Introduction to APRICOT
APRICOT (Asia Pacific Regional Internet Conference on Operational Technologies) is the Asia-Pacific region’s largest international Internet conference, bringing together Internet engineers, network operators, researchers, service providers, and policy communities from over 50 countries. This annual nine-day summit features seminars, workshops, tutorials, conference sessions, Birds-of-a-Feather (BoF) meetings, and other forums aimed at sharing the knowledge required to operate and develop the Internet in the Asia-Pacific region. By facilitating the exchange of technical information and collaboration, APRICOT plays a key role in Internet development in Asia Pacific. It provides a valuable opportunity for participants to discuss current and emerging Internet technologies and trends, and to contribute to the growth of a stable and secure Internet infrastructure. APRICOT is organized by the Asia Pacific Network Operators Group (APNOG) and co-hosted by APNIC (Asia Pacific Network Information Centre), underscoring its significance in both the operator community and the Internet governance ecosystem.
Key Events at APRICOT 2025
APRICOT 2025 was held in Petaling Jaya, Malaysia from 19–27 February 2025 in conjunction with the APNIC 59 conference. The event saw robust participation, with 878 in-person attendees and 45 online participants, representing 53 economies and 231 APNIC member organizations. The week’s program covered a range of important Internet topics and discussions:
- Keynotes and Plenary Sessions: On the opening day, industry leaders set the tone. Notably, a talk by Kurt-Erik “Kurtis” Lindqvist (President and CEO of ICANN) shared insights from his career in the industry, highlighting the importance of nurturing the next generation of Internet engineers. The APRICOT 2025 Plenary featured presentations on IPv6 adoption, developments in submarine cable systems, BGP Flowspec deployment, and a case study of Telekom Malaysia’s RPKI (Resource Public Key Infrastructure) deployment journey. These sessions provided updates on critical infrastructure and protocols that keep the Internet running and secure in the region.
- Peering and Infrastructure Forums: Day two focused on Internet exchange points (IXPs) and connectivity. Two APRICOT Peering Forum sessions brought updates on IXP growth and regional connectivity initiatives. Participants also engaged in panel discussions on enhancing operator engagement with the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) and fostering continuous improvement in routing security. Another panel organized by APNIC examined the impact of large-scale AI deployment on data centres, reflecting how emerging technologies intersect with network infrastructure.
- Technical Sessions and Lightning Talks: Mid-week sessions delved into network monitoring, management, and resilience engineering. A panel on submarine network infrastructure gathered experts to discuss the challenges and innovations in undersea cable systems – vital for international connectivity. The conference also featured Lightning Talks, an open forum for attendees to present quick, “timely, intriguing, or even a little crazy” ideas. These talks spurred creative thinking and rapid knowledge sharing on a variety of niche topics in networking.
- Special Interest Groups (SIGs) and APNIC Updates: In addition to the Policy SIG (detailed below), three other APNIC Special Interest Groups met to discuss targeted areas of interest. The Routing Security SIG discussed the latest RPKI updates in the region, deployment experiences with route origin validation (ROV), and new developments like Autonomous System Provider Authorization (ASPA). The Cooperation SIG focused on broader Internet governance issues, including the upcoming WSIS+20 process, emphasizing the technical community’s role in informing global and regional policy discussions. The NIR SIG (National Internet Registries SIG) featured updates from NIRs in economies such as China (CNNIC), Japan (JPNIC), India (IRINN), Vietnam (VNNIC), and others, and included a panel reflecting on NIR developments over the past five years. On the final day, APRICOT 2025 concluded with APNIC’s Annual General Meeting (AGM). Here the APNIC Secretariat provided updates on organizational activities, and the results of the APNIC Executive Council election were announced (four EC positions were filled through member voting) (Poll Result).
Together, these events at APRICOT 2025 addressed both technical and policy aspects of Internet development, underscoring the conference’s integral role in coordinating community efforts across the Asia-Pacific. Key themes included improving Internet infrastructure (from local IXPs to global submarine cables), enhancing security (routing security and RPKI), adapting to new technologies (AI in data centers), and strengthening the collaborative governance processes that shape the Internet’s future in the region.
