APNG-048

1994.7.6

Draft minutes ref. RSec(94)166

CCIRN Meeting Amsterdam, 24.6.94

held in Amsterdam Anne Cozanet

on 20 and 21 June 1994

1. WELCOME

Kees Neggers (SURFnet bv., President of RARE) introduces himself as

chairman of the Euro-CCIRN, and welcomes everybody to Amsterdam. He

announces that apologies have been received from David Macneil, Tony

Villasenor, Peter Kirstein, Christian Michau, Enzo Valente, Glenn

Ricart and Jun Murai; and that Bill Bostwick will join the meeting

later by telephone, together with Steve Wolff of the NSF and Greg

Chartrand of the US Department of Energy.

Each participant then introduces his/herself (see list at the end of

these minutes).

Draft Agenda

It is agreed that coordination of Russian networking activities as

well as support to developing countries in general will be discussed

under item 3 (other regions); that globalisation of the Internet will

be discussed under item 7 as a separate sub-topic; and that the word

"security" in Item 8 should be changed to "privacy" so as to avoid

confusion with national security. The agenda is then agreed upon.

2. MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING, BODEGA BAY, AUGUST 1993

A final draft of the minutes was circulated by Lynn Behnke on 7

October 1993, after which date Kees Neggers proposed some changes to

the European report, a copy of which is tabled at the meeting. It is

agreed that the minutes should be edited to incorporate Kees's

proposed changes and distributed for approval the next day. The

updated minutes are approved on Tuesday 21 June 1994.

Status of Actions

A1-8/93 Peter Kirstein agreed to find out who can update us on TINA.

*overtaken - European ATM almost ready*

A2-8/93 Barry Leiner and Simon Holland will write a paper discussing

the subtleties of the meaning of the mission of the CCIRN

and to subsequently review the Terms of Reference and Bylaws

to make sure their research/education focus issues are

therein addressed.

*on agenda*

A3-8/93 Greg Chartrand agreed to see if the Russian DOE plan could

be circulated outside DOE and if so, to send it to Bill

Bostwick for distribution to the CCIRN maler.

*overtaken*

A4-8/93 Glenn Ricart agreed to send the CCIRN statement on the IEPG

to the IEPG co-chairs.

*done on 26.8.93 - see statement at the end of the Bodega

Bay Minutes*

A5-8/93 The two remaining co-chairs will liaise with the IEPG on

their position on multiple GIXs.

*on agenda*

A6-8/93 Tomaz Kalin will work with the RIPE NCC to create a position

paper on funding the IANA as a top-level NIC supported by

the (currently 3) regional NICs. This paper will be

coordinated with the IEPG.

*see agenda item 7*

A1-6/94 Anne Cozanet to distribute the final minutes of the Bodega

Bay meeting to the CCIRN and EU-CCIRN mailers.

3. UPDATE ON REGIONAL ACTIVITIES AND PLANS

Europe (Euro-CCIRN)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

CCIRN members are referred to Howard Davies's paper on DANTE's

activities which was distributed electronically on 10 June 1994. A

list of access points is given at the end of the document.

Howard Davies explains how DANTE was established and RARE's role in

this.

France has no connection to EuropaNET: the French think there should

be no monopolistic service provision. France was very active in the

setting up of DANTE, but has now pulled out; they are active in

EBONE. DANTE and EBONE agreed to an interconnection of 512 kb as

from 1st July 1994.

Kees draws a chart of the situation with EuropaNET, EBONE, NORDUnet

and JANET, and their links to the US. Barry Leiner suggests that it

would be a good idea to maintain such a map and make it available

publicly.

Howard further reports that DANTE has been awarded a contract by the

European Commission for a 34 Mbps project, the EuroCAIRN (see item 5

of Howard's paper mentioned above). DANTE will also make a proposal

on how the funding is going to be organised; work should be completed

by the end of 94. DANTE's proposal will have to include an ATM plan.

Simon Holland presents the 4th Framework Telematics programme of the

EC; he reports that a White Paper, which aims at combatting the

recession and includes a section on research and technical

development, will be tabled at the Corfu conference next week. The

idea is to get funding from industry, including PTOs. This seems to

be taken rather seriously by the European Union (Simon had to prepare

a briefing paper on this issue for Jacques Delors to take to Corfu).

A2-6/94 Simon Holland will send to the CCIRN mailer a list of the

documents which non-Europeans should read in order to obtain

a general idea of what is happening within the 4th Framework

Telematics programme.

