Skip to main content

Plenary Session Minutes

Amsterdam, 27, 28 and 29 January 1999
Plenary Session
Chair: Rob Blokzijl
Scribe: Naomi de Bruyn

1. Opening

2. Agenda

3. Minutes RIPE 31

4. From the Chair (Rob Blokzijl)

5. Report from the RIPE NCC (Mirjam Kuehne)


a. current status (E. Dyson, interim chairperson of the
initial ICANN board)
b. progress with the address supporting organisation
(ASO) (K. Mitchell, chairman RIPE NCC board)
c. questions & discussion
d. conclusions & next steps

7. Presentation Bob Aiken

8. Presentation Ran Atkinson

9. Working group reports

10. Next meetings

11. AOB

12. Close

- 1. - Opening

RIPE chair Rob Blokzijl welcomed everyone to the 32nd RIPE meeting.
The plenary session was split into two parts, the first part took place
on Wednesday afternoon, the second part on Friday morning.

Rob expressed that he was honored and pleased to have Esther Dyson
with us, interim chairman of the initial ICANN board. Presented would
be status reports on the progress of ICANN and discussed would be the
role RIPE NCC plays in forming the address supporting organisation

- 2. - Agenda

The agenda was approved.

- 3. - Minutes Plenary Session RIPE 31

The minutes of the plenary session were circulated twice.
The minutes were approved.

- 4. - From the chair

Rob Blokzijl presented a graph on RIPE meeting attendees. The first
RIPE meeting took place 10 years ago this year. It used to be a 14
attendees meeting of half a day. During the last meeting in Edinburgh
200 + attendees took part. Two thirds of the attendees have a
commercial background. Rob is not sure whether this is good or bad.
One of these days we should discuss how to improve our current way
of working.

Lots of receptions shall take place this meeting, all sponsored. RIPE
had been approached by some companies who were interested in
sponsoring the RIPE meeting. After some discussion, it was decided
that it was probably better if the registration fee for the meeting
stays on the level where it covers the meeting costs. We definitely
do not want to turn the RIPE meeting into a commercial gathering.

However, the social things are now being sponsored.

Keith Mitchell, chairman of the board of the RIPE NCC, had an
announcement to make. At the end of last year elections took place
for members of the executive board. Wilfried Woeber retired, his place
was taken by Mike Norris. On behalf of the board Keith thanked
Wilfried. His input to re-structuring the NCC was very important.

- 5. - Reports from the RIPE NCC (Mirjam Kuehne)

Some additional remarks to the presentation which can be found at:

- Statistics

Member sizes have shifted to MEDIUM sized members compared to the
figures that were shown last time. Although the NCC is usually quite
good at projecting the number of registries, we have more MEDIUMs
than expected this time. This could be due to the fact that a
significant part of SMALL registries are becoming MEDIUM sized.

Financially: our debtors have had some problems getting money to us
previously, however the situation is now improving.
This year will be the first time we have to take action and take
services away. We will stop providing reverse delegation to and close
the registries we haven't heard from in a long time.

We have asked registries to sign a new agreement. More than 200
registries, however still have to sign. We have sent several reminders
but will at some point have to react in a similar way as to people
that don't pay.

- Services

We have had some problems with our mail robots which are now resolved.
The overall average waiting time is the same.

First version of the IP request syntax checking form was presented
in the Local IR working group and can now also be found on our
website. The NCC would be happy to receive comments and suggestions.

Ipv6: we have been working with RIRs on a policy proposal document.
Everyone's invited to join the discussions on the IPv6 mailinglist.

- 6. - ICANN

A) Current status (Esther Dyson, interim chairperson of the initial
ICANN board)

Rob Blokzijl introduced Esther Dyson. ICANN, or the new IANA has been
a discussion point in the past RIPE meetings. In the past there was
IANA, the late Jon Postell and his crew kept track of crucial items to
ensure proper use of the Internet. That worked in the good old days
when the Internet was small. For various reasons in the last two or
three years people have been discussing if this role, on the one hand,
can be formalized a bit more. And, on the other hand, to investigate
whether all the interests of the industry were covered properly.
It's been a long process and a possible new solution is ICANN
(Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers).

The various drafts of statutes and bylaws of this organization have
been discussed in the past 12 months.

Rob noted that for organizations like the RIPE NCC, who had been
invited together with the other RIRs to define their role in this
environment, it has not been very easy, because the target kept

The ICANN corporation consists of two parts. The board of directors
(18 members) reflect the two parts of ICANN.

9 members come from the traditional internet sphere (names, numbers,
IETF) each will have a mechanism in place to appoint/nominate 3
directors each to the board.

The other 9 come from a whole new sphere: the at large members, they
are supposed to give fair respresentation of the whole internet
industry and the Internet at large.

