These are unedited transcripts and may contain errors.

Plenary session 28 September 2012
9 a.m.

NICK HYRKA: Good morning to you all. My name is Nick Hyrka, I am the Communications Manager at the RIPE NCC and this is Friday, the last day of RIPE 65. There is a roar in the room...

We have a lot to talk about today so we have to jump right in. I have got two administrative matters to attend to. Two handsome gentlemen at the door hopefully met you this morning and gave you ballot slips for the NRO NC elections. There are two candidates that you must vote for, and if you just fill those ballots out and hand them back to the handsome gents at the end of this session, that would be great and the winners will be announced ?? or the winner will be announced at the closing Plenary.

This is another election you probably already heard about a couple of times this week and this is for seats on the RIPE Programme Committee. They are adding five additional members to the committee, and if you go to the link, the second link here, that says PC vote, you'll be able to see the list of candidates, their biographies and then you can vote for them. The voting will begin at 10:30 and will go to 11:30, and then the votes will be counted and the winners will be announced also in the Closing Plenary.

You'll need ?? in order to vote, you'll need to get a RIPE NCC access account. It's very easy to do, just go to that first link and you'll be fine.

Moving on to the NRO RIR reports. First up is Adiel Akplogan, who is the AfriNIC CEO.

ADIEL AKPLOGAN: Thank you very much. So, we'll give you a brief update of what we have been doing lately at AfriNIC. As I was telling somebody yesterday, every time I have to speak and report on AfriNIC activities, I always ask myself after all the initiative or the good things that's happening in the RIPE region, what can I say to make my presentation interesting or what can I say more than what you have already been doing? But, well, we have also been running AfriNIC as regional Internet registry but also doing many other things in our region to address some of the specific challenges we have.

Last near, about one year ago, I have presented here our restructuring process. This is how our new structure, and we have spent a bunch of time this year trying to put this new structure in place, especially at the organisational and operational level. This is now done at 99%, so, everything is in place to allow us to implement our strategy.

At a glance, we have 33 full?time staff working at AfriNIC, 11 of them joined this year, in line with our restructuring. We have continual locating IPv4 address, not like in your region. We have seen growth but nothing very alarming in the growth of IPv4 allocation in the region; that means there is no rush per se, but, however, we are seeing, since RIPE has announced exhaustion, we have started seeing some kind of rush in our region about what is the situation, but, as you know, we still have 4.1 /8 remaining in our pool which gives us a little bit more time. We got, this year, 98 new members, which makes our total membership to a little bit more than 1,200. We also spend a lot of time doing training and capacity?building in different ?? on different topics. We have run different training this year in 14 different countries. We have extended the scope of our training activity this year as well by having a dedicated trainer for French?speaking training which allows us to cover a little bit more French?speaking countries.

However on IPv6, we have a significant growth over the past 12 months. We have 66 new IPv6 prefix allocation in the region and we are seeing this growing significantly in the region.

We also do discuss policy; there are five policies under discussion in our region on various things, the latest one proposed is on the precision of definition of what we call core DNS service provider, when it comes to PI assignment and Anycast assignment. There is a proposal, as well, for cleaning up AfriNIC database, what the staff can do, how far we can go in cleaning up information that we currently have in our database. So those policies are under discussion and will be discussed as well during our next meeting in Sudan.

So this is the graph showing the growth of IPv6 allocation. As you can see, since 2011 we have seen it jump, mainly last year when the central pool exhaustion was announced. That has triggered some more requests, and with the IPv6 launch day as well, we have seen some significant requests there. Two countries are leading in the region, South Africa and Kenya, but, today, we have at least one IPv6 allocation in more than 14 countries on the Continent.

One of the key elements of our strategy for the coming years is improving our member value. We have spent the first year of our existence consolidating our registration service. We are now start looking at improving member value and also offering other additional service, as you are used to in the RIPE region.

That has been translated in our new structure by consolidating all member services under a single area, which we call member services, which now includes training, registration service, IPv6 programme, policies, and all of that. We are going to launch our first member survey, member wise survey, and stakeholder survey next week. One thing we have also noticed is that we want to increase the allocation of IP address in the region because the environment is changing and we have more and more people connecting to the Internet, but we have seen that there is a delay between when a member requests resources and when they receive it, and sometimes it takes very long because of the justification and because of the whole paperwork, so we are working to improve the efficiency of that process, especially for new members.

We have already started by fully integrating all the element of the membership process together, I mean on our IP infrastructure, for instance billing protocol, making it easy for people to get their billing information, pay and also upload some critical information on their portal and we are also working to improve the way we evaluate the requests. That means the address planning, etc., to be able to pre?approve requests upfront during when they are filling the membership form.

All these are supported by different other engineering project. RPKI, you know about, it we are working on RPKI and strengthening our RPKI platform. DNSSEC, we have this year launched, formally launched our DNSSEC on our DNS platform, we are signing all other zone and now allow our members to also assign and store DNSSEC?related information in our database.

We have deployed our own DNS Anycast infrastructure for our own infrastructure service, but we have also extended this to ccTLD because we have received a lot of of requests from ccTLD to host at least for them on our Anycast platform and this has been active for the past six months or so, and we have already ten countries who have joined this project and we are working to develop this as well.

We have also, as part of the change in our election process, developed and integrated a new voting system to My AfriNIC, which is a fully integrated system so the member has a single interface.

In terms of communication and outreach as well, we have been trying to make sure that AfriNIC is well?known around the Continent on all the 54 countries that we serve. This is not an easy task, but our communication team is very active doing that, but mainly this year we have rebranded AfriNIC, we have a new logo, designed a new website, a new member meeting management tool, and we have also joined the wave of social media by using the social media to communicate a little bit more about what we do.

As I was saying earlier on training, we have extended a little bit the scope of what we do on training and that led to a dedicated training portal,, and this portal is fully dedicated to our training activities and we want to put a little bit more resources into that, not only by providing material and online training tool, but also to allow to create a community around people who attend our training so that we strengthen the community.

We have also launched, this year, our FIRE initiative, FIRE is for Fund for Internet Research and Education. This is similar to FRIDA or [ESIVE] project in LACNIC and APNIC region. This is the first time we have formally launched this project, this initiative, and this has been very well received in the region.

In terms of public relation, we, as all the RIR and IP community members, we have been following closely what is happening on the [ITR] revision, specifically through the WCIT process. That is taking a lot of our time as well, to follow all the different meetings and proprietary sessions around the Continent but also getting more closer to Government to try to explain to them how all this works and what they can do without touching the IT to improve the Internet development in their region.

In terms of cooperation, as you know AfriNIC is an organisation that is formally operating for the past seven years, so, as such, we provide support to other emerging organisations or other common?interest organisation in the region, like AFNOG, FTLD, [AFPIXP], Africa Cert, which is coming, and the ISOC regional Bureau as well, with a goal to improve the public infrastructure in the region.

And we have signed an MoU with the Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation last year on collaborating for capacity?building for policy makings and Government mainly, and we are organising our first joint event with CTO next month in October in Mauritius, and this will be a very good for us; we are going to do an IPv6 training for policy makers mainly, and have a whole panel on the importance of IPv6 for mobile Internet.

