from the APNIC Executive
Committee.
1. APNIC Services
The Member Survey shows clearly that IP address allocation is the single
most important service of APNIC to its members. Secondary APNIC services
were seen to fall into the categories of Resource and Database Services,
Training and Meetings. The survey report also identified a wide range
of services that APNIC may provide in future, and some of these are
addressed later in this response.
It is clear from this survey that within the APNIC community there are
diverse views about APNIC's role and responsibilities, and about the
services it should offer. The EC regards this diversity as a strength
of the APNIC community, which will foster valuable discussion and debate
in future.
2. APNIC Service Quality
While the survey report noted that the majority of members were
satisfied with the level of service provided by APNIC, it also listed
various suggestions for potential improvements to services.
The issues of service response time and the lack of a dedicated account
management structure were noted in some responses. The EC is aware of
certain recent improvements in APNIC account management practices, and
of plans for new services including the APNIC Helpdesk. The Secretariat
is encouraged to continue improving the delivery of services to APNIC
members, as a major ongoing priority.
It was noted that some members find the resource application process
complex and cumbersome. This situation may be addressed through
development of additional support materials and training (such as
example templates,online tutorials that describe the application
process, and web-based resources that perform basic consistency
checking) and these should be investigated by the Secretariat.
The issue of the global proliferation and inconsistency of resource
databases was highlighted in the report, and one potential activity for
APNIC is to investigate the harmonization and improvement of these
databases, allowing (for example) single NIC handles to be associated
with resources across a number of them.
3. Future APNIC Services
The report noted a number of future services that members and
stakeholders felt could or should be offered by APNIC. Many of these
services fall within APNIC's mandate, while some are under development
or may be developed as extensions of current projects at APNIC. Others
are entirely new activities which require more detailed examination by
APNIC members before necessary resources should be allocated.
One important service development highlighted by the survey report is
the provision of multi-lingual documentation and support to members.
This is already underway as an APNIC activity, but does needs to be
accelerated.
The suggested fee-for-service consultancy operation is considered by the
Executive Committee to be potentially difficult in many ways, and
requiring of further discussion by the Membership. However as an
related interim activity, the Secretariat could strengthen its online
materials to provide a more comprehensive reference source for members,
including links, case studies, operational and security information etc.
Some initiatives that are clearly within APNIC's current charter are
those of the routing registration service and monthly statistical
reports on allocation activity. These are being actively pursued by the
APNIC Secretariat, and the EC believes that these should now be fully
incorporated as standard services covered by Helpdesk, training and
other support.
While APNIC's training activities are apparently well known and
supported, there is a clear mandate from this survey for APNIC to
support much broader training activities. While APNIC is not
necessarily viewed as the sole provider of such services, it is seen as
a capable and appropriate facilitator of such activities.
Another significant service request highlighted in the report is the
publication by APNIC of more comprehensive activity reports relating to
Internet development in the region. While APNIC reporting has
increased, the EC would encourage ongoing development of capacity for
reporting and analysis within the Secretariat.
4. Member Input to APNIC
Members suggested a number of ways to encourage member input to APNIC.
A major issue highlighted in this survey is that a number of members
want to see APNIC more active in conducting a dialogue with various
national and regional governmental agencies, particularly those
associated with the formulation of Internet-related policies at this
level.
Another major issue which is yet to be fully addressed within the APNIC
community is the framework for properly accommodating and serving the
NIR members of APNIC, and the ISP constituents of those NIRs. This is a
priority area for ongoing work by both the Secretariat and the
Membership itself.
5. APNIC Decision Framework
This section of the survey highlighted some concerns regarding the
sometimes slow speed of decision processes within APNIC meetings. This
concern must be balanced against the desire to ensure that all members
can fully brief themselves on matters to be discussed at APNIC and also
fully consider the implications of various policy options.
It is unclear whether alternative mechanisms such as electronic forums
and online voting would increase participation or reduce decision making
delays in APNIC processes. However, there is sufficient concern voiced
in the survey to investigate this as an option for APNIC for certain
classes of topics to be considered by the membership.
It is clear that a critical factor in APNIC meetings is the diversity of
languages represented, while meetings are conducted in English. The EC
suggests that an investment is justified to address this issue, and
available options should be examined by the Secretariat during 2002.