Esther Dyson began her talk by stating that she felt a bit awkward,
she wasn't sure what would be interesting for the RIPE meeting
participants to hear about. Because there is so much going on, so
she tried to focuss on the things that were immediately relevant.
She reminded us that she couldn't speak for the board itself. She
could only openly talk about her own opinions.

The board does not want to interfere or re-design things that already
work well now. What the RIPE community is doing seems to be working
and ICANN does not see any reason to wreck and force us into doing
things we don't want to do. ICANN is trying to build a structure that
takes its ideas from the bottom up rather then making decisions
blindely and then imposing them. Most of the people on the board
feel that way.

The current version of bylaws that is being worked on now has
some things that need to be changed, especially vis-a-vis the at large
membership. The board is trying to work within those bylaws. It does
not want to build something so rigid that it cannot adjust to changing
reality. It also does not want to build something so flimsy that our
subjects will pass by quickly.

As far as the ASO is concerned, the board wants the RIRs to come up
with something that works among themselves and then propose it the
board. The RIRs represent a consensus of the technical community
concerned with addresses on what we want to propose to the ICANN board
when such things need to be proposed. We all want to have a minimum of
bureaucracy and a minimum of complexity. And we want a maximum of
common sense and good will.

The RIRs have to come together and define an ASO that will work for
everybody involved. For the record; there is no specific requirement
for an at large membership of the ASO in the way that there is an at
large membership of ICANN.

The board is concerned that questions and objections from the outside
world are answered and delt with fairly. But, they are not trying to
define the structure for us. We are an address organization, not a
world wide organization that has to deal with lots of other issues.
We have to be open to people that have vested interests in the
address business but we do not have to be open to people that have
vested interest in content control or general issues of privacy etc.

The board is trying to define the area in which we operate. Our 3
board members are concerned with general issues that come up to ICANN.
The goal also is to see that decisions are not made blindly by the
ICANN board without understanding what is involved. That's why they
have this bottom-up notion of consensus.

Technical proposals by the ASO are expected to be made in an open and
transparant process and are to be posted for a month, for fair public
comments. This is the point where the whole at large membership comes
in. Noone should come and force us to do something that technically is
stupid. The ICANN interest is to have the internet continue to operate
effectively in the way that it does.

We have to be sure that the technical community from intelligent/
coherent enough input can persuade people that what we want to do
technically make sense.

- b. - Progress with the address supporting organisation (ASO)
(Keith Mitchell, Chairman RIPE NCC board)

RIPE NCC progress towards an ICANN address supporting organisation.

Keith found this a unique moment where all of us were present and
able to discuss things. A number of board meetings and phone
conferences have taken/will take place before the proposal is put

Principles behind the NCC's involvement in this: we want to ensure the
success of ICANN. IANA has kept us supported very well throughout
its existence. ICANN is clearly the only show in town. We want to be
part only of success and not of failure. The changes that will bring
the internet in a more formal, more legally recognizable format are

We want to protect the European interest and want to make sure that
the unique voice of the greater European community that is RIPE, is
looked after and that no other region is in a position of undue
influence on ICANN and the Internet as a whole. We also want to make
sure that any structure that is created does not cause the addressing
area to be side-lined.

Quite a lot of work has been done together with APNIC and ARING. A
lot of progress was made during the Geneva meeting in July. There
is no consensus yet to make a common proposal, but we hope to reach
that soon.

One of the major sticky points in getting out this proposal is a
slight difference between the RIRs. The ICANN process needs at large
representation, we believe that the existing RIPE mechanism provides
an adequate oversight over RIPE NCC, at least in the European area.
We address most if not all requirements for at large represenation
and for open and transparent processes, as far as where the address
supporting organization is concerned

The other two current RIRs do not have open mechanisms in place that
are quite comparable to RIPE. We have the benefit of a long standing
tradition of transparencey and openness. We will have to work with the
other RIRs on an ASO structure that builds on our tradition for Europe
while catering to the situations in other parts of the world. That is
the current challenge

Another outstanding issue is that there are some changes between the
version 5 and version 6 bylaws which limited the voting rights of the
supporting organization, vis-a-vis the at large membership. Reason is
to stop ICANN becoming captive to particular vested interests.
We thought there was some other way of doing this. This is not a good
time to try and get this changed, if pushed too hard it's not likely
to be contributing to the overall good. We have discussed this with
ICANN and have agreed to have a difference of opion about it.

One of the messages Keith would like to point out is that there
should not be any more suprises. He does not think we will see any
more major adjustments. It's more about having a transparent, gradual
and open process with regards to changes to the current version of
the bylaws.

