Minutes

Date: 16 – 18 June 2004
Location: Hotel Metropol, Moscow

Meeting Agenda:

Wednesday, 16 June 2004

  1. Opening and Welcome - Axel Pawlik, RIPE NCC
  2. International Management of Internet Resources - Rob Blokzijl, RIPE
  3. What is RIPE? - Rob Blokzijl, RIPE
  4. What is RIPE NCC? - Axel Pawlik, RIPE NCC
  5. RIPE NCC Services Presentation - Axel Pawlik, RIPE NCC
  6. Moscow Internet Exchange - Elena P. Voronina, MSK-IX
  7. Saving Costs Through Maximising Peering Relationships - Serge Radovcic, EURO-IX, and Vanessa Evans, LINX
  8. Routing: How Traffic Flows on the Internet - Philip Smith, Cisco
  9. IPv4 Address Lifetime Expectancy - Axel Pawlik, RIPE NCC
  10. IPv6 Update - Leo Vegoda, RIPE NCC

Thursday, 17 June 2004

  1. RIPE NCC Registration Services Updates and Statistics - Dominic Spratley, RIPE NCC
  2. RIPE NCC Training Services - Rumy Kanis, RIPE NCC
  3. K-Root Nameserver Operations - Andrei Robachevsky, RIPE NCC
  4. Domain Management - Michael Haberler, IPA, Austria
  5. Regional Input
  6. ICT Development in The Azerbaijan Republic - A Transition Economy - Aflatun Mamedo, Ministry of Communication & IT, Azerbaijan
  7. ENUM - Michael Haberler, IPA, Austria
  8. RIPE NCC Administration - Jochem de Ruig, RIPE NCC
  9. ccTLD RU: The Current State - Pavel Khramtsov, RU-CENTER
  10. Supporting Russian LIRs in the RU-CENTER - Larisa Yurkina, RU-CENTER
  11. Conclusion and Discussion
  12. Closing

Wednesday, 16 June 2004

1) Opening and Welcome - Axel Pawlik, RIPE NCC

Axel welcomed attendees to the RIPE NCC Regional Meeting, Moscow. He thanked the meeting sponsors.

 

2) International Management of Internet Resources - Rob Blokzijl, RIPE

Rob Blokzijl spoke on Internet resources, how they are co-ordinated on a global scale, and explained the organisations that are involved in the management of resources. He further noted issues regarding Internet addresses and protocol, Autonomous System Numbers, Domain Name System, and standards. He explained that, while address allocation begins at the global level and ends with the End User, Internet Protocol operates conversely, with discussion and agreement of rules starting with the users. Rob concluded by calling for more participation from users and providers of Internet resources.

3) What is RIPE? - Rob Blokzijl, RIPE

Rob Blokzijl noted the origins, history, purpose, organisation and meetings of RIPE, including the RIPE Working Groups and meeting attendance (per meeting, country and organisational categories). He noted the policy-making process and the four main components of the process: open, transparent, developed bottom-up, documented.

4) What is RIPE NCC? - Axel Pawlik, RIPE NCC

Axel spoke on the RIPE NCC organisation, its service region and activities, organisational statistics, co-ordination of the RIPE Meetings, and explained the difference between RIPE and the RIPE NCC.

5) RIPE NCC Services Presentation - Axel Pawlik, RIPE NCC

Axel spoke on the services of the RIPE NCC, explaining in greater detail its services with regards to membership, co-ordination, information and additional new projects. He outlined departmental structures and responsibilities within the RIPE NCC. Axel noted co-ordination activities between the other RIRs, including the creation and mission of the Number Resource Organization (NRO), and noted ongoing and planned actions for the RIPE NCC to perform.

Question on the situation regarding co-ordination between other regions, for example North America?

Axel responded that with regards to North America, the ICANN process is relevant. He noted that from the perspective of the RIPE NCC, ICANN (IANA) does not govern the Internet. He added that there is a popular misconception that the United States currently holds and will in the future hold more IP addresses than, for example, countries in the Asia Pacific region. Axel pointed out that these countries can still get lots of Internet address space, including IPv4, and that there is a need to counter the false perceptions about the exhaustion of Internet address space.

He also stated that there is a certain amount of fear, uncertainty and doubt in the African and South American regions about IP address space allocation and distribution. He mentioned that an interesting aspect in the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) process is that governments can side with other governments’ perspectives on this topic for completely unsuspected reasons that have more to do with trade than the Internet.
Regarding this, Axel noted that, overall, the installation of LACNIC has helped, as has the emerging RIR in Africa, AfriNIC.