We have also launched with AFNOG what we call the Africa Internet Sumit. As you know, once a year we have a joint meeting with AFNOG where we discuss mainly about issues related to operators. What we have decided this year, to take that initiative to another level by making that meeting become Africa Internet Summit. The objective behind that is to widen the scope of what we do, meaning not only we will be doing policy meetings for AfriNIC and training for AFNOG, but also bringing more and more the industry, involving more and more the industry from the business side in what we are doing, because it's good to talk about technical aspect all the time, but if we are missing the link for the business, the economical aspect of all the industry, then we are not achieving our goal, so the objective is to make this event more business?oriented, but, at the same time, continue to cover all the technical aspects. So the next summit we are still discussing where it will happen but it will be May/June 2013.

Well, our next AfriNIC meeting will take place in Sudan, will be the last week of November, 24 to 29. We'd like to invite you to join us at that meeting. It will be a full week event with Africa Cert events, a few tutorial and we will close the week with AfriNIC Plenary where we will discuss our policy and various updates for the community.

Thank you.


Any questions? Thanks.

NICK HYRKA: Thank you, Adiel. Next up from APNIC we have Tuan Nguyen, who is the APNIC resource analyst.

TUAN NGUYEN: Hi everyone, I am a hostmaster at APNIC and I'll give you an update on the the latest.

What I'll go through is the final /8, IPv4 transfers, training, policy discussions, Government engagement, APNIC survey and upcoming conferences.

So APNIC has reached its final /8 since April 2011. After the rush period, around that date is over. IPv4's delegation from the last /8 has been picking up steadily, mainly consumed by new members, who can receive up to a /22. As of today, one?and?a?half years after our exhaustion, our final /8, APNIC has delegated 9% of its last /8 pool.

IPv4 transfers.
Inter RIR transfers is now supported by ARIN and APNIC regions. All transfer recipients must demonstrate the need according to current policies. Transfer applies. The fee is relative to the size of the block being transferred. Transfer procedures have been agreed, and on all RIR registrations service managers to help with those who need more IPv4 address space, we provide pre?approval listing space.

IPv4 transfers within APNIC region has been up and down with no discernable pattern. The peak around September 2011 was mainly a rush period, rush condition, before the needs?based policy, Prop 96, was put in place.

Training: Most of the demand for members is for IPv6 training, especially about the technology, how to plan deployment and IPv6 addressing plans. Three one?hour e?learning sessions are held every second Wednesday. The time zones are optimised for South Pacific, south Asia, Asia and southeast Asia. Face?to?face training has a remote lab located in Brisbane and we also have a virtual lab running on Mac?mini servers.

We have 34 courses in 17 countries for face?to?face courses and 60 courses for e?learning.

Prop 102 was simply a request from the community to publicly document the sparse allocation algorithm and explains how this helps to ensure IPv6 allocations can grow contiguously. The APNIC minimum allocation for IPv6 is /32. Prop 99 began as a request for APNIC to reserve very large blocks for extremely large ISPs, mainly those serving the China market.

The key to the proposal that to get smaller non?contiguous allocations within the reserve space which grow into a single contiguous block as a reservation was used up. Changes to the policy APNIC pool, management and the agreement and an agreement of interpreting of multiple discrete networks in the APNIC policy made this proposal unnecessary.

Prop 98 was an attempt to align APNIC and ARIN allocation practices for IPv6. Features included a move away from the HD ratio as a measure for resource usage, and a move towards a nibble boundary allocation. APNIC community discussed this for three consecutive meetings and could not come to a consensus for the need of this proposal.

So, APNIC policies:
APNIC 34, in Cambodia APNIC community looked at three proposals. Prop 101, removes the multihoming requirement for IPv6 assignments as a community agreed that there might be valid reasons for an organisation who would need IPv6 assignment even if it didn't plan to multihome. The proposal brings APNIC in line with other regions, such as RIPE NCC, for example. This proposal is in its final eight?week call for comment.

Prop 104 increases the need assessment for the period of two years for IPv4 transfers. This proposal brings APNIC in line with ARIN as the two regions have an inter?RIR transfers in place. The proposal is in its eight?week call for comment.

Prop 103 called into question the need for further policy changes, particularly in the IPv4 area. The proposal acted as a conversation starter. While there was no strong support for shutting down the entire PDP process, many community members agreed that some change to the PDP might be advantageous.

APNIC has maintained a history of productive participation with ITU. We were one of the first Internet organisations to join as a sector member back in 2003. Our focus attention in engaging with the ITU and its membership has been IP addressing and Internet?governance?related matters. As an example, we have had an active contribution with the NRO, ITU IPv6 group. APNIC, as many other Internet organisations, contributed with preparation, delivering and discussions of documents, supporting an open bottom?up multi?stakeholder model of the Internet, in specific the Internet numbers manage. As a consequence, this group has been recently closed as no current concerns were identified with the existing allocation model. As part of the collaboration with initiatives in ITU we are working together in organising IPv6 capacity, building activities for developing countries in Asia Pacific.

APNIC has been following closely with regional discussions through AP, it in the preparation for WCIT. The conversation is considering changes to the IETF last update in the 1988. APNIC's position is that the ITR has worked well for telephony but is difficult to translate to the Internet. Pretty much the same as the opinions of RIPE NCC.

Right now, APNIC is actively engaging with Government representatives in the region to share views around potential impact of changes to the ITR affecting the Internet. This is with the aim to help inform the Government's position facing the WCIT conference in Dubai in December.

The APNIC survey, we received 1,333 valid responses from 67 economies. 70% of the respondents versus high satisfaction versus 64 in the previous survey. The survey is now better aligned for support planning processes.

On a whole, respondents from the LDEs place higher priorities in resource registration, including APNIC WHOIS database, root server deployment in the region and reverse DNS service. Compared with respondents from the developing and developed economies. Many, particularly those from the developing economies, emphasised the importance of broader training opportunities through workshops, on?line webinar training, regional trainings and conferences. Some suggested a global traffic analysis and DNS hosting service management for better web security. APNIC EC will take this information and establish priorities for the APNIC secretariat in the retreat at the end of the year.

Our next meeting will be APNIC 35, which is be held in Singapore, in February. Following that will be in China. APNIC 39 will be part of a second joint APRICOT?APAN conference after the success of the first such event in Hong Kong 2011. APAN is the Research and Education Communities Internet Conference, equivalent to APRICOT, which is the Commercial Internet Communities Internet Conference.

That's all. Any questions?

NICK HYRKA: Thank you. Apologies for the technical hiccup there. Next up is John Curran, president and CEO of ARIN.

JOHN CURRAN: Good morning everyone. I'll do a brief update. I am President and CEO of ARIN, the American Registry For Internet Numbers. You know us, we handle IP address registry services in North America.

Our focus right now is on handling the IPv4 depletion and IPv6 uptake events. We are doing quite a bit of preparation. We have still IPv4 addresses available in the ARIN region. I'll talk about that in a moment. But, we are prepared for the same thing that everyone else has gone through, which is runout, and that means changing our processing, as you folks have done, as APNIC has done, serialising requests as they come in, making sure we handle them in the appropriate order. We'll be assigning addresses under our current policies right up until we hit zero, so it will be yes, yes, yes, no. You want to make sure no went to the right person and so you have to make sure the requests are processed in the right order, that they are handled in a timely manner. It's pretty important, because obviously people aren't going to be exactly thrilled at the point in time when we no longer have addresses to give out.