There is a deadline on the 5th of February to submit a proposal for
supporting organizations. We are not going to achieve that. We want
to get some key members, possibly the chief executives of the
registries as well, together and thrash out the remaining issues. When
we are happy that we have consensus, the proposal will be published
for open debate and consultation. A new mailinglist will be created
separate from the local-ir list for this purpose. We are optimistic
that we can put the ASO together in a proper footing but there still
is some work to be done. We are hoping for good input from the

Rob noted the following: at some point in the process we will have a
document that should be submitted to the ICANN board. The ICANN board
has a next meeting somewhere in the beginning of March. The proposal
has to be submitted before the 5th of February, however this doesn't
mean that this is the last chance to submit. The next ICANN meeting
will take place at the end of May, so the next deadline is end of

Keith continued: Is the address allocation process now in limbo?
This is not the case! IANA is still functioning for now like it always
did. For the intermediate future funding has also been secured.
Everything is currently working as usual until ICANN is properly set
up. We have to work hard to get this proposal ready for the address
support organization and we need input from the community. Those of
the people that were not in the room during the RIPE meeting will have
the opportunity to read the slides and the minutes, these will be
published on the mailinglist.

- c. - Questions & discussion

The chair welcomed Christopher Wilkinson from the European Commission
in Brussels. He was invited to give the point of view of the

Christopher started by wishing Esther and the other ICANN board
members, present and future, every success in the development of
ICANN. He is grateful to the leadership of RIPE NCC and to CENTR for
the work they have put in on these matters, together with the private
sector in the panel of participants in the intervening months.

We have made some significant steps forward. Important: there is no
risk of European interest being marginalized in this affair. The
commission has been monitoring this process carefully but fairly
passively. It is a matter of consensus building within the Internet
community and the private sector operators and users of the Internet
in the respective sectors which we have heard so much about.
Christopher mentioned a few chapter headings of specific public policy

- The general principle of balance is representative international
- The respect of internet management for the applicability
of laws other than US jurisdiction should the need arise.
These are relevant to various trademarks competition privacy laws.

Christopher was glad to report that the bylaws version as published
on 23rd November 1998 is okay. They have been read/approved by the
highest legal EU authorities.

The ICANN bylaws provide for advisory committees. The membership
advisory committee is already working, there are two or three
European members there.

The Root server Advisory committee is an important component of the
long term stability of the route. The European commission has nothing
to do with root servers as such, therefore they observe this with a
certain detachment.

Christopher then talked about the Governmental Advisory Committee.
There are Public policy interests in the stability and development of
the internet. It has be recognized, it is not a one-off.

The commission has taken very seriously the proposal to create a
governmental advisory committee. They, and member states are
discussing how they think it should be structured and how they should
participate . They had another discussion about this in Brussels the
day after the plenary session.

The general idea is that the interests of efficiency the
governmental committee will be small. It will be structured on a
regional basis and the global regions will sort out internally the
way in which 5 or 6 members will be designated perhaps in rotating
basis to represent their points of view in this committee.

Perhaps in contrast to some of the opinions in the US, in Europe it
was felt from the beginning that the international organizations have
a legitimate interest in the field. For different reasons, most
obvious ones are the ITU: where there is a major development country
link and a significant link regarding technical standards. The IETF
has a cooperation agreement with the ITU; the world intellectual
property organization, which looks likes it is going to emerge as a
significant forum for dispute resolution and in particulary for
helping the domain name system to avoid unnecessary trademark

Christopher believes that our public authorities have taken a
legitimate interest, have exercised it responsibly and
have reached agreement with US governement and with the ICANN board
on a number of critical points. The atmosphere and the legal and
political framework is well set now for a successful devlopment in
the coming years.

Rob noted that the Commission and governments are very active in
defining their role in the other part of ICANN, the membership at
large. With specific interest in the domain name system. He wanted to
know if they have any thoughts on/or interest in the ASO.

Christopher stated that he is not the only player in this affair.
There are 15 governments and several other departments in the
Commission including, the internal market and the competition and the
legal parts of the Commission are very interested in the way this

The ECs primary objective is to ensure that a workable consensus
emerges. Within that framework there is a wide range in each
situation of acceptable solutions. Provided they also fulfill the
general criteria of international representation and the applicability
of international laws should the need arise. Christopher wanted to
make a footnote: he has tried to remain agnostic about the
incorporation of supporting organizations because he knows it is a
legitimate source of discussion within the private sector. He is
increasingly of the view personally that it is more difficult to
guarantee the regional international representation and the
applicability of international laws through three more separate
organizations. It would be easier to rely on the structure and
political agreements that have been reached within the ICANN
framework. Regarding individual membership, it wasn't actually their
idea they assumed that the membership structure would be through
associations through entity corporations and other collective

There is a very reasonable case being made in the US for individual
memberhsip of ICANN, but Christopher is not convinced that the same
argument is equally strong as applied to each of the supporting orgs.
But individual membership has to be large enough and geographically
well distributed enough to continue to sustain the diversity of
geographic representation that we have sought.

