APNIC 29 APRICOT 2010 Banner

Transcript: APNIC Member Meeting


Due to the difficulties capturing a live speaker's words, it is possible this transcript may contain errors and mistranslations. APNIC accepts no liability for any event or action resulting from the transcripts.

09:00 - 10:30 (UTC+8) Friday 5 March 2010

SRINIVAS CHENDI: Good morning everyone. We'll starting in about five minutes. But those who are already in this room, you need to be registered again for this member meeting at the registration counter so we know exactly how many members attended our meeting for our reporting purposes. And also, you can collect the delegate bag from APNIC, as well as if you're an APNIC member, you can collect the ballot papers as well. So please, if you haven't registered, step outside the room to the registration counter and register again, please. Thank you.

OK. Good morning and welcome to the APNIC Member Meeting, APNIC 29. I would like to start with thanking the sponsors for today. First we have CNNIC, JPNIC, KISA, KRNIC and TWNIC. Please give them a round of applause to begin the session.


And once again, a reminder, those who probably entered the room just now, if you're an APNIC member, you need to collect your ballot papers from the registration desk to participate in the EC election this afternoon.

Today's session, APNIC Member Meeting is chaired by the APNIC EC. Akinori Maemura-San and I would like to invite him to open the session.

AKINORI MAEMURA: Thank you, Sunny. Good morning everyone. My name is Akinori Maemura. I'm the chair of the Executive Council of APNIC. Welcome to the APNIC member meeting. After the various sessions this week and also the other program for the APRICOT 2010. So, here, there will be a lot of reports about APNIC activities or some other RIRs and so on. So please enjoy that and if you have any questions or comments, it is really welcomed to go to the microphone and hear your input. Thank you very much.

OK, I'd like to begin the APNIC member meeting with the APNIC area reports. APNIC area reports begins with the DG report by Paul Wilson, the Director General.

PAUL WILSON: Good morning, everyone. We appreciate you being here. Apologies for the late start, but it does look like the series of social events over the last few days has maybe taken their toll on the numbers. Maybe we'll have some more drifting in the next little while. But in the meantime, we're going to start with the reports from the Secretariat. I'm going to start with an overview from my point of view as DG of what the Secretariat has been up to in 2009 in particular and also a little bit about what's coming in 2010. So I'll be giving an overview and the four area managers at APNIC are going to be following up with more detail. So I will try not to steal the thunder of the area managers by going into too much detail here and stick to the big picture.

Just in overview, priorities for 2009. Put simply, they involved two very familiar issues of v4 exhaustion and IPv6 deployment. We've also had, we're not completely obsessed with those two issues. It's important to point out that we do have some quite important areas of interest in the APNIC Secretariat and the largest ones are grouped under security and Internet governance. By security, I don't mean Internet security in general. We're not trying to take a broader responsibility in that area than we have to, of course. And we're working, we work very closely with many who do, but these are security issues in terms of matters that we're involved with.

Internet governance. Once I've given you an overview of the four areas, we'll look at what we established in 2010 according to an operational process which has been underway just in recent months. So moving on, this is a very familiar graph. Thanks to Geoff Huston. It's updated on a regular basis, and as of the 20th of January, and you could get a later copy, a later version just by looking online, but according to this chart, we've only got until September 2011, that's just about precisely 18 months, before the IANA address pool is exhausted and we have less than a year after that before the RIR unallocated pool is exhausted and that's according to current trends. Of course it changes, but, you know, I think we don't really need to know that it is 8th of September, but we need to know that within the next two years, we're going to be having to change the way we do things. And fortunately, that two-year date is coming close enough that real progress is starting to be made and you'll see that during the reports today.

Looking at IPv4 distribution, we now have substantially less than 8%, 10% left to allocate and that's enough to last us for the next two years or so. And you'll see that we've really been focusing both within APNIC and with the NRO on the global campaign to make sure that this is really, the message is really pressed home and that we have, in the remaining time available in the next two years, as smooth a transition and as smooth a take-up of IPv6 as is possible given this absolutely predictable impending run-out.