Anybody interested in the 4th Framework can also consult

<WWW.rare.nl> "upturn".

Kees Neggers reports on the forthcoming merger of RARE and EARN which

is scheduled for October 1994.

North America (NACCIRN)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Tabled papers: NACCIRN/FNC Issues

FNC Progress Report

NREN Level 1 Milestones

Walter Wiebe gives a report on the FNC.

Grant Miller reports for NASA showing slides of the NASA science

internet domestic backbone and international connections,

specifically the Tokyo area. There are a number of ATM prototype

testbeds in the US and they would like to cooperate with

international ATMs. See copy of NREN Level 1 Milestones. As well as

ATM, they also have SMDS and ISDN.

Barry Leiner remarks that ATM was never designed to become _the_ end

to end technology, which is what some people seem to believe. This

could bring problems of interoperability and service. Kees Neggers

notes however that progress in this area should not be impeded.

Steve Wolff, Bill Bostwick and Greg Chartrand join the meeting by

telephone.

The main point of discussion is devoted to the changes in NSF

architecture and their consequences for the international

connectivity.

Steve Wolf reports on the time schedule of the changes:

- - One expects to start moving the regional service providers to NAPs

in August. The transition should be finished by the end of October

1994.

- - VBNS should be operational at the beginning of 1995

- - present NSF service will be active till the end of April 1995.

Discussions with some of the "regionals" is still going on, but most

contracts for service provision have left Steve's office.

Service providers will exchange traffic at NAPs. There is no AUP at

the NAPs. If the model or implementation is inadequate, it will

change or NAPs will have no traffic.

The international traffic will have to be present at the NAPs. One

could connect FIX East to the appropriate NAP. Since we have now

GIX, FIX and NAPs close to each other on the East Coast, we will have

to economise. The best solution is to bring international traffic to

the NAPs. The carriers have to move R&D traffic and it is assumed

that carriers will be happy to exchange traffic with Europe and

others. One will have to negotiate with the carriers. It has been

proposed that the three NAP managers (Pacbell, Ameritech and Sprint)

help with negotiations with the regional carriers. Steve Wolff will

provide addresses and contact persons to the CCIRN list within one

week, as soon as data are available. It should be clear that VBNS can

only carry traffic that needs the applications and the speed of VBNS,

and will not be allowed to carry general traffic between the

Californian and N.Y. NAPs.

A3-6/94 Steve Wolff will put a list of contact names and addresses

for NAPs on the CCIRN mailer.

To the question whether the international situation will be very

changed in the new circumstances, Steve answers that there will be no

change of the NSF policy with regards to international R&D traffic.

He points out that the cost of transatlantic lines will be carried by

the scientific community.. NSF will not be able to fund unlimited

demand for line capacity. This should be understood, but the common

wish is that the services are preserved.

After a discussion on the mechanisms to secure controlled transition,

it is agreed that IEPG and CCIRN (or possibly a WG established for

this purpose) are the main players in the exercise.

Other agencies have not decided yet how to handle the international

communications: this may be a problem, since for instance Europe

connects to a number of them. Greg Chartrand, representing ESNet,

comments that they are considering a new mechanism for co-financing

the trans-Atlantic lines, by purchasing some service from DANTE to

reach their European customers. There may be a problem with different

procurement rules in USA and Europe.

Amongst others, a number of open issues are identified:

- - One has not yet discussed how to handle in the future the traffic

that uses mission oriented lines to cross the Atlantic, but has

infrastructural character and is today forwarded to NSFnet.

- - As far as the "Fat Pipe" (to UK) is concerned, the sponsors for

the hard multiplexed channels will have to decide on the

continuation. The infrastructural part will be treated as

discussed before.

- - There is no decision how to deal with the management of higher

level (application) management.

Fernando Liello reports on the ESNet situation. For historical

reasons, two European countries (Italy, Germany) have links across the

Atlantic to ESnet. As of september both links will be T1 lines

connected to Princeton. Traffic will go partly to ESNet, partly to

FIX East. This will have organisational, structural and

financial implications which should be clarified.

Barry Leiner suggests that there is a need for coordination of

infrastructure on a global level, but not through a single body.

NASA and DoE, for example, operate from very different perspectives

and therefore cannot rely on a single body, although there is an

overlap between NASA and DoE which could be satisfied by a single

entity.