We are also ramping up our IPv6 outreach. We still, to this day, run into organisations that say: what do you mean we are going to run out? And some of those are service providers, that is always eye?opening; I can't imagine a service provider who doesn't know that, but it does happen. We are also rolling out, as the other registries have, RPKI. ARIN was a lagered in this respect. RPKI turns out to be particularly challenging if you want to roll it out in a manner that has the right security model and also the right legal model. The legal framework in the US could be best summarised as, if in doubt, litigate, and that means that we need to take a cautious approach. You'll note that we are now in production with RPKI. You can go get our trust anchor online. You'll find a little agreement you agree to. You have to acknowledge that you agree to the terms of the service, our relying party agreement to get our trust anchor. This is necessary. We could just assert terms and conditions on people, but we decided the right thing to do was actually show them and let them acknowledge it, so we are in production with that. And we continue to do a lot of work this year on Internet governance. This is the year of WCIT, and the ITU discussions regarding what they'll do with their accounting tariffs and we want to make sure that we are heavily involved.

So current inventory. As 2.89 /8 equivalents, if you go online to the ARIN website you'll see that on the front page. We have five /16 equivalents, which are in the return pool, the pool that has come back, those will eventually get added into the inventory. It has been dropping. Just a short time ago I was up here with five /8s equivalents, we are now 2.89 and going down.

IPv4 versus IPv6 in the region. We have about 58 percent of our ISP subscribers are IPv4 only today. In terms allocations given out, this is an announcements, this is not infrastructure. This is in terms of existing ISPs who have asked for IPv6. About 36% have asked for IPv6 in addition to their IPv4, and we actually have a small number who have asked for just IPv6. Either new organisations or organisations under a different name that we didn't match up.

IPv4 transfers. There are transfers going on within the region. And you can see the completed transfers. 8.2 transfers mergers and acquisitions, 8.3 transfers are transfers according to the specified transfer policy where one party acquires the rights to the addresses that another one has. These are steady. I have seen a slight increase but they have been steady now over the course of the year.

Specified transfer listing service. If you have addresses and you think you can free them up, you can make that known. If you need addresses, you want ARIN to validate that, we can actually validate your needs so that you can explain to someone that you are a qualified recipient and if you want to help people find each other and be a facilitator, you can do that. All of these are an online exchange ARIN doesn't participate in, but we host this because it helps some people who want to have a short?term solution for continuing with v4.

Recently implemented policies. We have a couple of recently implemented policies. The ARIN 2011?1 and ARIN 2012?1 inter?RIR transfers has been adopted in the ARIN region. This allows for transfers to and from regions that have compatible needs?based policies. This is implemented today. We do know APNIC has a compatible inter?RIR transfer policy. We haven't seen a transfer happen yet, but we know lots of parties are talking about it so we may see our first inter?RIR transfer soon. That's always an exciting thing. Inter?RIR transfers require keeping track of, in some cases, handling the address block, there is a little bit of interest in implementing that and how it's done correctly.

ASN transfers. It is possible to transfer ASNs in the ARIN region, that was implemented, so if a party has an ASN and doesn't need it and someone else do you see need it they can figure out how to make that happen.

Policy proposals:
We have policy proposals. You'd think that as we get to this phase of the world, the number of policy proposals would drop off because, well, v4 is getting to the end and v6 is pretty straightforward. I don't have that yet in the ARIN region. I look forward to that. I noted that, in some regions, there has been discussions of whether we need more policy proposals. I'd welcome that discussion. But, in the meantime, we seem to have a bumper crop, and so there is a number of policy proposals in the ARIN region and the PPML mailing list has a couple of e?mail messages every day about them.

Publically facing development efforts, as I said, RPKI, we have rolled out and production?hosted. We have not yet down the up/down delegated model. We are in final development on that. Our pilot RPKI services have been decommissioned. But all of this available, we do have people actively pulling down the trust anchor so that's good. We also have people who are beginning to publish covering [rowers] and that's also good. I hope that we some day get to the level of documentation we have seen in the RIPE region with some 1,100 participants but we are going to have to catch up from behind.

ARIN online. We have doing some enhancements no integrate billing. This is fairly important right now, we have a separate building and a separate online system, makes for exciting times keeping those reconciled. We are going to fix that over the course of this year.

Upcoming meetings:
Our next meeting is in just a month, ARIN 30 in Dallas. It's in the end of October. It's joint with NANOG. We look forward to seeing everyone there. It should be wonderful time. In spring of 2013 we will have our spring meeting, I am looking at the picture and I am going to guess that's Barbados, so I believe the spring meeting will be in Barbados. We try to do one meeting every other year in the Caribbean and one meeting every other year in Canada to rotate throughout our region, so I look forward to seeing people there, that looks like a good place to be for some reason.

That's it. Any questions?

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Good morning, John. Axel, RIPE NCC. You might be aware that we are faced with the certain UN sanctions concerning, another country in our service region. I wonder whether you, at ARIN, have had any experiences in things like that?

JOHN CURRAN: Excellent question. So, first, someone actually asked me that in the hallway, and said what about Cuba, and I said, well, Cuba does have IP address blocks but they were assigned before ARIN came into formation in '97, so, that one I didn't have to worry about. There are four or five countries that have active trade sanctions. What's interesting is that all of those countries when the trade sanctions are implemented in the US, which is of course the governing line I need to worry about for ARIN, all of them seem to have a carve?out for personal communication services. These are the ability to post pictures and messages and chat for online services, for personal communication without charge. These are relatively new carve?outs that exist in the United States version of those particular items. Now, I will tell you, I have glanced at it. It doesn't say Internet RIR services. It would be really convenient if it did. But, on the other hand, you could make an argument that IP addresses are kind of necessary in some cases to let people in a country have Internet communication services. So, right now ??

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Just curious. Is Cuba part of the north American numbering plan for phone numbers?

[JOHN CURRAN]: Yes, it is. But that does not ?? it's interesting, but it doesn't set a precedent. The fact of the matter is, that there is a carve?out that's been fairly recent, that the US administration has put in its trade tariffs, saying that these are not meant to get in the way of communication services over the Internet. It does not cover regional Internet registry services. It is not that clear. It does provide and opening that if we were to face such a circumstance, we could apply for a waiver or a permit to facilitate that. So I guess the only thing I'd say there is that, the fact that each country decides how it will implement those, means to some extent, Dutch law is very important. Of course, the EU, in the case of yourselves, is also important. I think that we may see some harmonisation in these sanctions, not that we really want to encourage them, but we may see some harmonisation and at least the US, the fact that that language is present, means that potentially future sanctions will incorporate that at the top level, at an UN level and similar. This is something I'm going to take up, of course, with my friends in the US Government, as soon as the US Government gets back into office next year, but, in the meantime, the problem is that there is some consideration for Internet services. It would be possible for us to potentially deal with such, on a case?by?case basis. Hopefully, that's a good direction and will help you guys long term. Okay. Any other questions? No. Thank you.


NICK HYRKA: Thank you. Next up is Luisa Villa, who is the Customer Services Manager from LACNIC. Welcome.