The major stakeholder/constituency that we have identified, that so
far is not fully incorporated in the membership structures, are the
public services. From museums to schools, from hospitals to local
authorities from public services who will conduct electronic commerce
with their customers in the general public, to the availability of
governmental information on public websites.

This is a big constituancy, a big group of stakeholders.
And the public services are putting a lot of money into developing
their webpages acquiring internet connectivity and encouraging members
customers and users to enter the internet enthusiastically.
There are for example projects to put the whole European museum and
art gallery content online, accessable to the general public through
the internet. There are copyright and protection issues which are being
resolved in that process.

Chrisopher thinks we need a public services user constituency
in addition to the general structure that has emerged to date.

Erik Huizer (member of Internet Architecture Board, IAB and
chairman of the IETF WG that is working on the Protocol Supporting

He asked Christopher what role the ITU-T should play in his
vision. Does he think that the ITU-T should have an equal role in the
PSO with regards to the IETF?

Christopher replied that what he was referring to explicitly, was
that the ITU would be a member of the governmental advisory committee.

In Minneapolis a few weeks ago at the ITU annuanal conference, its
members adopted a resolution which instructed the secretary general
of the ITU to make sure that the organization and its members were
associated with the developing framework of internet governence.

On the specific issue of the links between PSO and non-IETF
standardization interests, Christopher continued to say that there
are other people both in the IETF and ITU who can sort this out. He
stated that the last thing the commission wants is to have to
arbitrate a dispute, particularly in that kind of area.

Erik Huizer (as chair of poisson working group IETF) noted that the
working group is discussing what the IETF role should be with regards
to ICANN. If they should participate in the protocal standard
organization and how the bylaws of this PSO should be and what should
be in there, such that the IETF can commit to participating in there.

One of the problems that the working group runs into is that some
people think that IETF should be part of the Protocol Support
Association. However others think that some other organizations
should be let in as well.

Another discussion point is: should the IETF have it's parameter
registration assigned to ICANN which now is done by IANA.
The consensus is (in the poisson WG) that they don't want ICANN to
register these parameters. They want to keep them out of this and
will seperately from IETF give a contract to an organization
to register these parameters (ISI)

Another question is what to do with IPv6 addresses. IPv4 is a done
deal, this has to go to ICANN. The poisson WG are less comfortable
with giving IPv6 to ICANN as well. At the moment it is still not clear
where we're headed with the assignment of IPv6 addresses.
This has been pointed out in lots of discussion for example in the
IPv6 working group.

Erik asked for the thoughts of the people present in the plenary
session. Did they think the IPv6 addresses should be moved directly
with IPv4 to ICANN, or should they be kept out of ICANN at first and
get comfortable with how these addresses should be assigned between
the registries and the IETF. Then solve the technical problems we run
into and only after that hand it over.

Wilfried Woeber (Vienna university):
He could not provide an answer to this but would rather try to extend
the question to even IPv4 address space. He wanted to know where the
advantage is to move the top level authority of that business to an
emerging organization like ICANN which has not found it's place right

Wilfried continued that in particular when first reading the proposal
it tastes like honey, but then you get a different taste. In the sense
that interests are pulled in that have nothing to do with IP address
distribution. He was a bit worried and did not see the immediate or
medium term benefit of spending the effort. We only get the
opportunity to defend our case with technical arguments, however there
is a certain level which you cannot go beyond with technical
arguments. He personally wondered what we are going to get back for
all our efforts?

Esther replied with saying that the board of ICANN were not asked to
come and do this, they got selected and did it willingly. A unified
consensus group has to be formed, that can do this, rather then remain
comfortably sitting with their eyes closed while other people are
talking about this. It is not a war. Please come sit at the
'discussion-table' while you have the opportunity.

Rob noted that we want ICANN to be a success. Just like in the past
we have very fruitfully worked together with IANA. Rob himself worked
on re-structuring IANA. During that process a lot of things happened
which we could not have foreseen two years ago. RIPE NCC should
concentrate on it's part of the pie, the ASO.

RIPE NCC rightfully demands that we don't want all these strange
interest groups that have popped up in the naming area, to
artificially re-structure our 10 year way of successful working.

Rob again asked for more input on the ASO, because this, at the end of
the day, will be done by a couple of people who will meet on a global
scale and the people who will represent you are the executives of the
NCC whom you elected in office.

Erik Huizer stated that he wants to support Rob. He thinks Wilfried is
right but more and more people are involved and we can't say don't do
this. The IETF is questioning whether they should participate at all
in the PSO. Erik's vison is that they should. We make ourselves
insignificant by not being there rather then achieving something.