Barry says that in the case of US providers connecting regionals to

the NAPs, the condition in which they are allowed to do so is by

agreement with other service providers. The benefits for those are

sufficient enough, so that this is no issue. However, both Walter

and Barry will take this back to their agencies.

A4-6/94 Barry Leiner will send to the CCIRN mailer a list of

documents relevant to the recently released ARPA White Paper

on national information infrastructure.

Information on this subject can also be obtained from WWW

<ftp.darpa.mil>.

CANADA

Vincent Taylor reports that not much has changed in the overall

philosophy of the network; they are just trying to get more services.

One important issue on the Defence research side is the fact that

they have obtained approval from the Federal Council to take their

main link directly to FIX East, which should happen within 3 to 4

months.

Asia and Pacific (APCCIRN)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Kilnam Chon reports on the recent set-up of the APNG = Asia Pacific

Networking Group, a mechanism to enable the Asia Pacific region to

participate more actively in IETF. The APNG working groups are the

following:

- - commercial services

- - developing countries

- - internationalisation

- - organisation

- - workshop/seminars

- - information infrastructure (proposal just received)

The APNG will hold two general meetings per year.

Kilnam then gives a general overview of recent happenings: new

members (Philippines, Indonesia); high speed networking and

collaboration in Korea, Japan, Australia, Singapore and Taiwan; new

links to Europe every two or three months (Japan-Germany 512 kb;

Korea-London will be 64 kb); and intra-Asian links. See APCCIRN

connectivity map distributed at the meeting.

Shigeki Goto gives a status report on the Japan APNIC Pilot (see

copies of his slides tabled at the meeting). There are now 27

members from 12 countries; authoritative delegation for 202 and 203;

operation of NIC services: Whois (JPNIC), WWW (KRNIC), DNS (AUNIC),

Gopher (TWNIC), X.500 (JPNIC) and FTP (JPNIC). Unresolved issues

include guidelines for establishing national NICs, further service

delegations and especially funding.

Takayasu Matsuzaki reports on the Inter-Ministry Coordination (JPN).

See copies of his slides distributed at the meeting. The

coordinating function of the JPN carried out a survey and their

recommendation was submitted today (20 June) to the National Science

Board which is chaired by the Prime Minister of Japan, Mr Hata. A

budget plan will be submitted on 24 June (+/- 11 million USD).

Professor Asano and Dr. Goto are both partipating in this project.

Michelle Chiang reports on the developments in Singapore (see her

status report distributed at the meeting). She adds that there are

plans for commercial internet providers for the general public.

S. Ramakrishnan reports on the developments within ERnet. 300

institutions are now connected.

Other regions

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Rob Blokzijl informs the meeting that NATO is organising an advanced

networking seminar in Moscow for next September, as a follow-up to

the Budapest workshop held in October 1993. NATO is going to invite

the European Commission; Simon Holland suggests that this invitation

should go to DG1.

The Russian situation is rather different from the Central and

Eastern European one, which is already organised in CEEnet

(international member of RARE). There is a definite need for

coordination in the former Soviet Union but this is beyond the

capabilities of DANTE.

Vincent Taylor reports on recent developments within the ICB. A

meeting is scheduled to take place in July during which Peter

Kirstein will report on INET'94. The ICB has been a facilitator of

coordination between Canada and the UK on two projects, one of which

carried out by MoD has resulted in an association of companies such

as DEC, IBM, Novell, etc... which is encouraging. The ICB is still

alive and well, its main concern is of course security; there is talk

of a physical site at NATO HQ in Brussels.

A fax was received from Christian Michau and distributed

to the participants. This fax gives a status

report on RIO (Reseau Inter-tropical d'Ordinateurs), an international

network of electronic communication which contributes to the

development of the Internet. It was initiated by ORSTOM, the French

Institute of scientific research for development in cooperation. In

Africa, RIOnet links presently 25 UNIX hosts in 10 countries giving

about 80 access points (standard terminals or local uucp nodes).

Kees Neggers suggests that the CCIRN would welcome representation

from Africa. He will check with Christian Michau whether RIO is

an appropriate body.

A5-6/94 Kees Neggers to check with Christian Michau whether RIO

is an appropriate body to participate in the CCIRN.

4. IEPG LIAISON

Barry Leiner expresses the opinion that, in order to continue, the

CCIRN needs regular feed-back from the IEPG.