Open Policy Meeting (Policy SIG)
One of the focal points of APNIC 59 at APRICOT 2025 was the Open Policy Meeting (OPM), conducted by the APNIC Policy Special Interest Group. The OPM is an open forum for developing and debating policies related to Internet number resources (IP addresses and AS numbers) in the Asia Pacific region. Through the Policy SIG, the APNIC community follows a bottom-up Policy Development Process (PDP) in which anyone can propose changes to policies governing resource allocation, transfer, registration (WHOIS directory), reverse DNS, RPKI, and related services. The goal is to reach consensus on policies that balance the needs of network operators, address management, and the broader Internet community.
Participation and Procedure: The APNIC 59 Policy SIG Open Policy Meeting was held on Wednesday, 26 February 2025 (09:30–11:00 local time) during APRICOT 2025. Community members could participate in person or remotely via online conferencing. Leading up to the meeting, interested individuals discussed proposals on the Policy SIG mailing list, ensuring that issues and ideas were aired beforehand. At the OPM session itself, proposal authors presented their policy changes and answered questions. The community then discussed the merits and concerns. Decisions are made by consensus rather than formal voting. The Policy SIG Chairs gauge consensus by calling for those in favor or against a proposal to voice their support or objections (both in the room and from remote participants). This “consensus call” is essentially the vote – if there is substantial agreement and no major objections, a proposal is deemed to have reached consensus. Attendees could show support or opposition by raising hands or using online tools, following APNIC’s open mic and show-of-hands tradition for policy decisions. If a proposal achieved consensus at the OPM, it would later be affirmed at the APNIC Members Meeting and go through a final comment period on the mailing list before implementation. If not, the proposal would be referred back to the mailing list for further work.
During APRICOT 2025’s OPM, two policy proposals were on the agenda for discussion:
- prop-162: WHOIS Privacy
- prop-163: Enhancing WHOIS Transparency and Efficiency Through Referral Server Implementation
Both proposals dealt with the APNIC WHOIS database and were closely watched, as they touch on the balance between privacy of contact data and the transparency/efficiency of directory services. Below is an overview of each proposal, the voting outcome, and key points from community feedback (arguments for and against):
prop-162: WHOIS Privacy
Description: prop-162 seeks to enhance the privacy of APNIC’s WHOIS database by removing the public display of certain contact information for APNIC member organizations. Specifically, the proposal recommends eliminating the unnecessary publication of member organizations’ contact details – such as email addresses, telephone numbers, and physical mailing addresses – in publicly accessible WHOIS data.
Context and Rationale: The proponent and supporters of prop-162 pointed out that WHOIS contact data is often harvested and misused, leading to spam or other unwanted contact. There are concerns that third parties scrape the APNIC WHOIS or use bulk data access to republish member contact information without consent (apnic-prop-162-jb). Indeed, over 400 organizations have access to APNIC’s bulk WHOIS data, and some republish this data, making it easily searchable and harvestable by others. Evidence had been presented of misuse of these contact details by entities not involved in legitimate network operations. Prop-162 was seen as a way to mitigate these issues by limiting the exposure of contact information. Notably, other Internet registries have moved in a similar direction – for example, the RIPE NCC in Europe implemented measures to limit the amount of personal data returned by their WHOIS queries, partly in response to privacy regulations and community input.
Outcome: During the OPM at APNIC 59, prop-162 was presented and discussed, but it did not reach consensus among the community. When the consensus call was made, there was not a clear enough support to declare consensus – likely due to the divided opinions noted above. As a result, no immediate policy change was adopted. According to APNIC’s PDP, a proposal that fails to gain consensus is not outright rejected forever, but it is returned to the Policy SIG mailing list for further discussion and refinement. The APNIC Policy SIG Chairs announced that prop-162 would go back to the mailing list for additional debate and possible adjustment, meaning the idea could be reconsidered (perhaps in a revised form) at a later meeting. For now, the status quo remains: APNIC’s WHOIS continues to display member contact info as before. The community feedback gathered at APRICOT 2025 will inform any future iterations of the proposal, ensuring that if it comes back, it addresses the concerns raised.