6. Member's Role
The survey reports notes that APNIC members in general understand their
role and responsibilities as users of Internet resources. However APNIC
training and other outreach activities are very important in ensuring
that this awareness is extended to new members and the community.
As mentioned, the role of National Internet Registries is one which
still needs to be fully integrated into APNIC's membership structure and
representative processes.
7. ISO quality certification
Given the strength of membership support for ISO certification, it is
appropriate to investigate the costs and overheads associated with ISO
9000 certification of APNIC's resource allocation processes. The
Secretariat is therefore asked to act on this matter during 2002.
8. Supporting Diversity
The survey noted the high level of diversity within the region, but the
response was mixed as to whether APNIC should adjust its processes to
take this into account. Consistency of the resource application policy
across the region was considered by some members to be entirely
appropriate, while other members voiced the need for some diversity in
this approach.
The APNIC EC asserts that APNIC's implementation of technical policies
must be driven by technical factors; however these technical drivers may
vary substantially within the AP region. APNIC policies and procedures
should be sensitive to variations in technical environment throughout
the region, so that no part of the region is disadvantaged.
Given the diversity of the region, the EC suggests that the Secretariat
should work to develop more specific expertise in sub-regions of the
Asia Pacific. Although the APNIC staff is culturally diverse, it is
suggested capabilities be further developed to include sub-regional
specific expertise. A suitable structure may involve a small team of
"liaison staff" to undertake research, liaison and coordination
activities. Such a structure would also help to address a need
identified in the survey for more comprehensive reporting of Internet
growth trends in the APNIC region.
9. Supporting Development
There was a wide range of responses to this topic, advocating a role for
APNIC in network operations, conferences, consulting, training, grants,
policy changes and liaison with governments.
While APNIC has a clear mandate within its incorporation and membership
documents to support Internet development in the Asia Pacific, it also
must also be careful to manage Member resources in the mutual interest
of those members. Many "development" initiatives are consistent with
Member interests, while others may not be, and case-by-case treatment
will always be necessary.
The survey report highlights the unique position of APNIC as a now
successful organisation which can play a crucial role in leadership and
facilitation of development activities. Therefore the EC encourages the
APNIC staff to consider activities which may be hosted by APNIC but
funded or cofunded by other bodies, and where cooperation with suitable
partners can leverage greater benefit that action by APNIC alone.
It is considered that these important topics will be of ongoing
interest, and can be most usefully addressed within the context of
APNIC's online forums and the APNIC member meetings.
10. Governmental Liaison
The report notes a high level of support for the establishment of
regular constructive relationships with governments. The Executive
Committee is mindful of the existing roles of members and NIRs in policy
development within their respective domains. However it is also
appropriate to note that APNIC is a regional self-regulatory industry
body that sets policies relating to the allocation of Internet address
resources within the region. This role does have various implications in
the area of national and regional policy, and APNIC should be in a
position to clearly explain its role and its adopted policies to various
governmental bodies.
The Executive Committee would be supportive of APNIC initiatives that
communicate APNIC's role and policies to various national and regional
Internet policy agencies.
11. Other Matters
A number of other APNIC issues are noted in this report. While many of
these topics should be referred to the APNIC membership forum for
further consideration, a number of topics are highlighted in this
response:
Appeal Process. The survey report suggested that APNIC should have an
appeal process to allow disputes to be resolved by independent arbiters.
The EC notes that APNIC Bylaws and Membership Agreement do contain
comprehensive arbitration provisions; however these may not have been
fully incorporated into the APNIC procedural documentation. Therefore
the Secretariat is asked to provide better documentation of existing
mechanisms.
Membership Category for linked or affiliated entities. The survey noted
the desirability for a non-service category of membership for linked or
affiliated entities. It is noted that this has been implemented in the
latest changes with the APNIC membership structure (through the
"Associate" membership category).
Regulate use, misuse and cost of address space. APNIC is not a
regulatory body, and cannot impose "regulation" on members of the
community. However APNIC can analyse and report on various factors in
the use of address space, and as mentioned above, ongoing development of
this reporting activity is encouraged.
Che-Hoo Cheng
Chair
APNIC Executive Council
* APNIC-ANNOUNCE: Announcements concerning APNIC *
* To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apnic-announce-request at apnic dot net *
* APNIC-TALK: General APNIC Discussion List *
* To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to apnic-talk-request at apnic dot net *