Steve Wolff reports that Elise Gerich is going to chair the IEPG.

Rob Blokzijl reports that a policy based routing agreement was

reached in Prague between MERIT, ISI and the Europeans. This is in

relation with PRIDE.

Kees's feeling is that IEPG co-chairs are willing to attend CCIRN

meetings and that we should encourage this participation. Europe has

to find a replacement for Bernhard Stockman.

A6-6/94 CCIRN should take a closer look into IEPG activities; IEPG

progress reports and results should be distributed on the

CCIRN mailer.

5. NAPs, GIXs and D-GIXs

Kees Neggers reports that the idea of a single GIX has been overtaken

and that we have to face the idea of a multiple connect points

situation. With regards to the D-GIX, he is concerned about the fact

that those engineers are isolating themselves and not being open

about the progress of the project. This fact should be communicated

to all GIX coordinators; unfortunately, there are no IEPG

representatives present at this meeting. Steve Wolff adds that NAP

managers should also be as open as possible. (see NSF slides for NAPs

situation).

6. INTERCONTINENTAL COSTS

There are plans for high speed networking in Korea, Japan, Australia,

Singapore and Taiwan (a working group has just been set up in AP); in

Europe by DANTE; and in the US by NSF, ARPA and NASA. Piloting is

starting next week in Europe.

Shoichiro Asano shows slides of the High Performance Infrastructure

and Applications at SINET.

Barry Leiner asks round the table whether there might be anything the

CCIRN could do to facilitate the reduction of tariffs for R&D. Simon

Holland does not think so, but suggests there is scope for

negotiation at higher level, through agreements for experiments with

operators, for example. NSF and NASA are interested in this.

Kees Neggers asks whether the VBNS system can be connected to the

rest of the world. Steve Wolff replies that it was meant for ATM

services and that MCI are active in this. Either MCI or NSF can be

contacted on this subject.

The question of commercial networks using EuropaNET is discussed.

There seems to be a gradual evolution globally towards AUP free.

Howard Davies draws a status of European connections as per July 1994

on the flipover. He offers to produce a postscript of the chart and

announce its availability on the mailer.

A7-6/94 Tomaz Kalin and Howard Davies to prepare and maintain a

chart of European connections both within Europe and to the

rest of the world, and announce its URL to the CCIRN mailer.

7. ROLE OF THE CCIRN

Barry Leiner and Simon Holland produced some slides in advance of

their written paper, as follows:

o Intro/Background

- - Importance of continued networking services to the Research and

Education Community;

- - Related other bodies:

IEPG

Commercial + other service providers

IAB/IETF/ISOC

o Role of CCIRN

Forum for information exchange

- - Exchange of status and plans

- - Identification of critical issues needing global resolution

- - Identification of common interests in future services and

associated research

- - Development of common frameworks for resolution of these issues.

o Examples of Topics of Discussion

- - Requirements for intercontinental links and coordinating their

establishment and funding;

- - Identification of required global directory services and agreeing

on core global functions. Establishment and funding;

- - Identification of needed global information services for Research

and Education community (eg., WWW) and establishment and funding

of core global services;

- - Exploration of role of ATM in future Research and Education

network service provision. Identifying potential joint validation

exercises.

o Membership

- - CCIRN is a forum for organisations concerned with policy and

management issues surrounding provision of network services for

the Research and Education Community;

- - Attendees represent those organisations on regional basis;

- - CCIRN invites observers and guests to participate on an issue

basis.

Barry Leiner says that he was not sure he would come to this meeting

since he did not represent the IAB any longer, but ARPA encouraged

him to do so. Barry asks the other participants whether they also

feel that their organisations, like ARPA, consider participation in

CCIRN as important. Barry also asks the participants to comment on

the slides, paying particular attention to the choice of words and

phrasing.

A8-6/94 Simon Holland and Barry Leiner to write their paper on the

role of the CCIRN and distribute it on the mailer. This

paper should include guidelines to the regions on how to

select their CCIRN representatives.

Kees Neggers, summing up the presentation, says that not much has

changed in the way the CCIRN perceives itself, except maybe for a

slight change of focus towards information services, which had

already been agreed. This obviously confirms that the CCIRN is still

worthwhile. Everybody agrees that it is useful to reassess this at

each meeting. The CCIRN does not feel that rules and procedures are

needed.