prop-163: Enhancing WHOIS Transparency and Efficiency (Referral Server Implementation)
Description: prop-163 proposes to improve the efficiency and transparency of WHOIS queries by implementing a WHOIS Referral Server (often referring to RWhois) in APNIC’s systems. The goal is to have APNIC’s WHOIS service automatically redirect queries to the appropriate database in certain cases. The proposal identifies three scenarios where such referral or redirection would be beneficial:
- Inter-RIR transfers: When an IP address block or ASN originally obtained from APNIC has been transferred to another Regional Internet Registry (RIR) like ARIN or RIPE NCC, a query to APNIC’s WHOIS could automatically redirect the user to the current holder’s RIR WHOIS. This would save the user from having to manually figure out the correct WHOIS to query if a resource has moved regions.
- NIR delegations: For resources delegated by APNIC to National Internet Registries (NIRs) that maintain their own WHOIS servers (such as JPNIC in Japan or KRNIC in Korea), APNIC’s WHOIS could refer queries to the NIR’s database. This hierarchical referral system would ensure that one can easily find data that might be held in an NIR’s WHOIS without having to know the NIR’s server explicitly.
- Downstream customer allocations: If an APNIC account holder (e.g. a large ISP) sub-allocates IP address blocks to its customers and chooses to run its own WHOIS server for those customers, APNIC’s WHOIS could redirect queries for those specific blocks to the ISP’s own WHOIS server. This would increase transparency for end-user allocations and provide a more direct source of information for those records.
In essence, prop-163 aimed to make the WHOIS system more comprehensive and user-friendly by linking distributed WHOIS data sources, so that an engineer or researcher only needs to query APNIC’s WHOIS and would automatically be pointed to wherever the data is actually held. The proposal cited the Referral WHOIS (RWhois) protocol defined in RFC 2167 as a mechanism to achieve these referrals.
Community Discussion (Pros and Cons): Advocates of prop-163 argued that it would enhance transparency and efficiency in the region’s WHOIS data. As resource transfers and delegations become more common, it can be frustrating for network operators to chase information across multiple WHOIS servers. Automating referrals would ensure that queries “just work,” improving the usability of WHOIS. It could also encourage organizations (like ISPs) to publish more detailed data about their downstream assignments, knowing that their WHOIS can be integrated via referrals, thereby filling in gaps in the public registry and helping trace IP address usage more accurately. Overall, the intended benefit was a more complete and navigable WHOIS for Asia-Pacific resources, which aligns with the goal of making Internet number resource management more transparent.
However, during the Policy SIG discussion, significant questions and concerns were raised. The APNIC Secretariat and several community members pointed out that much of what prop-163 sought to accomplish was already achievable through existing technologies, particularly RDAP (Registration Data Access Protocol). RDAP is the modern, web-friendly replacement for the WHOIS protocol and inherently supports redirection for queries that belong to another registry. In fact, APNIC’s RDAP service already provides automatic redirects for resources transferred between RIRs, albeit with a short delay after a transfer is processed. This means the inter-RIR referral function exists without needing RWhois. Regarding NIRs, APNIC clarified that NIRs with their own WHOIS databases already share their data with APNIC for inclusion in the central APNIC WHOIS server. Queries to whois.apnic.net will return NIR-managed objects as well (with a field indicating the source NIR), so a referral might be redundant. For NIRs that don’t run a separate WHOIS, APNIC directly publishes their delegations, which again means the data is available from APNIC’s WHOIS. On the third point of downstream customer allocations, it was noted that APNIC members can already publish downstream assignment information in APNIC’s WHOIS (via tools like MyAPNIC or an API) if they wish. Current policy even allows marking an assignment as “private” (visible only to APNIC) or “public”, giving flexibility to ISPs. As such, a new referral system to an ISP’s own server may have limited practical use – few account holders have expressed a need to run an independent WHOIS, especially since doing so might expose customer data they prefer to keep private.
Outcome: After presentation and debate, prop-163 did not achieve consensus at APNIC 59. Similar to prop-162, the community consensus call indicated insufficient support to move forward. Therefore, prop-163 was not adopted and will be referred back to the mailing list for further discussion and possible revision. Essentially, the APNIC community decided to maintain the status quo regarding WHOIS query handling for now – continuing to rely on existing mechanisms (including RDAP and current WHOIS practices) rather than implementing RWhois referrals. The proposal’s fate remains open for reconsideration if the author addresses the concerns or if new information comes to light. The outcome highlights the community’s cautious approach: changes to critical infrastructure like WHOIS are made only when there is clear consensus that the benefits outweigh the costs.