In the v6 area, it's really good to see that the RIRs, APNIC, the RIRs, the NRO, has more positive messages to announce here. We're not trying to be overly optimistic about this. We've been spreading, trying to spread some sense of urgency for some time and that is going to keep going on. But we actually have good signs that we're able to talk to the world about the community. There's a lot of interest in IPv6. Well outside of the Internet community itself these days, particularly in governments but across a wide range of societies. These messages are important. We're seeing very distinct market leaders in IPv6, deployments starting to emerge and they're really starting to drive IPv6 deployment. I think everyone saw that YouTube incident recently as a really good sign that as soon as that service became available on IPv6, we revealed, instantly, a greater level of readiness than I think anyone expected, in that suddenly there was traffic flowing. So the traffic doesn't flow from YouTube without somewhere to flow to, and obviously there's some pending demand and some unmet IPv6 capacity out there that's building. It's good to see. And that's, of course, due to readiness and deployments happening all over the place. We're very keen to stress that we have allocated a lot of IPv6 addresses already. To put it into numbers for what they're worth, we've allocated 500 times as many addresses as exist in the IPv4 Internet. This is speaking globally, of course. That's over two trillion site addresses, /64s, which have been allocated. So these are big numbers but they represent only a tiny fraction of the available IPv6 address space. A tiny fraction of the address space has been allocated by IANA to the RIRs and a tiny fraction of that there. So we've seen as it says here, a 17% increase also in the number of economies that have been served by IPv6 that have taken up IPv6 allocations in the last year. These are all very good figures and we're assembling these figures and adjusting our messages from the NRO as time goes on to make sure that we're giving accurate and useful information to the rest of the community.

In graphical terms, v6 deployment is illustrated here, but I'll point out that as time goes on, the bars that we're seeing here are going to look very small indeed as the v6 deployment picks up more and more in the next couple of years.

We're actually carrying, at the APNIC Secretariat, we're actually carrying these IPv6 activities under something called the IPv6 program, which is, as you see here, it's promoting awareness. It's supporting readiness and deployment. It's leading by example, and if you look at some of the IPv6 readiness survey that is are available online, in particular the one that's been developed by a guy called Mark Prior. You'll see that APNIC has green lights right across in terms of the IPv6 deployment services. DNS, NTP, website, etc. So we've developed a little bit of expertise and experience within the staff on that process and it is quite a learning process, and that's all available at the URL that you see on screen.

The security area, security and stability is definitely an area of internal focus for APNIC as a component of the Internet's critical infrastructure. So we've actually worked pretty hard in the last year on a new business continuity plan and disaster recovery plan, which are formal auditable plans we relate to how APNIC would react and survive, of course, in any disaster or business continuity threat situation. Alongside that has been something, which internally, we call the high availability project, which is about increasing redundancy and hardening the APNIC infrastructure at a technical level and that's also been pretty active and largely completed. We've been focusing on services which have a particular importance and relevance to security and stability. So DNSSEC is something that you'll hear about, and the NRO for that rather. Resource PKI, as you know, over the last couple of years, has been an area of development and deployment. We've contributed both in terms of developing APNIC internal services and concrete service deployment to Members and also in terms of working with the RIRs to develop the overall global approach. And as you'll see here, working at the IETF level through the RPSEC it says there, but it is actually the CIDR which is related to interdomain routing. And as I mentioned, global coordination with the NRO on DNSSEC and on RPKI is really important. These are global deployments and we do our bit to make sure that the things will work and be coordinated at a global level.