Question on what the RIPE NCC’s response is when a government, such as the Ukrainian government, want to run addressing on a country (governmental) basis.

Axel replied that the RIPE NCC is intent on supporting the way the Internet currently runs. In addition to this he stated that the intention behind the RIPE NCC Information Services project is to provide good information to governments so that they understand the issues and problems concerning the Internet.

Axel also noted that in Germany there are laws in place that would theoretically allow the German government to take over the domain name situations.

He mentioned that currently there is a lot of legal discussion about Internet numbers and whether they are, like telephone numbers, something that should be the responsibility of a local authority. He added that the German government, while acknowledging the laws recognises that the registry in Germany is running very well, is supported by a large community and has sufficient resources. He noted that the government also recognise that IP addressing is internationally based and that it is not something for only Germany to deal with.

Axel stated that it was important to get governments into this state of mind and that, if they need to pass a law asserting their national authority, they should be encouraged to work together with the current organisations in a public-private partnership. Axel added that it is important that governments see that things are running smoothly, that there is no shortage of any resources and that the distribution system is fair.

Axel noted that if, in the end, governments want to rule that city names can be used as sub-domain levels, then that is for the governments to decide. He added that it is always possible to propose counterarguments to governments and that laws and regulations can also be reversed. He mentioned that regulators and administrators do not generally have a technical background and so it is important that they have access to correct information to help them make good decisions.

Question on how the RIPE NCC would respond if the Ukrainian government requested control over specific services.

Rob Blokzijl, RIPE Chair, replied that the RIPE NCC is not in the domain name business. He stated that, according to the RIPE NCC Charter and By-Laws, the RIPE NCC provides registration services of Internet Resources to its members. He added that the RIPE NCC will continue to provide Internet Resources to its members.

Question on rumours that the RIRs wanted to assume ICANN work and whether ICANN will do name support organisation work?

Axel replied that he thought that ICANN would continue its overall mission to ensure the stability of the domain name system.

He added that the Number Resource Organization (NRO), formed by the RIRs, is a back-up organisation that could do part of the ICANN mission and that part of this is dealing with the Internet addresses and ASNs. He noted that this is something that the NRO would be able to take over if something bad happened to ICANN. He mentioned that currently ICANN was seen as a partner in doing these things, especially in the big picture of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and government interaction. He added that in the current global discussions, the NRO supports ICANN and wants them to function fairly, stably and efficiently.

Question on the possibility of training in local languages, the status of this and the possibility of training courses in other parts of Russia.

Axel responded that documenting things in many different languages poses many challenges, particularly quality assurance. He stated that the English language will for the moment remain the official language for documents, but maybe it would be possible to have some other languages to help people out.

With regards to offering training in different locations, Axel stated that to do this there have to be enough people. He noted that the RIPE NCC had to consider economies of scale, and justifying the resources to the members.

He added that the RIPE NCC was investigating different ways of delivering trainings, especially as a way to target remote communities that we are not able to easily visit.

Question on whether the RIPE NCC wanted to distribute the root server in more countries in its service region and whether the RIPE NCC has contact with governments and NGOs regarding Internet resource policies.

Axel responded that the RIPE NCC is trying to implement more root servers in its service region and that there are a wide variety of organisations operating root servers.

He added that the RIPE NCC anycasts the K-root server, and that there are plans to implement nodes in the further parts of the service region. Axel noted that the RIPE NCC tries hard to meet NGO's and governments, but it is a difficult task as the service region is so wide.

Question on the increase of PI assignments in Poland, Ukraine and Russia.

Leo Vegoda replied that the statistics do show that a large part of the PI assignments made over the last year have gone to these regions. He noted that these assignments are the result of requests.

He added that these statistics do not show the historical PI assignment made in the early years of the RIPE NCC at the time when LIRs with PI allocations would make assignments.

He commented that it could be that the proportion of PI assignments in these regions is levelling towards the PI assignments in Germany, Britain, the United States and elsewhere. He pointed out that these were just his speculations and that it would be better to ask the operators from this region why their customers have been requesting this PI space.

Question on whether the formation of more RIRs means the RIPE NCC faces competition in the European region and what is the purpose of the RIRs is since there is IANA.

Axel replied that the nature of the RIPE NCC’s services means that it does not experience much competition. This can make it difficult to convince governments that the RIPE NCC is not a big bureaucracy, which is why it is especially important to show them that it is driven by the members, that it is a not-for-profit organisation and that it tries to keep costs down.

He added that due to regional differences, putting everything under the IANA would make things less flexible. He stated that the current RIR system balances global and regional parts well.

Rob Blokzijl, RIPE Chair, stated that up to 1992 the IANA was the only registry and that way of working did not work, which is why the RIRs exist now.