Erik continued to say that there are people out there who want to
diminish the influence the PSO and ASO have as much as possible.
He wanted to give Keith and the NCC the strong advice to get a letter
to the ICANN board saying that we are working on a proposal.
Otherwise a silly proposal might get in before us, as being the only

Esther responded to this by saying that the ICANN do have some
criteria, they don't have to take just anything that is being put
before them. One criterium is broad representation. She does not know
of any other group that has a broad representation that is not one of
the 3 registries. There may be small interest groups but they have to
prove that they represent a large consensus. She agreed that a letter
should be put forward.

Daniel Karrenberg (speaking for himself) reported that he shared the
concerns that Wilfried had expressed, he didn't want to wave them to
the side lightly. On the other side, the things we are doing become
more visible, more noticeable, subject to interests that are
slowly getting into the RIPE community. This needs to be taken into
account, also on a global scale.

He thinks we need a place where we can have a public process to
define global policies for address space allocation and assingment.
This already is fairly well covered in Europe by the open process
called RIPE and we have the RIPE NCC, which is nicely controled by
membership. We need some kind of framework to make decisions for the
internet on a global level. The only two oppertunities are: ICANN, or
setting up something different.

ICANN has gained so much support from important groups, we should
very seriously consider working within ICANN and consider another
organization only as an absolute last resort. We absolutely do not
want to be one nail in the coffin of ICANN.

Dfk continued (with his NCC hat on) to react to Erik about the IPv6
issue. The NCC has been working with other RIRs on a policy based
allocation scheme, this has been discussed in the Local IR and IPv6
working groups. We have to look into how the NCC will manage to be in
a situation for the address space issues where we answer to 2 higher
authorities, this requires some more thinking.

Because IPv6 is still ermerging we don't know what works and what
doesn't yet. Dfk thinks we should not put to heavy weight a process in
place for making changes along the way. Maybe we can put this as a
challenge to ICANN.

There is certainly merit in a more lightweight process to
start with. We try to make the guidelines such that we don't give
away too much of the address space initially, which would limit any
room for maneuver that we have. We wrote the procedures such
that they can be easily adapted.

Dfk continued by stating that there certainly is a requirement of the
global political process and global authority of IANA to be more
flexible in that field then on IPv4. He wanted to get some feedback
from the IPv6 people present at the plenary of what they thought.

Mike Norris (HEAnet).
Mike wanted to refer to the aforementioned membership advisory
committee of ICANN and pointed out that it is now up and working. It
needs to have all the attributes and hallmarks that are features of
ICANN itself, it has to be open and transpartent and operate with
procedures which result in fairness. Because it has been set up we
have an opportunity to experience one of these ICANN committees.
People, when they try it out, might be pleasantly surprised. They
might see that it is something familiar, it looks like a RIPE Working

He noted that pointers to the membership advisory committee can be
found on the ICANN server. They are publishing their proposals and
activities and obviously membership. There is a pretty lively
discussion going on on their mailinglist, which is all part of the
process. ICANN is working already and there is an opportunity for
everyone to see whether they think it is transparent or fair. If you
haven't been part of it, you cannot tell if it is fair.

Esther Dyson informed us that people can subscribe to the mailinglist
People shouldn't just take a look, but also try to join in the
discussion. Some of the issues discussed here are: who should be the
members; should they be organizations or individuals? How do we figure
out if these people are real? There are some places (especially in
technical area) where people can contribute a great deal in the

The membership committee consists of 12/13 people, their conversations
are archived and published. They have a meeting in Singapore on March
2nd, everyone was invited to come. On address issues people are
represented throught the ASO. If you want to be represented to ICANN
in general, joining the at large membership and helping to define it
is something you can do.

Rob: some of the speakers have expressed doubt whether we should be
involved at all. He proposed a show of hands.

As a result of this Rob commented that it was a fair statement people
present at the plenary session want ICANN to be a success. The coming
months there will be several meetings of the subsets of the boards of
the various RIRs. The remaining issues will be hammered out and we will
come up with a proposal on the addres support organization. A
report will be given on the soon to be opened mailinglist.

It will be a help to Keith and the boards if they could get feedback
on this list on whether we really give support to our leadershaping
team. Rob asked the people present if they supported Keith and our
elected board in representing their interests in this.

Dfk did not think this was the right question. They have legitimacy of
their own by being elected. A better question might be: should they
continue making an ASO?

Rob continued by asking if the people present thought that the kernel
or the whole ASO should be made up of the regional registries and
should they play an active and strong role there. No one disagreed.

Wilfried Woeber wanted to know if people thought it was useful to
have at large representation on both the ICANN level and on the SO
level and thus having a division of votes or influences as it is
proposed right now.

Dfk reminded everyone that it was a departure from our tradition to
have a show of hands. He was interested in what Wilfried said but it
was too complicated to have a yes or no answer to.