Talking about global issues, Internet governance is something that's coming up in the last few years. It's becoming a greater and greater demand on APNIC staff time and resources. Because there is more and more interest, more and more happening and this list is growing. So just in the last year, we've been involved in the fourth IGF with the NRO as well. We've been involved with several ITU events and processes. We, for the first time, contributed substantially to APEC through APECTel 40 in Mexico, and with others, with partners in the Internet technical community. But I have to say, with a great deal of effort on the part of APNIC staff, held a very successful IPv6 workshop there, which is the first of what is now, we hope, going to be a series of workshops and sessions leading to a ministerial level acceptance and recognition of IPv6 at the APEC level later on this year. That's important, because APECTel some years ago looked at the importance of broadband services to the global economy and adopted at the ministerial level, a resolution to deploy, to see broadband deployment, ubiquitously by 2011 or something like that. And we're stressing something that is really not going to happen in 2015 without IPv6, and IPv6 really needs to be not assumed as something to be taken for granted, but something that needs to be really elevated to that level of recognition so that it can really be driven home.

OECD is something that we've been participating in more and more in the last couple of years, and the Internet Technical Advisory Committee is something that they have set up. That APNIC and other RIRs are participating in. And last, but not least, is ICANN, and we have both operational matters in relation to IANA and DNSSEC and RPKI and issues of the relationship, the funding and the support for ICANN. Again from APNIC through the NRO, primarily.

I'm mentioning here, Internet governance matters that are coming up next year. And it's largely the same list, but there will be more. There is the final IGF for this five-year series is coming up. But there are likely to be three IGF meetings in the Asia-Pacific region also before September this year. At the Pacific level, the Asia level and the Commonwealth Asia countries, and so, we, again, are going to be going into those meetings as the institution in the Asia-Pacific that's able to contribute on these critical infrastructure, Internet infrastructure and resource issues. So, as I say, the needs for paying attention and actually doing real work in this area is only, these are only increasing.

The other thing that is coming to a head this year is the four-year cycle of the ITU and the ITU Plenipotentiary meeting, which is a four-year meeting, is coming up in Mexico. And it is towards that that some of the IPv6 activities and interests of the ITU are being focused. So, we heard this week about the IPv6 group within the ITU which we'll be attending in a couple of weeks, but there will be a lot more through that group and those two processes between now and the Plenipotentiary in October.

We have also a ministerial meeting of APEC in this year, and this is really incredible, actually. The amount of work that's to be done in this year. The APEC ministerial meeting will be a big one too if we're to achieve our aim of having IPv6 move up in the APEC area, to have it recognized, hopefully at the ministerial level. If not, then higher than it is at the moment.

I'm glad to say that I don't think we've got any special events coming up in OECD this year, but we do have an ongoing committee there with ITAC. And to help us with all of this, we've actually just announced a job vacancy at APNIC for a Senior Public Affairs Advisor who will help to coordinate and carry some of these copious responsibilities which are coming up.

OK, there are plenty of other highlights from the Secretariat from 2009 and the area managers will be reporting on these things. The R and D activities, the cooperative activities with the NRO in various operational areas and also just the ongoing growth of APNIC Membership, allocation activities, other activities such as training and so forth. Which the Secretariat is carrying. OK, I'll be finishing up in a minute.

Moving to the future, the Secretariat has grown quite a lot. It's around about 60 staff right now. It's had a restructure in the last year, so we've got four operational areas and we've got a planning process now which we have changed and developed and in the last few months, undertaken a new process for operational planning. Which, as it says here, is really about continuing to line the priorities and the activities of APNIC with the Member survey results which are the primary means that we have of understanding what the expectations are of APNIC and how the resources that are contributed by APNIC Members should be spent by the Secretariat. So this is largely an internal process of looking at our situation. Our strategies, actions and planning.

And through this process, we've got four areas of priority, key result areas, if you like, of key APNIC operations. I'm not going to go into these in detail, but you'll see them reflected through the operational activities and plans as the area managers report after me. First on the list is something we call delivering value, which is simply to provide a value, a return of value to Members who are funding APNIC through the services that we offer at a high quality, professional level and so forth. So the services that we offer and provide are provided. They're developed in response to Member needs and delivered through this operational focus on the value that we provide to Members.

The second one is referred to as the supporting Internet Development. That's always been a priority of APNIC in recognition that the development of the Internet across the entire Asia-Pacific area is in the mutual interest of all APNIC members. And so, we do share this interest in healthy and vigorous development. We are supporting the maintenance of not just the Internet in any form, but an open and neutral Internet based on global address ability and that's the addressing component there. And minimal barriers to global end-to-end reach ability.