Question on whether it will be possible to avoid problems with governments when IPv6 is deployed as there will be two allocation schemes and whether it is possible to have peaceful co-existence?

Axel replied that he did not foresee a problem with governments, and that the RIPE NCC is willing to work with them. He added that he did not expect specific problems with IPv6, as it basically follows the same principles of allocation to IPv4.

Rob Blokzijl, RIPE Chair, pointed out that geographical schemes in IPv6 will not work very well, and that the IETF rejected this idea. He added that IP numbers are used for routing and not for political schemes.

Question on IPv6 and the fact that this will not resolve the conflict with the Russian government which is based on the government’s willingness to put in place structures to make money on the resources to be allocated and the fact that the government can always disconnect an end user or content provider who breaks government rules.

Axel responded that what can be done is to show when activities are not done for technical reasons, but for other reasons such as making money, censoring etc. He added that there is only so much that the RIPE NCC can do about it, and that IPv4 and IPv6 are not different in that respect.

6) Moscow Internet Exchange - Elena P. Voronina, MSK-IX

This presentation gave an introduction to the Moscow Internet Exchange, including information on how Russian providers can connect to it.

Q: More information was requested on connecting St. Petersburg providers to Moscow IX.

Elena Voronina explained that there is a data link between two data sites, the Moscow public branch exchange and the computer centre of the October railroad in St. Petersburg, and that this is a dedicated line. She added that when a user connects to the St. Petersburg Internet exchange, the provider can select one of two options: either exchange local traffic or connect to the vLAN of Moscow IX. She noted that this traffic is accounted for and paid for separately.

Question on traffic size calculation and whether this is based on the subscriber fee or if it is split into traffic types (local traffic and Russian regional traffic)?

Elena Voronina responded that they did not have a breakdown of traffic into any particular groups.

7) Saving Costs Through Maximising Peering Relationships - Serge Radovcic, EURO-IX, and Vanessa Evans, LINX

This presentation included observations on the factors that affect the Internet industry within Russia, the factors that affect Russian ISPs connection to the global market, the provision of Layer 2 connection, the pricing options to facilitate connection to other European IXPs and an overview of European IXPs.

Question on why the number of links from Moscow IX to other Western exchanges is very small?

Serge Radovcic replied that that is something he wanted to find out. He added that a lot of people peer at Moscow, but not anywhere else in Europe. Serge referred this question to the floor. It seemed that the main reason deterring providers from peering at other exchanges in Europe was cost.

Vanessa Evans mentioned that the Russian companies she had spoken to had told her that the cost of carrying traffic to Amsterdam or London over the lease lines of the networks that they have is so expensive that is cheaper for them to pay the transit prices. She added that this would probably explain why they don’t connect to any other exchange points.

Question on domestic users connecting to the Internet and the explosion of traffic in Local Area Networks that this creates and whether this trend is visible in Europe and if the growth of local traffic influences European operations?

Rob Blokzijl noted that in the last two years in Western Europe there has been a very rapid introduction of broadband to the home and that is the main source of the traffic.

Question on the percentage of total public traffic that goes through Euro IX members and how this has changed in recent years.

Serge Radovcic replied that within the exchange itself there is a lot more traffic being exchanged over private interconnections and this traffic is not seen in the statistics so it is not possible to give an exact figure.

He noted that of the 31 members, 26 have publicly available statistics and when these are added together there was a peak total of about 180 Gigabytes per second. He noted that this was not all happening at the same time.

He added that considering the other big exchanges, he would guess around 400 Gigabytes per second in Europe.

It was noted that Rob Blokzijl thought the figure was much higher.

8) Routing: How traffic flows on the Internet - Philip Smith, Cisco

Philip Smith spoke on how Internet traffic flow works, discussing topologies, topology definitions, routing (including how routing works, use of AS Numbers, packet flow, routing policy and policy limitations), BGP and aggregation and the efforts to improve the quality of it.

Question on whether when an ISP announces a block for his customer, but also announces his aggregate, if the customer will still get traffic when the prefix is withdrawn and put back in.

Philip Smith replied that this was correct, and pointed out that he was trying to highlight that aggregates are good to announce.

9) IPv4 Address Lifetime Expectancy - Axel Pawlik, RIPE NCC

Axel presented Geoff Huston’s research and analysis results based on three years of data regarding IPv4 address space, its allocation into the IP system, present and projected usage, BGP routing table and how it corresponds to the use of address space. The analysis also included projected IPv4 address space exhaustion based on BGP announcements, and combined allocations through the IANA and the RIRs as well as the holding pool analysis.