Dfk continued: over this whole 2 years of discussion that we
have reported on, we have seen that the world has changed. We have
seen that on the ICANN level and we have seen the influence of what
is now the at large membership. He personally believes it is
something we should work with and not debate.

On the other side, should we have an organziation where we make the
global policies on address space allocations and assignments, by
others that are not in this room but may have legimate interest.
As far as RIPE is concerned: we are open. If somebody has an
interest they can find us. Do we need another incarnation of RIPE
making address policy on a global level? Do we have a preference for
the hierarchical representative and open on the regional level, or
do we have a preference on the global, open for everybody level.
This is more consise.

Rob stated that RIPE/Europe feels that:
a) anyone who has a legitimate interest in address policy should be
somehow inside the ASO
b) we have a very strong preference to have this organization on a
regional level.

Esther Dyson replied that there is no statement by ICANN that
there specifically needs to be an at large membership within the ASO.
There is a statement that it needs to be open and there are various
ways to interpret that. If a constituent organization is open and
transparent that to her was pretty compelling.

She continued to say that she takes it upon herself to visit some
other regional registries and that she wants to visit the RIRs more
regularly. The people should not have to fly everywhere around the
world to be heard.

The ASO does have to deal with the at large members on the ICANN level
Esther was not sure that there is any need for redundancy.

Keith Mitchell concurred with what had been said. For clarification
he added that he thought we maybe have three options as far as the ASO
structrue is concerned.

1) we work from the baseline with the existing regional internet
registries organizations (such as RIPE NCC through RIPE for
example) and assume that we don't need anything else
2) the ASO is comprised of regional registries plus at large members
and the members are selected through regional structures. Same
kind of thing but have some RIPE people participate directly in the
ASO alongside NCC people participating as a registry.

[ the first two we are relatively happpy with ]

3) the third option is that the regional registries have
representation in the ASO on a regional basis, but that there is a
global at large representation.

[ we are a bit unhappy with this option ]

There is another knob to turn on the latter two of these proposals,
which is to say that there is formal participation representatives in
the ASO from the open organizations, rather then just from the
registries themselves. However, they possibly have less authority
then the actual regional registries represent. That's another option
which has been kicked around.

We have seen these three options from the RIPE NCCs point of
view, in order of importance. Keith wanted everyone to have a think
about this. He would find it very useful to receive feedback on it.

- d. - Conclusions & next steps

Keith stated that as far as he could tell a reasonable degree of
support was given for progressing on the basis that we have been.
We think we've got our house in order and we want to bring that to
ICANN and use that as a model for progression. We have a reasonable
degree of confidence in the way that we have progressed with the
proposed course of action.

He wanted to encourage the people present to take the message back and
discuss it in their organizations and see if they are happy with what
we are doing.

Keith expressed thanks to Christopher Wilkinson from the EU for
supporting this process. We are getting there and are going to
proceed in the basis that we have, but if anyone has any concerns
please let us know.

Rob thanked Keith and thanked Esther for being present to this
RIPE meeting.

- 9. - Working group reports.

The chairs from the various working groups gave reports on the working
group meetings that were held earlier during the week. Summaries of
the meetings, provided by the working group chairpersons, are included
here. Full minutes of the working groups will be accessible from:

Routing WG
Chair: Joachim Schmitz JS335-RIPE
Attendees: 74
Scribe: Roman Karpiuk


o Report from the

RPSL Tutorial

(J. Schmitz)
o Report from the IETF (J. Schmitz)
o Reports on RPSL deployment
- ISI/Qwest and overview (D. Kessens)
- RIPE NCC (JLS Damas)
o Observations in Internet Routing (A. Akvja)
o Reality Checking of the RIPE Routing Registry (J. Schmitz)
o Cooperations with MBone WG (K. Kayser)


29.R1 G. Winters, J. Schmitz, NCC
Definition of the IRR and an AUP

31.R1 NCC, D. Kessens, J. Schmitz
Basic design for an IPv6 IRR

32.R1 NCC/JLS Damas
Prepare proposals for ripe-181 -> RPSL transition issues

32.R1 J. Schmitz
Write up project proposal for RIPE RR reality checking.

Database security taskforce


o draf-ietf-rps-auth-01.txt
Discussion of scope and impact on database users.
How much security is needed?

o Project for prefix/origin authentication at RIPE
Discussion of user interface


32.DSTF1 Supply new RPSWG milestones
32.DSTF2 Precise definition of prefix/origin authentication
32.DSTF3 Analysis of user impact

Remark: these actions have a tight schedule attached to it.