More in the of how we do things is core to our activity set. We're a fairly lean organization, I would suggest, still, considering the responsibilities and the importance of what we carry to the Asia-Pacific. APNIC is a pretty lean organization. We're not trying and I'm not trying to build an empire in any sense at all. I'm absolutely committed to collaboration by APNIC with all of the others who are sharing in responsibility for healthy development of the net. And it is really critical to the success of APNIC that we do work with other stakeholders, and that's really core to the way we do our work.

And the final operational focus is what we call Corporate Support, which is simply the internal technical, administrative and operational activities that support APNIC itself as a functioning body. With professionalism and full accountability to Members for what we do.

OK, so that's an overview of the last year and of how we're looking at the year to come. As I've said, you'll hear plenty more in the next half an hour or so from the other areas of APNIC and I'll finish there and hand it back to the chair.


AKINORI MAEMURA: Thank you very much, Paul. The next report is from the Services area with Sanjaya, the area manager of the Services area.

SANJAYA: Thank you, chair. I'm going to give you an update of the Service area activity in the past year in 2009. The Service area is the single point of contact for Members and in handling enquiries and in handling resource requests. Oops!

Just a quick overview on the service levels, so we have a Membership growth of 12% from 2008. So we now have about, slightly over 2,900 account holders. Helpdesk enquiries also, growth correspondingly of 12% compared to the last year. And again, as last year, we can't handle all of the growth without adding any resources. The same number of staff. We basically manage the additional workload through streamlining, through automation, through system assistance, so I'm happy to report that we can still manage the group without any significant additional resort on the APNIC Secretariat. Delegation is up from just over 1,118 on v4 and 191 v6 delegation.

Out of the top priorities given to us with the Member survey, three of them are relevant to the APNIC Service area and I'm going to go through it one by one. On the streamlining resource requests and allocation processes, we keep on improving my APNIC. You'll see a lot more MyAPNIC features introduced in 2009, which is driven by either member feed back or driven by policy development. The one that has been asked to us for quite some time, particularly by multinational organizations who have multiple accounts in APNIC, is one single login to manage multiple accounts and we managed to implement that. And people also have a bit of a concern of the certificate, the process in getting the certificate is a bit too hard, so we have made modifications to our system to make it now quite easy for corporate contacts to manage the issue of certificates.

The ones that are driven by policy is the kick start IPv6. There's a new feature in MyAPNIC. This is a response to policy, prop-073 that got approved in the last APNIC meeting. So it was a development time, but we managed to do it. This allows people who have... sorry, that proposal was written by Terry Manderson and Andy Linton. And it is about giving existing IPv4 holders automatically the ability to get IPv6 without further justification. And we're happy to report that on the first week we launched that facility in MyAPNIC.

(Phone rings)

Excuse me, I forgot to turn this off!


86 applications, well, not applications because it is no longer applications, it is an immediate delegation. So when our Member clicks on it on the MyAPNIC screens, they get the delegation immediately without any interference from our host masters or any human intervention. Which also, out of the 86 out of the delegation, there were five economies that got their IPv6 for the first time, so it is really good to see how this policy was taken up quickly by our Members. On the APNIC security, you probably heard in the policy meeting to IPv6, the IPv6 is a reality now and we don't need to... I think Geoff said that we need to stop talking about IPv6 for the future. It's here now, so what next. Was it Randy or Geoff who said that the next one would be routing security!

So we have been working in routing security issues in the past few years, and continue to focus on it. I will give you a more detailed report on the RPKI BOF later today.

Also is the deployment of root servers. The root servers in this region is already quite good thanks to the effort this year. But we are also now starting to get measurement advisors out there on the Asia-Pacific network, so we reported this back in the last meeting that APNIC has collaborated with the RIPE NCC to deploy their test measurement boxes, and within that last year, we managed to make four of them operational in Australia, Hong Kong, Pakistan, Taiwan. We've shipped to New Zealand, Bangladesh and India and at the moment in our data center, we're still configuring boxes for Cambodia and Nepal. And also for Thailand, Philippines, and Singapore. There will be more to come.