Comparison Table: Current Policy vs. Proposed Changes
The following table provides a side-by-side comparison of the existing policies and the proposed changes for each policy proposal discussed (prop-162 and prop-163). It also summarizes the benefits (pros) that were argued in favor of each change, and the drawbacks (cons) that were raised by the community during APRICOT 2025’s discussions:
| Policy Proposal | Current Policy/Practice | Proposed Change | Perceived Benefits | Perceived Drawbacks/Concerns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| prop-162: WHOIS Privacy | APNIC WHOIS publicly displays full contact information (email, phone, address) for member organizations. Bulk WHOIS data access is available to entities who sign an AUP (Acceptable Use Policy), and republishers can distribute WHOIS data freely under current terms (prop-162: WHOIS Privacy – APNIC) (prop-162: WHOIS Privacy – APNIC). | Stop publishing member organizations’ contact details in public WHOIS (including bulk data). Instead, provide those details only via an APNIC-controlled service to vetted requestors ([Two whois policy proposals up for community discussion at APNIC 59 | APNIC Blog](https://blog.apnic.net/2025/02/12/two-whois-policy-proposals-up-for-community-discussion-at-apnic-59/#:~:text=This%20proposal%20recommends%20removing%20the,provided%20service)). | – Improved privacy for resource holders; reduces exposure of personal/contact data to data miners and spammers (apnic-prop-162-jb) |
| prop-163: WHOIS Referral Server | APNIC WHOIS does not use RWhois referrals. For resources moved to other RIRs, users must manually query the other RIR’s WHOIS; for NIR-managed resources, APNIC WHOIS already contains the data (with a source tag); downstream assignments can be recorded in APNIC WHOIS at member’s discretion (or kept private) (prop-163: Enhancing WHOIS Transparency and Efficiency Through Referral Server Implementation – APNIC) (prop-163: Enhancing WHOIS Transparency and Efficiency Through Referral Server Implementation – APNIC). APNIC’s RDAP service provides automated redirects for out-of-region queries (with a short delay post-transfer) ([Two whois policy proposals up for community discussion at APNIC 59 | APNIC Blog](https://blog.apnic.net/2025/02/12/two-whois-policy-proposals-up-for-community-discussion-at-apnic-59/#:~:text=%2A%20Inter,over%20RWhois%20due%20to%20its)). | Implement a referral mechanism (RWhois) on APNIC’s WHOIS server to auto-redirect queries in three cases: (1) resources transferred to another RIR – redirect to that RIR; (2) queries for IPs under an NIR – redirect to the NIR’s WHOIS; (3) queries for allocations made by APNIC members to their customers – redirect to the member’s own WHOIS server if they run one ([Two whois policy proposals up for community discussion at APNIC 59 | APNIC Blog](https://blog.apnic.net/2025/02/12/two-whois-policy-proposals-up-for-community-discussion-at-apnic-59/#:~:text=This%20proposal%20recommends%20adding%20Whois,run%20their%20own%20whois%20servers)). |
(Sources: APNIC policy proposal pages and impact assessments (prop-162: WHOIS Privacy – APNIC) (prop-163: Enhancing WHOIS Transparency and Efficiency Through Referral Server Implementation – APNIC); APNIC Blog – community discussion highlights (Two whois policy proposals up for community discussion at APNIC 59 | APNIC Blog) (Two whois policy proposals up for community discussion at APNIC 59 | APNIC Blog).)
Conclusion
APRICOT 2025, alongside APNIC 59, underlined the Asia-Pacific Internet community’s commitment to collaborative development and governance of the Internet. The conference facilitated knowledge exchange on technical advancements (from IPv6 and routing security to data center innovations) and provided a platform for important policy deliberations. The outcomes of the Policy SIG’s Open Policy Meeting are particularly instructive for the future of Internet governance in the region. The discussions on WHOIS privacy and referral mechanisms highlight a dynamic tension between privacy, transparency, and technical feasibility in Internet resource management. While neither prop-162 nor prop-163 achieved consensus at this meeting, the fact that they were debated openly is a testament to the bottom-up nature of APNIC’s policy process, where policies are developed through community consultation and consensus.
