=====================================================================
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
 "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
         .

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,
       
       (c) wastes resources (people, capacity, computer) through
       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.