Just to continue on Paul's point of operational planning for 2010, this is what the Services area is going to focus on. We have also received feed back that our operational hours - well, we need more coverage to the south Asia region. The Pakistan, India, Bangladesh area. So we're now preparing, hopefully by July, we will be able to operate Helpdesks and Member services for 12 hours, so starting from 9 am to 9 pm Brisbane time, and that would cover the entire spectrum of APNIC's vast time zone foot print. As v4 address getting depleted, we start to see more and more issues, routability issues, reachability issues with blocks that, you know, people have been routing. Although they're not supposed to do and also return blocks that have been used irresponsibly in the past.

So, we, although APNIC is not responsible for routability, we think that as a part of the Internet, as part of the Internet community, we need to do our part in addressing those issues. So, we launched, this year, a project called the APNIC Resource Quality Assurance, and that would focus on conducting reachability testing on address blocks, whether it is new or old. Making sure that these blocks are clear and clean. It's routable and people can send mail to it. And we do that through technical work and that is doing a lot of reachability testing on the R&D department. And we also are going to attempt a community building, talking with network operators, bogon, black list maintainers to ensure that they have updated information on the filter reference, and also to the edge, to the people who might be filtering on the edge of the networks, we would also like to reach them through education and awareness activities.

So I hope that with this focus on resource quality, we would see a more useable Internet. This is a strategic move that we do that actually would bridge over to the IPv6 world as well, because there's no guarantee that people are misconfiguring their filters on IPv6 as well. So if we can do a good job in IPv4, then there's a good chance that we can address the issue in the IPv6 world too. Thank you.

AKINORI MAEMURA: All right. If you have any questions or comments, you can go to the microphone. I will introduce here, the next speaker, who is the Byron Ellacott, the Technical area manager.

BYRON ELLACOTT: Thank you. My name is Byron Ellacott, the Technical area manager at APNIC. I don't think my slides have appeared yet. So my report today is going to cover three resource allocation areas. Those areas are research and development activities, network monitoring, and reporting and web services for automated data exchange.

In research and development, we've continued our efforts in resource certification. We'll be working with the RIRs through the engineering coordination group to produce a global system in line with the NRO statements. We'll be committing to the NRO deadline for the global system. We've also been progressing our efforts in DNSSEC. I'll just take a moment to refresh you on our project plan for DNSSEC. The first phase is to duplicate our nameserver production system to provide a signed test server. The second phase is to take the test system and migrate it over to be a production system, thus signing the public nameservers. And the third is to accept and public members to complete the chain of information.

We're currently executing phase one. Interested parties can now access and trial our DNSSEC test platform on the test system. The testns.APNIC.net server is live. Members or other interested parties who want to participate are invited to contact us at the network operation center.

With our network monitoring, we will again be participating in a day in the life of the Internet project. This is currently expected to take place in the middle of April. We will be signing our release of DNSSEC phase 2, if possible, to coincide with this to provide some data on what you do when you deploy DNSSEC. We've also published some research findings on DNSSEC, providing some useful information on DNSSEC systems transferring to DNSSEC, and we hope that this information will be useful to the root servers as they deploy at the middle of the year.

With our automated data exchange activities, we've been extending our systems to support DNSSEC information from Members in preparation for phase three of that project. We have been working through the NRO, ECG, to update the snippet exchange system for DNSSEC for signs that are held by another RIR, and we've been in discussion with IANA about using an automated data exchange system to get information into the arpa zone.

Outside of the areas, we have the high availability project. We've been performing improvements to service availability monitoring. There will be ongoing work in this area throughout the lifetime of the technical group in APNIC, but in particular, over the last six months, we've done quite a lot on this. We've done our disaster recovery planning exercise. Again, this is an ongoing activity that we've done a large amount of initial work to get a disaster recovery plan together. Now, this is part of the larger business continuity plan project. We've done a lot of work for network resiliency engineering. Improving the design of our network and our co-location facilities and we've also been laying the ground work to add an extra co-location facility to the APNIC network.