LUISA VILLA: Good morning. I am from LACNIC. And I wanted to ?? as maybe you were able to see in the first slide, like the first update, is that we got a new logo. LACNIC is celebrating, this year, our 10th anniversary, so we decided that it was the right moment to change the e?mail so we changed the logo, we changed our website. This is the new look and feel of our website.

Regarding our membership, from January until August, we have grown a little bit over 18%. Now, we have 2,592 members, but, so more members actually means less space available for IPv4 at the moment. We still have 3.22 /8s. We have been ?? this is a graph of the allocation for the past 18 months. So we can see that we have been using like a /8 a little bit over per year, so, that will mean that, more or less, by 2014 we'll be out of IPv4. These are the allocations of the resources. The red ones are IPv4, the yellow ones are IPv6.

A little bit more into the tale about IPv6: 48% of our members have already IPv6 and 25% of those clients have already these IPs announced. Last year, we allocated 513 and we made 442 allocations so far in this year.

Regarding the AS numbers, this is what we have been allocating during 2012. We were doing a pretty good job allocating the 32?bit AS numbers, but due to the global policy that doesn't make any distinction between the 16 and 32, we had to start assigning the 16 AS numbers until we reached the 80% to apply for the next block of 32 bits.

Regarding resource certification. We have a little bit over 200 prefixes signed, which represents a little bit over like 5% have the space announced in the region.

Last year, at the end of last year we conducted the first customer satisfaction survey, and we were really, really happy with the results. We got 94% of global satisfaction and a 96% of service satisfaction. Even though we had a very good results, we took this opportunity to see what else can we do to improve our services, so, we discovered that there was a need for an on?line payment that we're happy to announce that, this month, we finally launched it, so our clients can now pay online.

We also created a web resource request before our clients needed to send this text at the moment place via e?mail and now they can send their applications via web, so this makes the job easier for our clients and for our hostmasters as well.

We saw that we could make some improvements in the clearness of the information on our website.

Another good news is that, last April, we had, like, the opening of our new offices, and we were honoured to have the President of Uruaguy joining us for this opening. This building is called the Internet Hub for Latin America and Caribbean. It is a house of seven Internet regional organisations. It's really good to be together because we can really just work with each other and have, like, more conversations and work together for the development of the region.

This year, we had two meetings so far, so we had our general meeting in Equador in May, we had also our policy forum there; four policies were discussed and two of them were approved. We had a good participation of 491 people there. Then, in July, we had our regional meeting for or clients of the Caribbean. It was in Haiti, in Port?au?Prince, and we had some workshops and panels. And our upcoming meeting is in one month, it's going to be held in Montevideo, Uruaguy, where our offices are. It's going to be a special meeting because we are celebrating our anniversary so we are going to have some outstanding speakers, we are going to have awards and recognitions. It's going to be back?to?back with the LACNIC 2012 meeting and our policy forum is going to be really busy this time. We have going to have eleven proposals. You can see, if you are interested in this link, you can find the proposals that are being discussed. Just to name one, we are now discussing as to the possibility of inter?RIR transfers.

And finally, I just want to thank you you for your time. Any questions? Thank you.


NICK HYRKA: Thank you. That wraps up the RIR updates, and we'll move on to the NRO Executive Council update. So, John, if you'll join us again.

JOHN CURRAN: I'm John Curran, I am also the Chair of the NRO Executive Council this year. That's a rotating honour, and I am honoured this year.

Number resource organisation is the vehicle for RIR cooperation and representation. It is a lightweight unincorporated association, was formed by the NRO MoU in October 2003. Rather than having five RIRs all attempting to be at various functions around the world, send out brochures, send out statistics about the Internet number system, it's best to coordinate and share resources. There is a little bit of overhead in coordination. The benefit, however, is that we get to do things once, not five times.

So, our mission: protect unallocated NRO pool, promote and protect the bottom?up policy development process, act as a focal point for the Internet community, input into the RIR system and fulfil the role of the address supporting organisation, as specified in the ICANN by?laws. ICANN has an organisation called the ASO, the Address Supporting Organisation. That organisation we actually fulfil by having the NRO serve that role.

So, we have an executive committee: one appointed representative from each RIR plus RIR board and staff observers, generally the Executive Officer of each RIR. We have three office holders that rotate, and decisions are made by unanimous agreement. All the RIRs agree to do something, we do it. If any RIR says we shouldn't be doing that, that's not a joint activity; it becomes an individual activity. We have a secretariat which rotates with the NRO secretary position and we have various coordinating groups including engineering, communications, public affairs and the registration services managers.

This year, Executive Committee, Adiel, who is our treasurer this year; Paul Wilson, who the the secretary; myself, as the Chair; Raoul; and same with Axel. But it will rotate, so these honours move from year to year. The secretariat is presently with APNIC.

We are recognised under the ICANN by?laws as serving through an MoU as serving the role of the ASO. That means that the NRO is also responsible for overseeing global member policy work. We appoint two directors to the ICANN board. We appoint representatives to serve on the various ICANN bodies like the nominating committee and we have the focal point within ICANN nor the member resource numbers.

The ASO Address Council is an elected Council with three members from each region. As we were discussing, there is an election going on right now to appoint people from this region. And we do that so that we have a body that can confirm when policy is global, that can act within ICANN to provide information, if there is a question about number resource policy, the elected address councils is go to team.

Our ASO in 2012, I have all the names up on the board. I'll just point out that, at present, Andy [Linton], and some of the positions, Alan Barrett, Andy Linton, Rhonda Silver, Wilfried and [Hart Boyd] are appointed in each region, two are elected and one is appointed, and our present Chair is Louis Lee and our present Vice?Chair is Alan Barrett.

ASO funding of ICANN. So, all the ASO expenses are shared among the RIRs based on the size of the RIR and resources allocated in the region. So, that results in a formula and this year the distribution is shown there. APNIC has a lot of resources allocated recently, and, so, they are currently the lead, RIPE second and then ARIN, LACNIC and AfriNIC. And then amongst the expenses that are shared include not only operating expenses for the NRO, which are fairly nominal, but also the contribution to ICANN, which is not nominal. It's the largest item in our budget. We fund ICANN to the tune of $823,000 a year. That hasn't changed. That was the number we gave them the first year of their operation, and we have kept it flat. ICANN ?? it was materially the entire ICANN budget in the first year. Now, it's a small pittence, approximately 2% of ICANN's budget comes from the RIRs. And we get about 2% of the meeting time I think if I look at all the DNS sessions. So it seems about right.

ASO review. Request for proposal. We did an SAO review is required by the ICANN by?laws, we went out and looked for an organisation to do an external third party review of the role of the ASO in ICANN. We hired items international, a Paris based consultancy, they actually did an ASO review report. They conducted an enormous number of surveys, they met with people at each of the RIR meetings to see whether or not we are structured where will to do our duties within ICANN. The report was published in March of 2012. We prepared a response. There were some findings in the report. We prepared a response and it was posted according to the ICANN public policy comment process. We received one comment and, as a result of that now, we are busy working on those recommendations. Some of them are fairly innocuous. For example, almost all the ICANN advisory bodies have the word "Council," so you'll have the at?large Council and you'll have the GNSO Council. We have the number Council, the ASO ?? we have ?? sorry, we have the Number Resource Organisation Number Council, which serves as the ASO Advisory Council. That's confusing to ICANN; in fact, it's confusing to many people. We're looking at some of the terminology and how we can straighten it out. It's also true that I'm the Chair of the NRO. So, I serve as the Chair of the ASO. I often have in ICANN people asking well which one are you? And the answer is I am both. We need to figure out how to make that clearer so those are the some of the recommendations. The report is online on the NRO website. The relations are online. Feel free to look at them and we are going to provide a summary to the ICANN structural review organisation, and that's just to make sure that we're as required by their by?laws, we are looked at every several years that we're structured appropriately.

