運営委員会資料                                          2000/1/20
                                                        資料 3-2

                     IPアドレスAS番号割り当て検討部会

[部会開催]
1月14日（金） ip-fee
1月17日（月） ip-fee
1月17日（月） ip-wg

[主な検討事項]

1. 新ドキュメント開発

・ロードマップ＋クイックリファレンス＋FAQ
	新ルール施行の29日に間に合わせる予定
・用語集
	業者作業中
・英訳
	業者から訳があがってきて、現在チェック中
・APNIC Policy 
	最新版の和訳を行う予定


2. IPv6サービス

・サービス開始（2000.1.20)
	ドキュメント類完（１月５日運営委員会メールボートで承認、１２日公開）
	webページ立ち上げ（１月２０日）


3. IPビジネスモデル策定

・ＮＩＣ調査結果完
	引き続き、いくつかのISPの典型的なパターンを各ＮＩＣのモデルに
	当てはめる費用試算を実施予定
・検討すべき主要なポイントを整理
	- 会員資格
	- 課金対象　ＰＩに課金するか決める
	- ＪＰＮＩＣのＤＢ　過去の割り振り／割当アドレスの調査予定
	- 年会費
・スケジュール
　　・ドラフト（枠組み）　２月の打ち合わせで提出
　　・個別内容：メンバーに分担する予定　３月策定予定
　　・以上を受けて　４月に試案を完成予定
・他との連携
　　・国際関係（ＡＰＮＩＣなど）との整合
　　・ドメインとの整合
　　　を考える必要があるので、企画国際部会・企画室と連絡を密にしながら
	ドラフト案を作成していく。


4. 業務委任会員契約書関連

弁護士にIP業務について理解を深めてもらっている段階


5. 国際関連

・APRICOT Address Policy SIGで発表募集を行う（chairとして）
・それを受けて、JPNICから以下の３件をAPRICOT Address Policy SIGに応募（別紙参照）
	/29 assignment
	DB privacy issue
	registry evaluation principles
・RIR criteriaの案がでている。これについて議論を開始
・ASO General Assemblyは、５月にBudapestになる見込み

6. その他

・IRR勉強会準備中
・PIサービス（非CIDRアサインメントサービス）凍結。今後の方針について議論中。
・個人情報の扱いについて議論（DB-WGのミーティングに参加）

以上

===========================================================================
別紙：
APRICOT Address Policy SIGへのプレゼンテーションの提案

--その１--
                                                         JPNIC IP-WG
                                                        January 2000

Proposal for simple assignment procedure of length /29 or longer prefix

- Introduction

RFC2050 and APNIC's policy define that ISP's customers must exhibit 
very precise projection for their one year address usages and the 
justifications for it.  This rule is even applied to the prefix which 
is /29 or /30. 

/29s and /30s are widely used in Japan by personal users now, which 
costs too much for both the applicants and Internet Registry. It may 
impede the sound growth of the Internet.

- Proposal

We propose a simple procedure in which applicants don't need the 
network detail information in case when a prefix which is longer than 
/28. It seems to be reasonable since in case of /29s, three hosts, for 
example one gateway router and two hosts on the segment, is enough to 
satisfy the RFC2050 criteria.

- Rationale

We JPNIC held a trial operation from March 1998 until January 2000, 
that doesn't require the network detail information in case of the 
assignment of /29 and longer, to encourage assignment of longer 
prefixes and preservation of the IP address space. Now in Japan, 41% 
of all the assignment is /29 and longer and 87% is /28 and longer.  

We believe that we are successful for the address space preservation 
and that this contributes a great reduction of resource for address 
assignment at JPNIC, LIR and personal end-users as well.

----その２-----
Title:          Handling of Personal Information on the APNIC Database
Applicant:      IP working group, JPNIC

Circumstances: 
  Since the dedicated line service got cheaper than it used to be,  
personal sites connected to the Internet by dedicated lines are
increasing these days.

  It is regulated that all the IP address assignments are registered
onto APNIC database with the postal addresses and the phone numbers of
their points-of-contact(POCs).  Consequently it leads out the private 
information of the administrators of the personal sites to the public.
Therefore it might be the problem of the abuse of private information,
say the Issues of Private Information.

Proposal:
  One of the measure to solve this problem is to register their ISP's
POCs as POCs of the sites.  This measure needs ISPs' recognitions and
corporation.  Anyway I'd like to discuss this issue at the policy SIG
to provide some principles on the protection of private information to
APNIC.

----------その３-----------
                                                        JPNIC IP-WG
                                                        January 2000

< A proposal for registry evaluation principles >

1. Introduction

  We would like to propose that we should define several
  principles for address allocation for the following
  goals.

        a. to avoid and resolve conflicts described in the
           APNIC policy document (5.2)
        b. to share one standard assignment policy practice
           organizations in the AP region

  Such definitions will result in;

        a. Stable address administration in an environment
           where policy and technology see frequent changes 
        b. consistency among APNIC, NIR and LIR hostmasters
           (performance, decision, etc...)
        c. efficiency in address allocations and assignments

2. Proposed principles

        The following principles are proposed;

        a. Registries shall not interfere with business 
           issues of the applications,
        b. Registries shall not regard administrative ease
           on address assignments,
        c. Registries shall gather minimum information 
           necessary for evaluation of applications,
        d. Requesters shall reply to any of the above
           information requests  by all means but they are
           allowed to ask reasons of the requests by the
           registries,
        e. Registries  shall evaluate technologies for its 
           procedures with a common standard before adoption.

==========================