Question on the trend of address returns and if addresses are recycled.

Axel replied that currently there is not much of a trend for recycling and returning addresses. He noted that reclaiming address space will be investigated, but it is not necessary right now and is not happening in the RIPE NCC service region.

He added that when looking at the numbers, 17 /8s were found that had been returned.

Question on whether AS Numbers will run out before IPv4.

Axel replied that he did not think there was currently an urgent threat of AS Numbers running out.

10) IPv6 Update - Leo Vegoda, RIPE NCC

Leo spoke on IPv6 allocation and assignment, distribution by country, IPv6 policy developments and allocation principles.


Thursday, 17 June 2004

Meeting commenced at 9:10

11) RIPE NCC Registration Services Updates and Statistics - Dominic Spratley, RIPE NCC

Dominic spoke on the services that the RIPE NCC has been providing to the membership, focusing on activities in the Eastern Region. Topics included RIPE NCC activities, Registration Services departmental structure, service requests, documentation renewal, RIPE NCC LIR Portal web interface, statistics (membership growth, customer requests, IPv4 space allocation), IPv4 distribution, AS Number growth rate and assignments, and IPv6 allocations and distribution.

Question on what the term “active” in relation to members means.
Dominic responded that “active” members are members that paid the service fee.

Question on whether the mailing robot will be updated with the same functionality that the LIR Portal gets.

Dominic replied that the RIPE NCC does look at the robot software as well.

Question on developing request wizards, and if the RIPE NCC plans to provide the source code for these wizards.

Dominic replied that the RIPE NCC did not currently have those plans, but were open to requests.

12) RIPE NCC Training Services - Rumy Kanis, RIPE NCC

Rumy spoke on the training services offered by the RIPE NCC including the Local Internet Registry Course, the Routing Registry Training Course, the DNSSec Training Course, tutorials and seminars, the number of courses held throughout the year, locations of courses in the RIPE NCC service region, planned course schedule and training services in development.

Question on whether the RIPE NCC plans to deliver the DNSSec course in Eastern Europe.

Rumy replied that this was not currently planned. She added that the next training course is in Denmark, and that she would see if she could include Russia in the DNSSec courses for the fourth quarter of 2004. She also mentioned that the RIPE NCC were running a DNSSec seminar for attendees of the Regional Meeting.

Question on how the RIPE NCC selects the destinations of the courses.

Rumy responded that the RIPE NCC looks at the number of new LIRs, the total number of LIRs in a region and the number of requests. She added that the decision is mostly based on the number of LIRs in a region.

Question on how the RIPE NCC selects cities and venues and what needs to be done to have RIPE NCC select a specific city / area, such as Siberia.

Rumy replied that an assessment is usually made based on where the LIRs are in a region and the possibility for travelling. She added there will probably be a training course in Novosibirsk.

She noted that the RIPE NCC was looking into the possibility of LIRs offering hosting and other help to remote RIPE NCC training courses. She added, however, that the RIPE NCC had to maintain independence and neutrality so these options would have to be considered carefully.

Question on whether the RIPE NCC has considered using languages other than English for the training material.

Rumy replied that this has been considered but there are many issues, such as how to choose which languages to offer translations for and how to maintain the quality of the material. She also noted that since the RIPE NCC update their material regularly, updates will become much more complicated if translation is necessary. She added that simultaneous translation might be considered an option during the trainings.

13) K-root Nameserver Operations - Andrei Robachevsky, RIPE NCC

Andrei spoke on the K-root nameserver operated by the RIPE NCC and the anycast instances of this nameserver. Topics included an explanation of the root server system, location and operators of the root servers, the evolution of the root server architecture, anycast technology, K-root milestones and current status, and future node plans.

Question on whether root server operators co-ordinate their anycasting efforts and what the relation is between the traffic figures for the servers.

Andrei replied that there is some co-ordination but it is the host of anycast instance
and the root server operator itself who decide how they will operate. He noted that the K, J and F root servers are anycasted.

Question on the criteria for installing a K-root.

Andrei replied that the requirements are available at:
http://k.root-servers.org/

He noted that the requirements are not strictly related to the queries.

Question on the co-ordination between top-level domains, such as .org or .com.

Andrei replied that it is up to top-level domain organisations to choose the way they operate.

14) Domain Management - Michael Haberler, IPA, Austria

The presentation included sections on the origins and activities of CENTR, including CENTR’s position and current issues such as internationalised domain names, privacy policies, DNS security and ENUM.

15) Regional Input

Presentation by Konstantin Sinavsky from the Ukraine Telematica company.
This presentation gave a short overview of the situation in Ukraine.