Kilnam Chon remarks that things have actually changed since the set-

up of the CCIRN: the ISOC was created, the IEPG split from the CCIRN

at the last meeting, the commercial internet is developing... He is

concerned that the CCIRN's focus seems to shift away from services,

that CCIRN is not yet entirely global and might be too restricted to

R&D. Barry Leiner agrees that some areas of public interest, such as

health care and environmental protection for example, could qualify

for participation in the CCIRN. Simon Holland remarks that such

areas are included in the 4th Framework programme.

Everybody agrees that globalisation is necessary and that ISOC should

be more active in this respect. Barry Leiner says that there is

already considerable discussion inside and outside ISOC on how to run

certain services, such as IANA for example, and ISOC's role in this.

IETF, IANA and INTERNIC are all functioning as separate entities now,

funded by US government agencies. The CCIRN feels it beneficial that

there should be an independent body responsible for IETF, IANA and

INTERNIC, and that the ISOC would be the most appropriate body to

play that role. The CCIRN therefore encourages the ISOC to consider

this issue and to propose a business plan to that effect.

A9-6/94 Once the minutes of this meeting have been circulated and

approved, a statement from the CCIRN should be sent to the

ISOC to propose that it should act as global responsible

body for the IETF, IANA and the INTERNIC.

A10-6/94 (formerly A6-8/93) Tomaz Kalin and Daniel Karrenberg, in

coordination with the IEPG, to produce their paper on

funding the IANA as a top-level NIC, and submit it to the

CCIRN mailer.

8. INTERNATIONAL LAW

Barry Leiner says that differences between various national laws may

prevent a globalisation in areas such as privacy, electronic commerce

and accountancy, for example; national encryption laws, legal

frameworks resulting in AUPs, copyright laws, amongst others. We do

not know yet which body should deal with this issue, but the first

thing to do is to spread awareness that there is a problem.

We repeat below the Networking Ethics statement of the CCIRN from

April 1989, for convenience sake:

Networking Ethics CCIRN - April 1989

Status of this Memo

This memo is a recommendation of policy by the Co-

ordination Committee for Intercontinental Research

Networking (CCIRN) concerning the proper use of resources

in research networks (referred to as 'the networks').

At great human and economic cost, resources drawn from

government, industry and the academic community have been

assembled into a global collection of interconnected

networks. The networks have become an important

international infrastructure supporting an increasingly

widespread, multi-disciplinary community of researchers

ranging, inter alia, from computer scientists and

electrical engineers to mathematicians, physicists, medical

researchers, chemists, astronomers and space scientists.

As is true of other common infrastructures (eg. roads,

water reservoirs and delivery systems, and the power

generation and distribution network), there is widespread

dependence on the network by its users for the support of

day- to-day research activities.

The reliable operation of the networks and the responsible

use of their resources is of common interest and concern

for their users, operators and sponsors. Recent events

involving the hosts on the networks underscore the need to

reiterate the professional responsibility every user bears

to colleagues and to the sponsors of the system. Many of

the resources are provided by government; abuse of the

system thus becomes a legal matter above and beyond simple

professional ethics.

Statement of Policy

The networks form an international facility whose utility

is largely a consequence of its wide availability and

accessibility. Irresponsible use of this critical resource

poses an enormous threat to its continued availability to

the technical community.

The governments sponsoring these systems have a

responsibility to the public to allocate government

resources wisely and effectively. Justification for the

support of these systems suffers when highly disruptive

abuses occur.

Access to and use of the networks is a privilege and should

be treated as such by all users of these systems.

The CCIRN strongly endorses the following as unethical and

unacceptable.

Any activity which purposely:

(a) seeks to gain unauthorized access to the resources of

the networks,

(b) disrupts the intended use of the networks,

such actions,

(d) destroys the integrity of computer-based information,

and/or

(e) compromises the privacy of users.

The networks exist in the general research milieu. Portions

of them continue to be used to support research and

experimentation on networking. Because experimentation on

the networks has the potential to affect all of their

components and users, researchers have the responsibility

to exercise great caution in the conduct of their work.

Negligence in the conduct of such experiments is both

irresponsible and unacceptable.

The CCIRN plans to initiate whatever actions it can,

through the appropriate agencies and other interested

parties, to identify and to have set up technical and

procedural mechanisms to make the networks more resistant

to disruption. Such security, however, may be extremely

expensive and may be counterproductive if it inhibits the

free flow of information, which makes the networks so

valuable. In the final analysis, the health and well-being

of the networks is the responsibility of its users who

must, uniformly, guard against abuses which disrupt the

system and threaten its long-term viability.

