APNIC Members and Stakeholders Survey 2014 Peng Hwa ANG 1

Overview 2 8 th Biennial survey commissioned by the APNIC EC A significant overhaul to the questionnaire from the last iteration Inputs used to help guide EC in prioritising strategies and budget

Methodology 3 Questions developed with inputs from consultations in : Melbourne, Dhaka, Yangon, Vientiane, Colombo, Ulaan Bator, Islamabad, Hong Kong SAR, Beijing, Mumbai, Chennai, Tokyo, Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur, Nouméa, Auckland, Singapore, and Taipei. Detailed survey report prepared by analysing response data (quantitative and qualitative), and running correlations between relevant questions.

Survey Question Areas of APNIC 4 General services and service delivery External relationships and stakeholder engagement Feedback mechanisms Training services Policy development process Use of member funding Process transparency Workings of the EC

Survey Demographics 5 1,039 valid responses, a decrease of 22.1% over the 1,333 valid responses in the previous survey 250 fewer from China 100 fewer from India 100 fewer from Indonesia Response split: Developed economies (24.6%), developing economies (57.9%) and Least Developed Countries (17.4%) 64.7% of respondents were APNIC account holders

6

7

Ratings of APNIC’s Service Delivery Quality and Value 8 Half of respondents gave APNIC 7/7 for service quality while 41.5% gave APNIC 7/7 for service value 89.8% rated APNIC positively (5 or above) on service quality, and 85.2% on service value.

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

% rated training quality 6/7 or 7/7 55.9% rated “training availability” positively, but 15.5% rated it at 3/7 or lower.

22

23

24 No difference in priorities between low frequency and high frequency users. Those who used APNIC services 6 times or more placed higher priority on providing grants to community projects and increasing fellowships. Regional Differences: Promotion of IPv6 top Regional priority in Oceania and Eastern Asia, but “Lower Training Fees” top in Southeast Asia and Southern Asia. Further Analysis

25

26

27

28

29

30

Stakeholders 31

32

33

34

35

36

Members Scores

38

39

40

41 Feedback and comments on the Report are much appreciated.