The implications of these policy conversations are significant. First, they signal that the Asia-Pacific community is carefully weighing privacy protections in line with global trends – any future policy that limits WHOIS data access will set a regional precedent for how to balance personal data protection with the operational needs of network operators. Second, the discussion on referral mechanisms indicates a preference for leveraging modern, globally interoperable solutions (like RDAP) over resurrecting older approaches, which suggests that APNIC will continue to align its practices with broader Internet standards and avoid redundant complexity. In a broader sense, the debates reinforced that community consensus is paramount: changes will only be adopted if they clearly serve the common interest.
Moving forward, prop-162 and prop-163 will return to the mailing list and may be refined for future consideration, embodying the iterative nature of Internet governance in the region. The voices both for and against these proposals will help shape any reworked policies, ensuring that concerns about efficiency, security, and inclusivity are addressed. The Asia-Pacific Internet community remains actively engaged in these governance matters, which bodes well for the future. As issues like WHOIS data privacy, resource transfers, and others continue to evolve, forums like APRICOT and the APNIC Policy SIG will remain crucial in forging policies that keep the Internet open, stable, and secure in Asia-Pacific. By sustaining open dialogues and fact-based deliberations, the community can adapt to new challenges and technologies, ensuring that regional Internet development proceeds in a manner that reflects the collective will and wisdom of its stakeholders.
Citations & References
- APRICOT 2025 – About APRICOT. APRICOT 2025 Official Website. (About | APRICOT 2025) (About | APRICOT 2025). (Overview of APRICOT and its role in Asia-Pacific Internet development.)
- APRICOT 2025 – Conference Report. APRICOT 2025 Official Website. (Report | APRICOT 2025) (Report | APRICOT 2025). (Event statistics and SIG session outcomes including policy proposals consensus results.)
- APNIC Blog – “Welcome to APRICOT 2025” (24 Feb 2025) (Welcome to APRICOT 2025 | APNIC Blog) (Welcome to APRICOT 2025 | APNIC Blog). (Highlights of the APRICOT 2025 program: plenary topics, peering forums, panels, etc.)
- APNIC Blog – “Two WHOIS policy proposals up for community discussion at APNIC 59” (12 Feb 2025) (Two whois policy proposals up for community discussion at APNIC 59 | APNIC Blog) (Two whois policy proposals up for community discussion at APNIC 59 | APNIC Blog). (Summaries of prop-162 and prop-163, including APNIC Secretariat insights and initial community considerations.)
- APNIC Policy Proposal prop-162: WHOIS Privacy. APNIC Policy Proposals Page. (prop-162: WHOIS Privacy – APNIC) (prop-162: WHOIS Privacy – APNIC). (Objective of prop-162 and APNIC Secretariat impact assessment notes, including current status and comments on data misuse.)
- APNIC Policy Proposal prop-163: Referral Server Implementation. APNIC Policy Proposals Page. (prop-163: Enhancing WHOIS Transparency and Efficiency Through Referral Server Implementation – APNIC) (prop-163: Enhancing WHOIS Transparency and Efficiency Through Referral Server Implementation – APNIC). (Objective of prop-163 and APNIC Secretariat impact assessment notes, including existing provisions via RDAP and policy references to privacy.)
- APNIC 59 Policy SIG Meeting – Open Policy Meeting Summary. APRICOT 2025 Report. (Report | APRICOT 2025) (Report | APRICOT 2025). (Official record stating both prop-162 and prop-163 did not reach consensus and will be returned to the mailing list.)
- APNIC Blog – APNIC Policy SIG Participation Guidelines. (Welcome to APRICOT 2025 | APNIC Blog) (Two whois policy proposals up for community discussion at APNIC 59 | APNIC Blog). (Explanation of how to participate in the Open Policy Meeting, including joining the consensus call as the method of voting.)
- BigPulse – APNIC 59 Executive Council Election 2025 – Poll Result. (Poll Result). (Results of APNIC EC election announced at APRICOT 2025, indicating community engagement in APNIC governance.)