In other highlights, we've been leading by example with IPv6. We've implemented IPv6 for all of our key services, including MyAPNIC, Whois, the IPv6 icons wiki, the DNS servers, our e-mail servers, our FTP servers, and the online chat facilities. In operational planning for 2010, we have a significant focus on our DNSSEC plan, and we have a significant focus also on the RPKI work.

Thank you.

AKINORI MAEMURA: Any questions or comments.

GERMAN VALDEZ: Communications area has a lot of support to follow out of resource allocations. I won't go in to full detail. And in regards to the support network engineering education in the Asia Pacific, we are very concerned to spend collaboration with global subject matter experts across the region. We're working with Team Cymru, and AIT and others for an example of how we use these corporations in order to explain training activities in the region.

We work very hard to cooperate with local entities where we conduct training activities in conjunction with other meetings like SANOG, PACNOG, and others and we support local training to this very well-recognized communities across the region like NZNOG, PHNOG, or APNG Camp. The next APNG Camp will be held in Japan, and we will conduct training there.

Also we are working in the hardware aspects of the training activities. We have upgraded our training lab which allows us to have more hands on IPv6 workshops and allows us to run parallel training sessions with the new revamped training lab.

We also are very, very busy conducting different training sessions around the region. Last year, we had 77 courses in 36 different locations with more than 1800 participants.

These are the numbers that every year we are constantly increasing. Also, we're not only concerned about the biggest economies where we have also the bigger demand for training activities, but we're concerned for those economies that are not well-developed and so in 2009 we had opportunity to run the first training activity in Myanmar.

And for those places that it's very hard to reach, we are starting to develop eLearning project. At the end of last year, we conducted the first sessions, and as a pilot program and we are very satisfied with the first results. We had 80 attendees from over seven economies. We focused these activities based on time zone differences. So we allow countries from different time zones a chance to join each eLearning sessions which are broadcast from our offices in Brisbane.

We have scheduled over 20 sessions throughout 2010. The general side of these eLearning sessions is we'll conduct the activities on the first week of each month, oriented in the IRME content and the third week of each month we will focus on the more technical-oriented training.

Also it's important to mention that many, the amount for training activities are related to IPv6 training. So in this sense we organize 13 workshops, 10 different tutorials in 19 different locations with a total of 825 participants.

And we have developed IPv6 content for eLearning, and the first step in this, with training for IPv6 and it's quite high and it's quite important as well for the objectives of these organizations. We gave a lot of priority to develop this content for the community.

This is a brief summary of where we conduct different training activities across the region. I'd like to have this opportunity to thank the training team which has been extremely busy traveling and organizing all these activities in the Asia Pacific and LACNIC region. I think they work very hard and it's fair to say that they using a lot from the different areas inside APNIC hostmasters and people from help desks, and supporting activities as well.

I think it's, it's important to the technical aspects but it's a Communication area, we need to spread the voice and the IPv6 message to different levels. The technical community is important but the people who actually make decisions, and also the clients of those people that make the decisions are important in the effort to support the IPv6 deployment.

So we are working very hard, as well, in preparing material for different audiences. So we prepare brochures. We prepare videos or multimedia content to explain to a wider business community what IPv6 is and what applications are important and the relevance to adopt IPv6 in to the network. You can access all the IPv6 activities or messages we have been working on.

And we were very proud with the successful campaign, the work with the NRO, regarding the remaining 10% IPv4 other space. We launched a very ambitious campaign and we wish more than the 1600 press companies and we gained space and very important websites, or magazines or electronic versions of magazines, and very well respected in the technical opinion, like Computer World and SD Net.

At the same time, we are, we have been busy organizing round tables with governments. Last year we had a couple of sessions with Indonesian and Singapore governments. And the APNIC supported the IPv6 workshop for the delegates of APECTel 40. Miwa, the head in the IPv6 program, was behind this in preparing very, very, and the workshops for people from the government. And the experience was very good. We received comments from the participants, that was the best workshop ever in the history of APECTel. We are very proud of these kind of activities and we'll continue to support the governmental sector and in this matter.