New global policy. We haven't had a lot of global policies but we do have one: IPv42011, global policy for post?exhaustion allocation mechanisms by IANA. This went through all the regions, was ratified by the ICANN board in May of this year and we have had resources returned by both RIPE and ARIN. As IPv4 resources are returned, each region can turn around and designate those and return them to ICANN. ARIN has done some. RIPE has done some and those will get aggregated and then divided up and then issued to each of the RIRs as they request them. It's just to make sure that returned resources are available to all the regions.

Multi?stakeholder advisory group. There is a multi?stakeholder advisory group which helps form the agenda and programme of the IGF, the Internet Governance Forum. As part of the Internet technical community, the NRO has been able to place several members on the multi?stakeholder advisory group meeting, and so we have Raoul, Paul Rendek and Paul Wilson, they are busy working on helping with the other numbers, setting up IGF. The IGF is an important meeting, which means that what happens there doesn't directly require action but it requires where governments, it's where associations get to work together and talk about issues that may not be exactly appropriate for an RIR meeting. For example, in an RIR meeting, we may talk about a lot of different things but we probably wouldn't have a session on intellectual property and enforcement, whereas in IGF they might have seven sessions dedicated to that. So there is a lot of discussion to bring commonality. It let's people have a forum to air concerns they have about how the Internet is managed. Sometimes, it leads to actions in ICANN, the RIRs, but it's very important to provide a good forum that's open for everyone to air their views. There will be a couple of workshops at the upcoming IGF in Bacue, including moving to IPv6 and challenges for governance with that. Then a session on RPKI, certifying Internet resources.

The CSTD Working Group on IGF improvements, the Committee for Science and Technology Development, UN function that's looking at the structure of the IGF and a number of the people like the IGF but would like it to be decisional, for example, so it can make a recommendation that is binding on all the participants, or that the IGF should have more formal reports coming out of its meetings. These are participation in that and they are trying to make sure that this forum stays alive and healthy. But at the same time, it's something that's useful to us and not something that makes decisions without enough input. So, that's going well, their draft report is available online.

OECD and the NRO:
The NRO is a founding member of the OECD Technical Advisory Committee, and they have a number of workshops on the Internet. And one of the ones is the working party on communications infrastructure and science policy. We participate in that as well, help the OECD with its consideration of Internet matters and drafting of its reports. These are all functions that, if each RIR had to participate in, would require multiple full?time staff but because we share this through the NRO, it's, I won't say reasonable, but it's tolerable. It's manageable to participate in all of these organisations in a coordinated manner.

World Telecommunications Policy Forum:
We have heard a lot of about it. We actually have members on their expert panel, which is helping setting the agenda for the World Telecommunications Policy Forum. Paul Wilson and Cathy Handley are on that and actively helping shape to make sure that that forum has a right scope and is considering matters that make sense to be considered within the ITU.

IPv6 outreach: We are doing quite a bit. We have been asked to work, the ITU asked to work with us on IPv6 outreach. They have a number of directives that call for them to do more with IPv6. We have had several calls and exchanged letters with them. We are happy to work with them. We just want to know where and how so we hope to see some progress there. This is good because, years ago, there were discussions about IPv6 allocation by the ITU. We have moved past that, we are now at the point of we now know how the system works, it works as specified by the RIRs, but now they are willing to move to the next phase with this outreach and capacity?building.

All of these documents you can see online. We keep them all on the NRO website.

Establishment. This year in the NRO we actually have enough policy activity going on. We established a coordination group called the PACG, the Public Affairs Coordination Group, which is the people handling that in each of the RIRs, similar to the Engineering Coordinating Group or the Communication Coordinating Group, and that's proved to be very helpful, and has helped us in some of these engagements make sure we are all using the same message.

One of the other things the NRO does is help coordinate the IPv6 global deployment survey, and that actually just came out this week. So that's very good news. It shows an uptake in IPv6 adoption in all of the regions.

We coordinate RPKI activities, obviously, because that implementation is cross RIR. And we review things like legacy IPv4 space making sure we have good policies for that.

That's it. That's everything on the NRO. Any questions? I see, yes...

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Sandy Murphy, SPARTA. The President and CEO of ARIN was here a little while ago and talking about the new production service of RPKI and the trust anchor locator. And I know that the NRO had begun a communication with ICANN concerning the global trust anchor, and I was wondering if there was anything that you could say about progress on that?

JOHN CURRAN: Absolutely. The IEB did send a message to the RIRs and ICANN saying it would be good in this world to have a global trust anchor. The RIRs have been looking at that and working together on that. And the biggest part is figuring out what the requirements are, in other words, how that would be built, how it would be managed, who would run it. We have engaged with ICANN and asked if they would be willing to host that global Trust Anchor because beyond the five RIRs there are resources held by the IANA for example that would be good to have a home in that, and in concept, we are in agreement that that could be done. We haven't actually said officially that's our direction. It's incumbent upon the RIRs now to document what we expect in that global trust anchor, and so we are busy doing that and we are going to do that and meet with ICANN and as soon as we have an agreement on what it is we want them to do, then we'll move ahead, but right now, we haven't documented the requirements for the global trust anchor. Obviously, things like ARIN having a trust anchor that requires acknowledgment of a relying party agreement has implications to a global trust anchor, so, in some ways, it's fortuitous that we didn't try to do this earlier because we needed to have each of the RIRs in production to know what a global trust anchor would look like. We still moving ahead. There is no road blocks. We are working with ICANN but it could be some time. I apologise. In the meantime, you have to configure a handful of trust anchors instead of one. Okay.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: So you said the RIRs are coordinating what's in the global trust anchor?

JOHN CURRAN: No. The RIRs are coordinating some of the operational aspects of how this should be hosted, and similar. We have agreed to use the IETF regarding the technical standards for RPKI. So, obviously we'll work with the RPKI Working Group to get that documented.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: I'll see if I can locate such a person. Thank you.


AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Wilfried Woeber, and I'd like to follow?up a little bit on the identification of which part of ICANN. It may become definitely a non?issue, but are you sort of envisaging or expecting that the trust anchor will be managed by IANA or by ICANN? At the moment, this is not an issue, I hope that it will not become an issue, but there have been periods where it was not really obvious that it would remain the same thing in the end.

JOHN CURRAN: Several years ago it was, there is a little technical task that ARIN was performing that we felt should be performed by some other party, not one RIR. And this task was the DNS zone generation. Back in 1997, when ARIN was formed, we got a number of tasks that we took over from the Internic, one of those tasks was that on behalf of all the numbering community. We had to wait for ICANN to be formed, for IANA to find its way into ICANN, to be stable, and then the RIRs collectively said we should move this. When that was being discussed, it was a great question of whether or not that inat a.arp a zone file was something that ICANN would do or was something that would be directed for ICANN to do per the IANA functions contract with the Department of Commerce.