He noted that in 2001 there were 100 ISPs in Ukraine and in 2004 there were approximately 400 ISPs in Ukraine.

He stated that internal transport costs are high, connectivity at IXs within national borders is often weak and that normally the traffic goes using external channels.

He noted that cost of a 2MB channel from London to New York is approximately 100 USD, and that a 2MB channel Kiev to Odessa is 5200 USD. He said that they were trying to resolve this situation by involving the government. He added that a concept for the development of a national transport network has been approved but unfortunately talks have not been held with the national telecoms provider.

He noted that most of the countries in the former Soviet Union have a telecoms monopoly. He added that to ensure continuity and protect themselves, even small ISPs register a number of AS Numbers to make sure that their users are secure.

He stated that the Internet community in Ukraine is not yet self-organised. He noted that there are problems with the ccTLDs in .ua zone. He added that there are problems in the Ukraine but they are being resolved.

He stated that there are Internet Exchange Points in all cities in the Ukraine where there are more than three operators. He added that connectivity is problematic here as telecoms has always sprung from the centre and this has an impact on continuity.

He noted that in Ukraine everything goes through Kiev. He stated that in Kiev local traffic is free, but this is not the case in other regions of Ukraine. He added that regulation of this issue is very important to this country, and that this issue is near to being resolved with the help of the government. He added that, consequently, rejecting co-operation with the government is not quite right. He noted that governments do not always have a destructive stance. He stated that the creation of a steering co-ordination committee means that the government is trying to help the community on legal grounds to develop the rules. He noted that currently 90% of Ukranian users are deprived the possibility of registering their domains in the zone. He added that this situation needs to be improved.

Question on why LIR applications regarding the .ua domain have been ignored, the process for this and why some of the domains are free and others not free.

Konstantin Sinavsky responded that administrators who have a registered a role account are registering nets in their own name. He noted that this is wrong but it is also happening in .ua because everything began in 1992. He added that, historically, some employees of ISPs took something and it is only possible to retrieve it through a series of legal procedures.

Question on exchange and traffic conflict.

Konstantin Sinavsky responded that exchanges exist in all cities where there are more than three operators. He noted that in the Ukraine there are free traffic exchange points, for example in Kiev. He noted that in each city and town issues are resolved in a different way dependent on the local Internet community. He added that in the Ukraine there is a telephone monopoly that belongs to the government so there is no way of avoiding the government.

Boris Mostovoy asked the Chair if he could make a five minute presentation. He said he wanted correct comments made about Ukraine in previous presentations.

The Chair replied that, in the interests of a balanced presentation, this was possible.

Presentation by Boris Mostovoy, representing the Hostmaster ccTLD company in the Ukraine.

He stated that he believed the focus on domains in the previous presentation was because the presenter represented a company interested in becoming a domain administrator and that was trying to put in place a traffic exchange network. He added that some of these types of companies are based on just one principle: working in co-operation with the government. He added that some of these companies are not interested in working along normal rules.

He noted the trial that took place in Ukraine was a good example. He added that he lost this trial, and noted that he had challenged a resolution by the Ukranian cabinet that they were in charge of IP addresses. He added that he thought that ICANN and RIPE were in charge of DNS and IP addresses. He noted that he had challenged the position of the government. He added that the monopolist committee of the Ukraine recognised him as a monopoly in the .ua domain, 100 monopoly. He noted that he thought the process would continue and the anti-trust committee would recognise other domains and the administrators of these domains.

He noted that the laws are normal business laws and they unite providers who want to use traffic exchange points to improve their products and services. He added that this included normal enterprise functions with proper account departments and documents detailing how to connect people.

Question on whether the .ua domain belongs to a limited liability company.

Boris Mostovoy responded that it is delegated to the domain administrator. He added that Hostmaster is a legal entity and that this is an entry point where one can come to get a service contract. He added that this limited liability company is a technical entity which services some operations. He noted that it is an attempt to bring Ukranian legislation and the Internet community best practise in line without using the cabinet.

Question on who defines the domain policy and rules.

Boris Mostovoy responded that these were developed by a working group of administrators approved by a public supervisory committee. He noted that the rules only work if they are recognised as an appendix to the domain delegation contract, so they only cover those who accepted them. He added that one could make a proposal at any time online through the forum and it will be considered or challenged. He noted that if everyone agrees on the proposal, it will be introduced to the rules.

Question on whether it is possible to register second-level domain names in the .ua zone and whether it is possible to get certain second-level .ua domains free of charge, the way it is done in Russia.