Acknowledgement

This statement was developed from one prepared by the

Internet Activities Board which in turn followed from work

undertaken by the Division Advisory Panel of the National

Science Foundation Division of Networking and

Communications Research and Infrastructure.

9. NEXT MEETING

After discussion, it is agreed that the next CCIRN meeting will be

held from 14.00 hrs on Friday 16 June 1995 until Saturday 17th June

1995 in Singapore immediately after INET'95.

Walter Wiebe suggests that a sub-committee meeting is definitely

needed before that time in order to plan the set-up of NAPs. He

announces that the FNC will organise a workshop to that effect in the

Washington DC area in September 1994.

10. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

James Hutton noticed in the FNC report the issue of naming and

trademarks. He says that this has started to become an issue in the

UK, for example the naming of schools. Exchange of information

should be encouraged on this subject.

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

ASANO, Shoichiro NACSIS/Japan asanojp@sinet.ad.jp

BLOKZIJL, Rob RIPE k13@nikhef.nl

CHIANG, Michelle Technet/Singapore michelle@technet.sg

CHON, Kilnam APCCIRN/ANC chon@cosmos.kaist.ac.kr

COZANET, Anne RARE cozanet@rare.nl

DAVIES, Howard DANTE H.E.Davies@dante.org.uk

GOTO, Shigeki JPNIC/APNIC goto@ntt-20.ntt.jp

HOLLAND, Simon EC sho@dg13.cec.be

HUTTON, James RARE/UKERNA j.hutton@ukerna.ac.uk

KALIN, Tomaz RARE kalin@rare.nl

LEINER, Barry ARPA/USA bleiner@arpa.mil

LIELLO, Fernando RARE/GARR liello@elettra.trieste.it

MATSUZAKI, Takayasu STA/JAPAN tmatsuza@cc.titech.ac.jp

MILLER, Grant NASA/USA grmiller@nsipo.nasa.gov

NEGGERS, Kees RARE neggers@surfnet.nl

RAMAKRISHNAN, S. ERNET/INDIA ramki@doe.ernet.in

TAFVELIN, Sven RARE tafvelin@ce.chalmers.se

(Tuesday 21 only)

TAYLOR, Vincent CANADA vktaylor@crad.dnd.ca

WIEBE, Walter FNC/USA wwiebe@nsf.gov

By telephone:

BOSTWICK, Bill USA bos@lanl.gov

WOLFF, Stephen NSF/USA steve@nsf.gov

CHARTRAND, Greg DOE/USA greg@Epitome.er.doe.gov

SUMMARY OF ACTIONS

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

A1-6/94 Anne Cozanet to distribute the final minutes of the Bodega

Bay meeting to the CCIRN and EU-CCIRN mailers.

A2-6/94 Simon Holland will send to the CCIRN mailer a list of the

documents which non-Europeans should read in order to obtain

a general idea of what is happening within the 4th Framework

Telematics programme.

A3-6/94 Steve Wolff will put a list of contact names and addresses

for NAPs on the CCIRN mailer.

A4-6/94 Barry Leiner will send to the CCIRN mailer a list of

documents relevant to the recently released ARPA White Paper

on national information infrastructure.

A5-6/94 Kees Neggers to check with Christian Michau whether RIO

is an appropriate body to participate in the CCIRN.

A6-6/94 CCIRN should take a closer look into IEPG activities; IEPG

progress reports and results should be distributed on the

CCIRN mailer.

A7-6/94 Tomaz Kalin and Howard Davies to prepare and maintain a

chart of European connections both within Europe and to the

rest of the world, and announce its URL to the CCIRN mailer.

A8-6/94 Simon Holland and Barry Leiner to write their paper on the

role of the CCIRN and distribute it on the mailer. This

paper should include guidelines to the regions on how to

select their CCIRN representatives.

A9-6/94 Once the minutes of this meeting have been circulated and

approved, a statement from the CCIRN should be sent to the

ISOC to propose that it should act as global responsible

body for the IETF, IANA and the INTERNIC.

A10-6/94 (formerly A6-8/93) Tomaz Kalin and Daniel Karrenberg, in

coordination with the IEPG, to produce their paper on

funding the IANA as a top-level NIC, and submit it to the

CCIRN mailer.