The NRO has, in public filing, said we do not see any need for the IANA functions contract with the Department of Commerce to ever grow in scope. We'd like to see it be reduced in scope over time, if anything. So, there were discussions to figure out how to have ICANN do that particular task without actually having the US Government ask them to. And I'll say that the RIRs working with the IAB, which has an existing memorandum with ICANN, were able to say, we're in agreement on this, if the IAB agrees, can you ask ICANN to do this? And that was quite successful. I think if the RIRs and ICANN come to an agreement, and we go to the IAB, we may again have the IAB ask ICANN to host a global trust anchor, since it's the IAB asked for this to be done in the first place. I don't think the word IANA functions contract needs to be brought up in any of this, and will hold to the NRO messaging that says that contract should never expand in scope if someone tries to do that. Does that answer your question?

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: I just want a comment to add to one of your slides. APNIC has also returned our ??

JOHN CURRAN: APNIC has also returned address space and the message was two weeks ago or three weeks ago. Thank you.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Lars Liman from NetNod. I want to actually tag along with Wilfried and, I think there is a difference between the IANA function and the ICANN, and if you say that you want to ask ICANN to host this, make sure there is an exit clause in the contract so that if something happens, it doesn't get locked into an organisational structure that could change in the future.

JOHN CURRAN: Understood. And we're pretty good about that.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: I hope I'm not so late again because when I heard, it seems that people in this hall think that we agreed, seriously agreed on who will be trust anchor about the model, because all this blah?blah?blah, even from IED side just awarding, nothing more, and while I am still alive, I'll be against any delegations to ICANN or IANA. Thank you. That's my position.

JOHN CURRAN: Understood. I just want to respond, we are busy working with ICANN trying to figure out how technically this can be done. It will be up to each RIR to approve asking for it to actually be implemented. We have not moved to implementation. We haven't gone and pulled the five RIRs to see if all five RIRs say it should be implemented but we are doing the technical work to make sure we know what a global trust anchor would be done.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: So, David Kassens in his function as a random member of the IAB. I just want to issue also to Lyman that we are watching this closely and we think it's very important that the proper clauses are in place.

JOHN CURRAN: Any other questions. Thank you for having me.

CHAIR: Next up we are Ingrid from the RIPE NCC, she is the Assistant Manager of Registration Services.

INGRID WIJTE: Good morning. My name is Ingrid, part of the registration services. I'll be presenting the Internet number resource status report. And this report is generated by all the RIRs together and we update it quarterly. The report I'll be presenting is from the end of June, so, our meeting is unfortunately a week too early; next week we would have had the new report ready.

Looking at the total amount of v4 address space, this lied has not been updated since early last year when IANA handed out the last /8s to the RIRs. We see that 35 /8s are not available. These have been reserved by the technical community. Central registry, 91 /8s. These represent the /8s that were issued before the existence of the RIRs.

The RIRs together hold 130 /8s, APNIC 45, ARIN 36, AfriNIC 5, LACNIC 9 and RIPE NCC 35.

The remaining v4 space in each RIR, you have seen that AfriNIC is around four /8s. APNIC just under one, ARIN holds around three, LACNIC three, and we know that RIPE NCC is now at one /8.

The number of address space that each RIR issued to their customers. We can see that until approximately 2007, there is been a general growth trend from all the different regions. From 2008 onwards, this pattern has change add little bit. ARIN is issuing a bit less than they did before and in 2011 in the first four months of the year, we can see that APNIC issued six /8s, which brought them to their last one.

In terms of /8s. We see that RIPE NCC holds 33 /8s, APNIC 44, AfriNIC almost 2 .5, LACNIC almost 7 and ARIN 28.

With regards to ASN assignments. Until 2004, ARIN was the RIR handing out most ASNs and after that the RIPE NCC took over that role. And we have a peak in 2011, when we handed out more than we did before, and this is probably caused by receiving more PI requests in the region as these requests always ?? well, almost always go together with an ASN request.

Total number of ASNs. We can see ARIN and RIPE NCC are quite close together with ARIN issuing 23,000, AfriNIC a little over 800, LACNIC 27 hundred, APNIC 8,000 and the NCC 25,000.

4?byte ASN. As we already heard from Luisa, they are running low on 32?bit ASN, and so is RIPE NCC. In 2011, about one third of what we issued was 4?byte ASN and we will probably run out of 32 ?? well, 4?byte ASN later this year, early next year for a short period of time until we can request new blocks.

Total number. We issued 23,000, AfriNIC 30, APNIC 1100. ARIN 41, and LACNIC almost 900. Which is especially high considering the total amount that LACNIC hands out each year.

Moving on to v6 address space. IANA allocated /3 for global Unicast out of which all the RIRs received one /12 in 2006. The miscellaneous /12 represents the /23s that the RIRs received before 2006.

The number of allocations made by each RIR. There is steady growth in all the regions. But both ARIN and RIPE NCC have seen a spike in 2011, and this was probably due to IANA handing out last bits of v4 space. And APNIC following there.

Total number of allocations: RIPE NCC issued 4200, AfriNIC approximately 250, LACNIC around 1,000, APNIC 1700, and ARIN 1,800.

With regards to assignments. Also there, there is general growth trend. However, that's relatively low considering the total amount of v6 space that's been handed out by the RIRs. And again, we see a spike for both ARIN and RIPE NCC in 2011. Probably due to the same reason.

And then finally, how many of the RIR members have both v4 and v6. We see that in all regions that's less than 50%. And with regards to the RIPE NCC with us reaching the last /8, we expect that to go up quite a bit in the coming time, as v6 is a requirement to receive /22 out of the last /8. This number is expected to grow.

And for the raw data for these numbers, these are the URLs and I'll take questions now if you have any.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: [Ilise ]from [Bennam]. I remember that years ago, maybe five years ago they said as of January 1st 2010, we won't be giving out any 16?bit AS numbers any more so apparently something went wrong with that, so how does this work today? If I come to you and ask for an AS number, what happens? Will I get 32?bit, 16?bit, do you give me something, do I have to take it?

INGRID WIJTE: The RIPE NCC issues 32?bit by default, unless the LIR specifies they cannot use that and want a 16?bit. So, we still differentiate and the reason for that is that we want to keep some of the 16?bit for the ones that really have troubles using them, and it seems to be a taking of a bit too well in the region.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: How do you mean too well?

INGRID WIJTE: Because we are issuing more than 32?bit and might actually no longer have them for a period of time.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: There is 4 billion of them you are not going to run out any time soon.

INGRID WIJTE: I mean RIPE NCC pool. We will have a short period of time in which we do not qualify to receive new blocks from IANA, and IANA has undifferentiated pool, so, we will have to issue some 16?bit to reach the threshold to request more from IANA.


AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Lars Liman from NetNod. Is there an obvious reason for the very, very low number of 32?bit ASs issued by ARIN?

INGRID WIJTE: Well, I would assume that the region has more issues with 4?byte ASN, but I guess that question would be better directed for ARIN.