Boris Mostovoy responded that in the .ua there are private second-level domains that are protected from unpleasant things and they are only delegated based on the document called ‘Certificate for Products and Services’, which should be registered in the Ukraine. He noted that the trademark law in any country protects the owner of the trademark and this is expressly stated in the Ukraine legislation. He added that only those who have this certificate can get a private domain.

He also noted that there are public domains that can be obtained by a community and that the number of people in this community is not predefined. He added that if there are no rules for this domain then the domain will be delegated.

He noted that whether one can get a domain in the .ua region for free or not, depends in all cases on the end user, the administrators and registrators for the enterprise. He noted that there is some moderate compensation rate for all the services provided and that depends on what package is selected regarding registration. He added that there are no single rules.

He added that in each domain in Ukraine could develop its own rules.

Question on the difficulty of the registration process for second-level domains and the fact that an individual person can not just register a domain name with his name.

It was noted that an individual can get a domain name in Ukraine.

Question on why it is possible to get second level domains free in some zones and not others and why there are various prices for different zones.

Boris Mostovoy responded that there are different rules for public domains. He added that, historically, in Kiev it is free.

He noted that in Karakov it is not free and that a sponsor is necessary to provide enough resources to make sure the infrastructure is in place because the goal is that the DNS should be working.

The Chair noted that the time for this slot had expired and thanked the participants for an engaging discussion. He encouraged conversation on these issues to continue in the coffee breaks.

16) ICT Development in The Azerbaijan Republic - A Transition Economy - Aflatun Mamedo, Ministry of Communication & IT, Azerbaijan

The presentation gave details on the ICT developments and plans in the Azerbaijan Republic.

Question on the position of the Azerbaijan Republic’s government in "controlling" not-for-profit independent organisations that do domain and IP registration.

Aflatun Mamedo responded that he has had discussions with ICANN and that the government also observes CENTR. He added that they are using the international procedures the way they have grown from John Postel.

Question on whether there is a strong "monopoly" by the main providers in Azerbaijan?

Aflatun Mamedo mentioned that the ministry has a monopoly on long distance and international calls but that some parts will be privatised by the end of this year. He added that GSM providers will also be privatised, and so the monopoly of the state will stop, and the state will move more towards making policies and rules, not actually being a competitor in the market. He also noted that in Azerbaijan the number of mobiles per 1000 inhabitants is much higher then in other parts of former Soviet Republic. He mentioned that the number of regular landlines is quite low in Azerbaijan. He added that almost 50% of the phone system is digitalised and work is being done to increase this.

Question on the figures that characterize the development in the region, such as price for bandwidth.

Aflatun Mamedo responded that he could not give exact figures but that there is a program that is focused on regional development and a pricing committee. He noted that the prices are too high, which causes problems, but that they were trying to mend that.

17) ENUM - Michael Haberler, IPA, Austria

The presentation gave an introduction to ENUM including its usage forms and rollout. The presentation included call flow examples, PSTN/Internet boundaries and the +43 ENUM trial.

Question on how to make money with ENUM.

Michael Haberler responded that the focus should not be the basic call.
He noted that revenue is shifting from a “per call” model to “basic access”. He added that the broadband operators are likely to gain more, especially if they come from the fixed networks.

Question on the technical interaction between SIP and ENUM and the need for a DNS or ENUM service SIP address number that works two ways.

Michael Haberler replied that the consideration needs to be late entry and early exit strategy from PSTN. He noted that it was possible to exit to the PSTN at the latest possible point in time provided there is the appropriate routing mechanisms to the gateway. He gave the example of fraenum.org who provide the public capability of calling 800 numbers in their countries using a private ENUM tree to attract traffic for these 800 numbers to that gateway.

He added that, in terms of routing the PSTN, it still has not come very far. He noted that in terms of OnNet caller ID it is better to have an e-mail than a number to show who is calling. He explained that as the call crosses the media gateway, reverse mapping is needed to translate URI into a number. He noted that because the media gateway is not a public resource like the DNS and there are charges involved, a service provider needs to know who is making the calls so they can charge for the service of gatewaying their calls into the PSTN. He added that a customer relationship with them was necessary and in the service provided the mapping function would probably be based on a database and not a public ENUM tree.

Question on whether the media gateway performs resolution of name to call number to provide a call back for PSTN customers and if any media gateway can select this mapping and provide it to PSTN customers.

Michael Haberler replied that the state of the industry is that for OnNet to PSTN termination sometimes caller ID is non-existent. He noted that it is tough to control in many cases. He added that to control the charges, the gateway operator needs to have that credential that fits to the mapping. He noted that this does not have to be public as it is not invertible or one to one.