Next meetings:
During the IETF and RIPE 33

Q: Dfk prefix origin auth. Only limited to database or using
database to do something in your routing

A: Joachim, two sides we defintely want to make sure that the data
is secured so that melicious or incidental attacks are avoided.
Crack of .. is something we are thinking about. Joachim feels that
these proposals still lack a basis of authority the routing reg is a
very suitable means to guide this route of security

Q: Dfk, if I'm an ISP where can put in my input. Group is very closed.
A: Joachim contact me directly. We will definitely use input from
community but for now try to keep task force as small as possible.
Noone can hide behind the others.

Dfk: not critizing is right otherwise get nothing done. Progressing
in getting a specification that's very useful but have to make sure
ISPs have input.
Joachim agreed that we really need input from public.

We were scetching out blue print for use. We felt rather comfortable
doing that however adding credibility to routing. Would like to ask
ISPs or others with interest please contact us. We are seeking
knowledge in this field. Or give us suggestions on who we can
approach. Will do a check in the may ripe meeting. We do want to
propose and implement something that is usefull to the community.

Mbone WG
Chair: Kurt Kayser

MBone-WG short report

This time the WG session was jointly operated by the Routing-WG and
the Mbone-WG. This was a result due to the low feedback from the poll
about topics and desired agenda items.

It left lots of room for interpretation and in order not to expand
the WG-sessions at RIPE meetings too much, Kurt has suggested to
integrate Mbone as a sub-topic into the Routing-WG, since all signs
points towards this as the right direction. Following the motto:
'Put Multicast there where it belongs: Into the Routers. Let Multicast
work where 'normal' routing also happens.'

There was some discussion what might be the reason for the low
response, as one of Kurt's assumptions was that people have no
problems... and might be busy currently migrating from DVMRP based
Multicast to PIM or native Multicast routing.

It seems to the audience that a migration and no problems where
mutually exclusive and people wondered... There was a quick poll
initiated by Havard Eidnes who's currently using Multicast. There
were some hands raised, but after the question who's using it with
a commercial background, there was just one participant from the
Astra-Satellite System that claimed to have an application running
production Multicast on a commercial level.

Conclusions (drawn by Kurt Kayser) basically were, that the Mbone as
we know is changing dramatically (Actually there's even controversy
what it stands for:
a) The experimental Multicast-Backbone, or
b) the DVMRP based tunnel system)

Nevertheless there is connectivity between the 'old Mbone' and the
new MBGP/native-Multicast/PIM based network located at NASA-Ames.
Naturally this poses a bottleneck for traffic that needs to traverse
to reach either side of the network wings.

Summary: Current workload of the WG does not justify a full time-slot
at a RIPE meeting, therefore Kurt asked the community if there are
objections to integrate it into the Routing-WG as a sub-topic. People
on the mailing-list asked to keep the Mailing-List itself and the
Contacts page on the web for Multicast-enabled network administrator
up running. If there's desire and enough demand, there shall be no
problem to allocate again more time to the WG when there is work to
be done. Kurt: IMHO: 'The Mbone as we knew it is vanishing - R.I.P.
and YES it was RIP based :-)

Kurt: PS: Remember Radio-RIX?

Database WG
Chair wilfried woeber
Attendees: 93
Scribe: Janne Snabb (RIPE NCC)

Important note: freezing development for "old" software!?
There are proposals to do that right now. Again we want to ask the
community to have a discussion and get people to get up and voice
there suggestions/comments. Please contact us. Speak up.


Niall O'Reilly suggested that the date of the next RIPE meeting in
Vienna (5-7 May 1999) should be the target date for freezing.
Wilfried agreed. We have got most of the things we have asked for.
There are no other major projects. Everything is done, there might
be a tiny bug somewhere, but it will not stop the process.

Chair: Niall O'Reilly
Attendees: 23
Scribe: Hans Niklasson

Number of ccTLD Registries represented: 8

Current Actions
Overdue minutes
Status of whois referral mechanism
All closed

Re-organisation needed

Some areas to be merged

Explicit reference to liaison DNS-WG

NIC FR directory project: demo at Vienna

Whois referral
Presentation by Joao Damas
Current implementation is just what is needed


Progress update from Fay Howard

CENTR ExCo now elected
CENTR to incorporate in near future
RIPE CENTR project to terminate by 30 June 1999

Fay Howard presented current status
Fresh approach from IE Registry
ICANN pressing for DNSO proposal by 5 Feb 1999

Relationship RIPE & TLD-WG <--> CENTR

New Actions:

TLD-32.1 [Chair]
Update Workplan
TLD-32.2 [Chair]
Determine DNS-SEC plans
and need for support from DNS-WG
TLD-32.3 [Chair]
Advise DB-WG of number of registries planning to use
RIPE whois code
TLD-32.4 [Philippe Renaut]
Present NIC-FR directory work at Vienna
TLD-32.5 [Mike Norris]
Co-ordinate review of RIPE-152

Niall wanted to mention in closing thanks to the NCC support
people and especially to Fay Howard.