JOHN CURRAN: John Curran, CEO ARIN. That question has been asked in the ARIN region multiple times at nearly every meeting. I stood up at the last one and said, I know the equipment works, we have other regions that prove the equipment works. What is the problem? We're not getting a clear answer. I do believe there is a couple of service providers who, while their equipment works fine, theirs systems do not and IT systems being what they are, they are slow to change. So, I don't know. You folks know better the service provider industry than I do, because I'm not actually running a network any more, and actively doing peering and similar, but I believe there is a few providers, particularly in North America, who say they are router supported but their IT systems don't please give them a 16?bit ASN. Now obviously one way or another that's going to change shortly. It would be nice if it changed beforehand, but depletion is a forcing function.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Thank you, so it's not that the market has to have a matured or that you have had to have a spike, it's just different provisioning systems. Okay. Thank you.

NICK HYRKA: Thank you, Ingrid. Finally, on our roster we have got IANA reports and we have Elise Gerich and Leo Vegoda. As a heads?up, we'll most likely run a little bit into the coffee break, so please be patient.

ELISE GERICH: Hi, I'm Elise Gerich and that's Leo Vegoda and we are going to tag team. I brought my laptop just in case this doesn't work.

Basically, we'll be quick, hopefully, that goes forward. This is our agenda, we wanted to talk about the customer survey we have done updating the registries based on the global policies that were passed as well as the special registries and how they are going to be updated.

The key signing ceremonies that we do every now and then and that you all send representatives to participate in, and then the ASN management which seems to be the number space that everybody is interested in recently.

So, this is a survey we have done our first IANA customer survey, and we want to thank the RIRs for the support they gave by sending in responses. We aspire to have as good a number as the LACNIC folks did, but we are quite pleased that we had over 80% in every category for satisfaction. So the light blue and the red lines are very satisfied or satisfied. So if you add them together, there was over 80% satisfaction in all of the categories.

So, about special IPv4 and IPv6 registries. There is a draft, it's no 01 as of last night when these slides were prepared two days ago it was 00. This a draft will propose a new structure for the special registries and it consolidates and updates various RFCs that existed in the past that described the allocation of special IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. So, if you are interested in this, obviously the IETF post these so that you can have comments and contribute to this work and we wanted to let you know that we are participating and working with Ron Bonica on this.

Everyone has been talking about the global policy that was adopted by ICANN that you all sent to us from the ASO, and we have been working with the ASO and the IETF on how those registries, the recovery pool should be implemented. So earlier we said that APNIC, RIPE and ARIN have begin some addresses back on that left?hand column. You can see the slashes that we have back, and now I'll tag team with Leo and he can continue to talk about the public comment that we're going to be putting out to talk about how to distribute from the recovery pool as well as how to put the registry together for this.

LEO VEGODA: Thank you very much. So, the total we have got is about one and a quarter /8s roughly, give or take a little bit, but we have some options for how we can go and do this and we don't want to come at this from this is how it must be done. We really do want to get good input because there is no point having a registry that isn't actually useful for people. So, options we have got there, a single high granularity registry, I know that's not going to work for some people. Multiple registries that might not work for others or multiple views in a single registry. We are also got options for the selection mechanism for when we go and make she is allocations. So, potentially that could be several years away, because in order to start the allocation process, one of the RIRs needs to have reached the last /9 of their last /8. Now, at /22 ago, that could actually take quite sometime. But at that point, we need to work out how we are going to select the addresses that get allocated. One thing we could do is we could go and publish some software that we use and we could run it and you could run it and you could come up with the same solution that we do. Another option that we could do is we could go and pick out a bunch of addresses and publish that as a list for some public review and then go with that with changes that were suggested during the public review. There might be other ideas.

We are going to be doing a public comment period on this. It's going to be on the ICANN website in the next few days and we would very much like input from people who go and use the registries and people who are going to get these prefixes. Certainly on the registries, because that's sort of now, and we'd like to get the registry bit sorted. The address selection is perhaps not so urgent but it would also be nice to have comments on that. Here we have got a picture from the last key signing ceremony we did. You'll recognise some members of the community. When we do the key signing ceremonies for the route of the DNS, we only get to take the key material out of the safe, which is in the safe room, which is in the ceremony room, which is in the data centre and all the rest of that. When we get the trusted community representatives from this community and the other communities around the world and we have to have a quorum from, you know, so that everyone gets an opportunity to go and see that we only go and do sufficient in line with the policy that has been published and in a very open and transparent way. None of the key material ever leaves the facility. It's only accessed when we have got the trusted community representatives there. Those trusted community representatives arrange their own financing to come to these key signing ceremonies, because, of course, we don't want to have any possible ?? possibility of people thinking that ICANN is paying for them to have a jolly. It's not a jolly. Well, to be honest, the key ceremonies are a little bit tedious, but it's really important work and we are very grateful to the people from this community and the other communities around the world who attend and trust anchor very much. It's just worth noting that this isn't something that happened in 2010; it's something that happens every quarter. And it's a lot of work.

So, we have been trying to make things better. We have a bunch of KPIs for how we deal with each of the areas of the IANA functions and we have got KPIs for dealing with number resources and we go and look at our processes, we go and look at our KPIs and we go and see how we can make improvements. And if you look at the KPI in the middle, it's timeliness and process quality, and we have got a target there of two iterations with the customer. Essentially that means that they send us a request, they get an auto?ack back and then they get their request fulfilled. That's two iterations. And we don't always achieve that and we came up with an idea for how we can improve this, because it's not good having something where you have got a process that involves lots and backwards and forwards that just means that the process isn't very good. So, in order to do this, we went and looked at the policy and the policy here, it has that the RIR can qualify if they have used 80% of their previously allocated block, or, if they have got less than two months of AS numbers left. So, that's the policy we have got to implement. And when we go and do the evaluation, we get the request from the RIR, the RIR has some numbers that goes and says, like, this is how we meet the requirements in the policy, the criteria one or criteria two, and, based on this, please give us some more AS numbers so that he can assign them to the networks in our region. And we go and do some due diligence checks to make sure the arithmetic is correct and to go and say, well, if the RIRs are telling us something, let's make sure that at least what they are telling us is consistent with what they are telling the rest of the world. The RIRs go and publish every single AS number assignment that they make in their daily statistical reports that are published on their FTP servers and let's go and check what they tell us against that and we use that as our due diligence check.

Well, the RIRs can go and send us stuff, we can go and manually do the check and we can go and say yes or no. We thought wouldn't it be much better if, instead of that, the RIRs could go and see the result of our evaluation before we'd actually done it.

So, that's what we have done. You can go and look at this as well yourselves. This isn't something only available to RIRs. This is something that's available to the rest of the world, to everyone. You could implement it yourself if you wanted. We use the data supplied by the RIRs. We just go and turn it into a pretty graph and put it on our stats website, which is there. This is one of the policy criteria. Looking at the last allocation that they received, how much of it has been used, how much of it is available. If the bit that says allocated is more than 80%, then they obviously qualify.