18) RIPE NCC Administration - Jochem de Ruig, RIPE NCC

Jochem spoke on the RIPE NCC billing procedure, scoring algorithm, charging scheme and the updated clearing house procedure.

Question on the deadline for invoicing and whether there is a fixed date for sending invoices. It was noted that in Russia businesses have to follow banking legislation and have to use quarterly payments. It was added that, as a consequence of this, the timing of the invoices have to be one month in advance of the period they cover. This is extremely important.

Jochem responded that first quarter invoices are sent out at the beginning of November, second quarter invoices are sent out at the beginning of February, third quarter invoices are sent out at the beginning of May and fourth quarter invoices sent out in August.

Question on why the RIPE NCC does not give more locally focused service especially in regard to payment procedure. It was noted that under Russian legislation there is a specific term within which you can provide those invoices and that, because the RIPE NCC invoice Russian LIRs 45 days before the period with a payment period of 30 days, such invoices cannot be paid under Russian legislation.

Jochem responded that the RIPE NCC could change the timing of this, and push it several weeks forward or backward. He stated that he will investigate whether this local requirement can be met for 2005.

There was also a comment on the wording in the Standard Service Agreement, regarding quarterly payment and payment delays have been brought up before.

It was suggested that a special addendum be added to the Standard Service Agreement for Russian and Ukranian members to clear up specific problems encountered with Bank of Russia and currency control agent, especially problems to do with the authorisation of the invoiced amount.

Question on why the new Standard Service Agreement does not refer to any service fees at all, and the process that was followed to adopt the new Standard Service Agreement.

Axel responded that, historically, the RIPE NCC has been driven by the need for strict neutrality, so that all its members are treated the same. He added that the RIPE NCC has learned that this does not always work because of specific regional differences, but that that was why the RIPE NCC had set up this Regional Meeting. He noted that the RIPE NCC wanted to resolve these problems.

He noted that the new Standard Service Agreement was published and presented to the RIPE NCC General Meeting. He added that the RIPE NCC would adapt the current version to its members needs to enable them to pay the Service Fees. He noted that is why the RIPE NCC’s Chief Financial Officer was present at the Regional Meeting. He added the if there are documents that do not cover members’ requirements, then the RIPE NCC wants to work with the members to adapt these documents.

Jochem added that one of the main problems for the RIPE NCC has been that the exact nature of this payment problem had been unclear. He added that it has been somewhat clarified by the comments at the Regional Meeting, but more information was still needed on the fine details. He noted that the RIPE NCC wants to help LIRs pay more easily and to make their and the RIPE NCC’s administration process easier. He added that if adding an extra statement to the Standard Service Agreement could help this, then he would like to work together with members to add this.

There was a comment that, because the RIPE NCC operates under Dutch law, Dutch legislation impacts RIPE NCC members from all countries, and prevents the RIPE NCC offering equal service to all its members.

Axel responded that the RIPE NCC is driven by the intent to be neutral and to treat all its members in the same way. He noted that the RIPE NCC is a membership association incorporated in Amsterdam. He added that the RIPE NCC is responding to the members’ request that the RIPE NCC visit different regions to talk to members locally about issues that affect them.

Jochem added that if an addition to the Standard Service Agreement would solve the problem, he would be happy to discuss this with the members and write something up.

Jochem presented the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme.

Question on the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme and why it does not allow a new LIR to be classified as extra small.

Jochem responded that the old Standard Service Agreement stated that new LIRs were always placed in the small billing category. He noted that this meant that the RIPE NCC could only charge these LIRs as small in 2004. He added that for the next year the RIPE NCC is investigating the possibility of starting new LIRs in the extra small billing category. In the year following that they will be categorized on the basis of their billing score as a result of the billing score algorithm.

Question on whether a takeover fee applies if a company changes its name without any takeover.

Jochem responded that in the case of a name change or a postal address change there is no takeover. The take over fee applies only when another registry is taken over and the allocations / assignments are transferred.

Question on whether the scoring algorithm includes networks that have been taken over in that year’s score or in the score for the following year.

Jochem responded that this is determined from the allocations and assignments in the individual LIR’s reg file on the 30 September.

Question on what happens when an LIR takes over the allocations of another LIR and if the blocks that are taken over scored at their original allocation date, or the date when they were taken over by the new LIR.

Jochem responded that the taken over blocks retain the date of initial allocation and that they are scored on the basis of this original allocation date.

Question on whether an LIR is still scored for a PI block that it registered for a client with an Autonomous System once the client has ceased to be a customer of that LIR.

Jochem responded that in the current scheme, an LIR is still scored if it gets an AS Number for a customer who then leaves that LIR with the AS Number. He added that the RIPE NCC is looking into this matter for 2005, and is investigating whether this should only be scored in the year when the assignment is given or whether there should still be a time factor.