Chair: Fearghas Mckay
Attendees: 55
Scribe: Martin McCarthy

Test Traffic WG
Chair: Martin McCarthy
Scribe: Daniel Karrenberg

Local IR WG
Chair: Hans-Petter Holen
Attendees: +/- 63
Scribe: Eamonn McGuinness

1. Admin

- scribe
- participant list
- agenda
- meet the RIPE NCC hostmasters
- mailinglists

2. RIPE 31

- minutes
- actions

3. RIPE Reports & Presentations

- Registry report by Paula
- IPv6 Assignment and Allocation Policy Document
- Auditing Activity
- Web interface
4. Reports from other registries


6. Statistics

7. Tagging IP adresses

8. I/O with other WGs

- DB-GW (Tomorrow 1400)
- IPv6 see 5. (Tomorrow 1100)
- (ICANN (Plenary today 1400))

9. AOB

- PI address space rules
- Policies for IP adresses for Cable networks
- Policies on assigning multicas adresses

Action Points LIR-WG RIPE 32

- NCC: Web interface to RIPE 141.
Announce, receive comments, and make source public
- NCC: Get IPv6 Guidelines in place
- NCC: write up suggestion on lowering AW from /19
- Guy Davies, UUnet: Start discussion on list on max allocation
size and internal aggregation needs for large networks
- NCC: Make pretty address statistics charts
- Poul-Henning: Present proposal on tagging IP addresses for
anti SPAM measures
- NCC: IP adresses to cable networks
Document current IANA policy and align practice with other IRRs
- Everybody: Participate in policies for IPv6 discussion
How much IP address space is used ?

Hans Petter Holen also wanted us to think about what we want a chair
of a Local IR Working Group to be? Send suggestions to Hans or on
the mailinglist.

Chair: James Aldridge
Attendees: 40
Scribe: Raza Rizvi (Rednet)

Rodney Tillotson from janet has
volunteerd to become new chair.

Wilfried: interested in IP tagging thingy. Pushed it to the LIR
people and anti-SPAM WG. In which perspecive want to pursue. As
soon as anti spam has found their view in this. And than database
will be happy to implement it. James anti-SPAM is the place to further
discuss it. Wilfried do that now and then take it from there..

Netnews WG
Chair: Felix Kugler (reported by Gerhard Winkler)
Attendees: 19
Scribe: Antony Antony (RIPE NCC)

The meeting focused on the groupsync project which aims to establish
an improved system to maintain Usenet group lists. A prototype was
ready right before the meeting. Betatesting is planned for the period
up to RIPE33 with the goal to have a first stable version at that time
and to identify helpful modifications.

Action summary:

closed: A30.N5 groupsync prototype by Jonas Luster, done.
A30.N4 flowmaps - whois data support (unclear whether
required at all).

open: A30.N3 flowmaps - visualization of news traffic flows
A31.N1 fill groupsync server with newsgroup data
new: A32.N1 test groupsync prototype

Details: the minutes are available online

Chair: Ruediger volk
Attendees: 62
Scribe: Lee Wilmot

Documents: dummies guide specific reccommendations general bLP - SDA

Statistics (gathering), errors obeserved, quality

Issues of upcoming software

DNS sec upcoming
Non problems Y2K

Chair: David Kessens
Attendees: 120
Scribe: Sabrina Waschke

Experimental 6bone network growing fast (exponential)

- new initiative for first production backbone: 6ren
for more info talk to David.

Minor changes for inet6num object proposed by the ripe ncc
- discussion of ipv6 allocation guidelines -> discussion will be
done by ipv6 working group (mailinglist) please subsribe to
mailinglist for your input. Proposal was written by the RIRs (not
just ncc)

Paula gave presentation on draft
- Guidelines are considered to be at he restrictive side.
- First goal should be routability not conservation

Thomas Trede asked if there is a co-chair. Jan czmok can be
co-chair but he wasn't there.

Remark: Vesna Manojlovic (RIPE NCC) please subscribe to mailinglist.
(moderators )

- 10. - Next Meetings

RIPE 33 May 1999 Vienna
RIPE 34 Sep 1999 Amsterdam
RIPE 35 Jan 2000 Amsterdam
RIPE 36 May 2000 Budapest
RIPE 37 sep 2000 Amsterdam

The chair reminded us all of the hotel situation in Vienna.
On the RIPE NCC website you can find the recommendation to book asap.
Some hotels are mentioned there. Have a look and book early!

- 11. - AOB

There was no other business.

- 12. - Close

The chair thanked everyone for coming and also thanked the RIPE NCC staff for organising the meeting.

The chair also thanked the sponsors (Tachyon, Skycache and Carrier1) for the receptions they offered. It certainly improved networking.