Same here for the next graph. We have got two months. On the far left for you, that's the six?month average. On the far right, their two?month need. If the bar in the middle is smaller than the two?month need, they qualify. This is all public information. Everyone can go and have a look at it. It means the RIRs can go and see what we are going to say before we have actually thought it and we have a better process. It's a little bit more transparent as well, which is nice. This is a little improvement we have made. We are going to tweak these graphs a little bit because we got feedback from the RIRs earlier during the week. But this is the improvement that we have made. We hope you like it because hopefully it's useful to you because you are the people that create the policies that we have to implement.

And Nick is telling me I have go to go. So if you have any questions. Catch me over a cup of tea.

NICK HYRKA: We are running late but we are going to cut into the coffee break a bit. There are just some, a couple of administrative ?? I can't take any questions on that ?? sorry ?? a couple of administrative task that is we brought up at the beginning of this. We have the NRO elections, you have been given ballots in the room. Please deposit them in the bin with the handsome gentleman back there, and the lady, too. When you leave but before that we want to talk to you about the PC elections. So, with that, I can hand this over to Brian from the PC. So we'll be at least ten minutes over, so please bear with us.

BRIAN NISBET: Good morning. We are going to attempt to do this as quickly as possible because we do understand that we are running late but unfortunately there is a lot to talk about after coffee so we can't really wait until then.

We have some elections this morning for the five spots that are open on the PC. Obviously, I think this is very important but I'm biased. The membership of the PC we have had a great couple of RIPE meetings, and we want to expand that out, get more people in, more ideas and continue to improve the content for the Plenary.

So, we have ten nominees, they have absolutely no more than one minute to talk to you. They are more than ?? I'm more than happy if they wish to take less time to talk to you. And I'm sure they want their coffee too. So, what I'm going to do is we are going to do this in alphabetical order. I am hoping they are either here or ?? they are still going to get to talk in alphabetical order to be entirely fair. If you are ?? if you have been nominated or indeed have nominated yourself for the RIPE PC, if you could come up here now please. I'm hoping that ten people or an appropriate approximation thereof.

SPEAKER: One thing that some of the nominees couldn't be here today in the morning, some of them elected proxies for them, but anyway, there is a page with all the nominees and their biographies and their photographs, which is very important. So please look at this when you prepare to vote.

BRIAN NISBET: Okay. Exactly. So that's there. It's on the programme RIPE?PC, become a member and obviously that's the URL to vote.

You have five votes. So, you can vote for one, two, three, four or five of these gentlemen. There is one lady who can't be here who is on the nominees as well so there is one person who isn't here at all, Elisa. You can ?? five votes. The candidates with the top five candidates with the highest number of votes will be elected and we'll be announcing that this afternoon. It is very straightforward. So both of these work.

So... just going to start at this end, if you could introduce yourself, say as few or as many words as you wish but you have no more than one minute and then the next person.

SPEAKER: Good morning, my name is [Noman Poujan], I am from the UK. I am anxious to be a member of a Programme Committee because I think I can help from my experience to the RIPE community to introduce different types of activity, especially for Internet community and different part of our region, different countries have still ?? there is some embargo like Iraq and Iran and other countries, so if I get an opportunity, as an active committee member, then I can I can arrange some meeting with the Government and other influential people to fix up this problem in the future. I think the committee member can concentrate on this situation and we have vote me for this post. Thank you very much.

SPEAKER: Hello. I am Benno Overeinder. I am working for NLnet Labs on Internet domain routing on topics like DHCP, dynamic behaviour, scaleability, routing security. My other interest is inter?domain of Internet measurements like the IPv6 deployment problems, IS MP, packet too big and fragment filtering where it has been presented at the Plenary by our students. So the main theme of my interest is actually building bridges between research and practical deployment. So, in that sense, the RIPE community and RIPE meetings are quite unique, it's in one room, they are both researchers and engineers and I like the strength of that. By joining the Programme Committee. And in this way contribute to the RIPE meetings, I enjoy that so much both professionally and of course also socially. Thank you.

SPEAKER: Hello. My name is Alex Saroyan, I am based in Armenia. Currently I am networking leader in Orange Armenia, so I am involved in many complex tasks permanently, so there is a good vision of technology and how it core lates with modern needs, so, taking this experience, I think I can somehow try to help to keep developing the programme.

SPEAKER: Hello, I am Shane Kerr. I have been involved with the RIPE community for quite a while. I believe very strongly in what RIPE does and I think it's a very important organisation and basically, I would just want to do my part to help out and try to help the programming committee get some interesting contents to keep you guys both entertained and informed. That's that's it.

SPEAKER: Hi, my name is Paul Ebersman and I worked in Infoblox doing IPv6. I have been very impressed with the range and the quality of the talks at RIPE. I'd like to see that continue and improve. I have been working on the Internet for a number of years and have spent much of my career working on involving operational tasks and also solving and documenting and sharing that knowledge. I'm very active on NANOG and IETF and I think I could be an asset in the programme community.

SPEAKER: My name is [Terebina], I am 27, I'll try to keep it short so we can all have our coffees. I think that as I am going from the southern part of Europe I can bring some new members in connection with this meetings we are all enjoying and I do have one technical background both related with research at college and working as a network operators in Spain, and that's pretty much it. If you think that the RIPE community could find this valuable to get new faces in all these kind of things, you can approach me at the coffee and I will speak with you. Thank you.

SPEAKER: Hello. Dmitry Kohmanyuk, Hostmaster, Ukraine, I live in Kiev, I have been a member of various Internet communities for at least 20 years, involved in running UE ccTLD. I am a member of the RIPE community for several years as well as our company is RIPE NCC member. I also participate in activities of centre in ICANN and being a technical person by background I find myself doing more and more of this, administration A and I would call it political work so I would be exciteed to meet with other people who are willing to present but who are not sure how the process works. I have been onney nothing programme committing since last year and really enjoyed making that happen so I am looking forward to working with all of you and making great presentation and having them to reach various audience like this meeting. Thank you.

SPEAKER: I am Will Hargrave, it's great to see so much in the Programme Committee. It's awesome. I have been working on programme committees before, I was on the EURO?IX Programme Committee and I am currently a UK network forum member and I have been coming to RIPE meetings for maybe seven years or so and they keep on getting more saw some. I would like to help out with that. Cheers.

SPEAKER: Hi, I am here on behalf of Job Snijders, he couldn't be here because he is currently flying to the Middle East. He asked me to read the following to you. Job is an active participant of the Internet community in both operational capacity as well as a founder of corporation efforts such as he will net ring. He currently traffic to the Middle East to travel to the service provider to teach them about IPv6 and. He currently holds a senior engineering position at the TRI IP networks and he states the RIPE meetings are of great importance to share with and learn from kindred spirits. As a committee member I would be in a position to advice young newcomers on how to present their creative ideas yet at the same time the old dogs would benefit from ?? I promise to honestly assess each and every proposal on the educational value and novelty.

BRIAN NISBET: Thank you all very much. Along with Lisa, who can't make, it give them a round of applause, certainly for putting them forward if nothing else.

So, there is an URL. You know who they all are now. Please vote. Lines close at 11:30 and we will announce the winner, the five winners pretty much automatically after that. And that's pretty much that. Vote early, vote often. And thank you very much. Please enjoy your coffee. Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you all. And again, the ballots for the NRO NR are being collected. They will be counted by independent othersers from the RIRs and we appreciate your participation, thank you all.

(Coffee break)