Axel noted that this issue was discussed at last RIPE NCC General Meeting in May, when members discussed whether the charging scheme should include Autonomous System Numbers at all. This needs to be evaluated.

Question on whether it is possible to transfer Autonomous System Numbers between LIRs.

Axel responded that in principle this is possible, but not in the current scheme.

Question on what happens if a customer leaves an LIR and the LIR returns the Autonomous System Number to the RIPE NCC.

Axel responded that in principle an LIR could return resources and they would not be included in the LIR’s billing score anymore.

Question on the instances when clients took their PI blocks from one LIR to another and what would happen if the new LIR refused to receive this client and its PI block.

Leo responded that PI space is currently not covered in the Charging Scheme for 2004 so there would be no change to the LIR’s billing score. For the 2005 Charging Scheme, the RIPE NCC is asking for members’ feedback on how this situation should be handled. He noted that these discussions and proposals should be sent to a public mailing list so that all LIRs can see them and a result that benefits everyone can be reached.

Jochem continued his presentation, explaining the new clearing house procedure and the process for re-signing the new Standard Service Agreement.

Question on who should sign the Standard Service Agreement.

Jochem responded that the Standard Service Agreement has to be signed by an authorised person from the LIR.

Question on the new Standard Service Agreement, relevance for claiming back taxes within the European Union for countries in Eastern Europe and the necessity for them to re-sign the agreement.

Jochem responded that RIPE NCC is not liable for corporate income tax in the Netherlands and therefore does not pay Dutch corporate income tax. Therefore there is a benefit for the members because instead of paying the 35% tax to the Dutch local government, the RIPE NCC can put this money into the Clearing House, which is the members’ Clearing House.

Axel noted that the changes to the standard service contract and the terms and conditions were proposed because things had been modified, especially around the Clearing House, but this was not reflected correctly in the previous documents. He noted that changing the documents was not so much about avoiding Dutch corporate income taxes, as updating documents to reflect the current situation. He added that avoiding Dutch corporate income taxes had been done already and this was just another way of doing that.

Question on whether Eastern European countries should wait before signing the new agreement and form a working group that can come up with an additional agreement relevant to their situation.

Jochem proposed that those interested in forming a working group to discuss these issues should send him an e-mail and he would set up a mailing list.

Support for this initiative was expressed because Russian and Ukranian legislation are so different from European legislation, and Dutch legislation in particular. It was also noted that Russian and Ukranian legislation is volatile and changes frequently.

It was suggested that the Russian and Ukranian LIRs discuss their issues together and then use the RIPE NCC mailing list as a forum to put forward their ideas. It was noted that this would allow the LIRs to express initial thoughts in their local language. It was stressed, however, that the process should take place in parallel with RIPE and the RIPE NCC.

Axel stated that it was important for the RIPE NCC and members to work together to find solutions to the problems posed by differences in legislation. He added that the RIPE NCC was keen to work together with its members to resolve these issues.

19) ccTLD RU: The Current State - Pavel Khramtsov, RU-CENTER

The presentation included information on the number of .ru domain registration per regions, milestones, domain names registered by registrars, the growth of .ru Domain Name registrations and a measurement toolkit.

Question about incorrect settings for DNS servers, and who should verify DNS server parameter or issue recommendations to users about settings.

Pavel Khramtsov responded that recommendations were available at www.nic.ru.

Discussion on the verification process and the fact this is done by individual registrars.
Discussion on whether the registrars include recommendations in their replies.

Pavel Khramtsov responded that registrars activities should be co-ordinated by the organisation centre. He added that lame delegation only accounts for 5%, which is much lower than the percentage in the UK.

20) Supporting Russian LIRs in the RU-CENTER - Larisa Yurkina, RU-CENTER

The presentation included information on the IP registration services group, RosNIIROS, and the consultation group, RU-CENTER.

21) Conclusion and Discussion

Axel stated that the RIPE NCC learnt a lot from the interactions at the Regional Meeting.

He added that the RIPE NCC was currently writing a draft version of the Activity Plan 2005.

He noted that there is a section that covers regional support. After the third Regional Meeting, that will take place in July 2004, the RIPE NCC will assess if the meetings should be continued.

Axel thanked the local host, RosNIRROS, and sponsors.
He thanked the audience for their active participation.

He invited participants to RIPE Meeting and to participate in RIPE Mailing Lists where RIPE polices are discussed and formed.

Axel requested that if members have any comments about service levels, they are welcome to contact him directly.

22. Meeting closed at 17:30.