Also, we are oriented as well in the business stakeholders. We participated in education. It's a big event held in Singapore in June. And we have a stand there, a stand with the corporations with dot .Asia and people from APRICOT and people from the Asia-Pacific region.

Regarding other activities we have conducted in the Comms area; we have an extremely very busy year with discussions. I won't go in to the details of every single policy. But in summary, we have 13 different proposals.

I like to only highlight two here which is the IPv4 address transfer policy which was conducting a very high level of debate. It was a quite complicated topic with a happy end. And also the proposal 73 which allows us now to make an application with a single, portable. Now, I think APNIC is delivering in IPv6 allocations and the easiest way as possible.

So, all this activities, all these policies and discussions are a good example of the good commitment we have in the community.

Regarding the Internet governance, Paul gave the technical aspects of the critical Internet resources session. In the last IGF, we were very, very busy working in different panels. Paul participated in the main session regarding critical Internet resources. Myself, I was part of a couple of workshops. And we have a booth there in corporation with the other RIRs in trying to spread the voice regarding IPv6 deployment. And the value of IGF is extremely important for the RIRs in general. It's a good opportunity to meet with other partners we don't see in other events. The communication we have with the government and stakeholders, different societies, is extremely important. The exchange of information is very valuable. Now the future discussions about the continuation of IGF format is going to be as well very important. We, as RIR Members, we are supporting the continuation of IGF as it is, trying to respect the resolutions of the World Summit of Information Society. Ok, we have a break here.

So it's a very important conference for us and we will expect to continue working in this area.

Regarding the last meeting we had in Beijing, we have another record in the number of people attending the various meetings. We had 272 people participating onsite from 25 different economies. And also, as part of the strategy inside the Communications area, we're working very hard to expand the remote participation tools. Last year, in conjunction, between the two meetings, we had 288 participants who used the remote participation tool like webcast and Jabber chat. The 288 participants are based in unique IP addresses that were connected to the remote participations.

Also, as you experienced yesterday, we organized a couple of remote sites, so we allow people from different cities to participate in the policy discussions. And last year, we had 47 participants in this model and we are continuing to use this support in the following meetings.

Partnership is important to us. The enhanced cooperation is important for APNIC, so last year, we signed a new Memorandum of Understanding for having an agreement of support for eight different organizations from Pakistan, Philippines, Japan, China, Taiwan, Malaysia, and India. As Paul pointed out, we're not trying to build an empire at all, but it is more about taking advantage of the elements that we have in the region. So we're continuing on with this in this way.

Finally, the last slide is about, a little bit about the future. As the Comms area, we're going to be fully supportive for the new public affairs activities and continue to participate in IGF and the ITU meetings. We're going to continue working hard in developing a more self-based module inside the learning project that we have. And we are also going to increase our level of cooperation with the NIRs. I think a good example for a successful cooperation model was the last NRO campaign that I mentioned before. And the fact that we have good contact with the NIRs members, it was very important in order to spread the voice of the press campaign. And we are going to continue to improve the organization of APNIC meetings. We are conducting a program survey in this meeting, we really hope to have your feedback in order to see the organization of the meetings. That is for you, basically.

That's all, thank you very much.

AKINORI MAEMURA: OK, moving on to the last area report which is from the Business area by area manager, Richard Brown. Ok Richard.

RICHARD BROWN: Thank you, Mr Treasurer. Let me begin by saying this presentation is really about identifying some of the key achievements for the Business area in 2009 and from there, I'll head on to talking about some of the activities that we'll be undertaking in 2010.

What is a Business area? Well, we've broken it up into four key areas. Finance and administration, which is the accounting and finance areas through to office management and the management of the facilities. HR management. Operational planning is a new area that we've taken responsibility for so we're responsible for implementing and driving the operational planning process through APNIC. And commercial and risk management is another big part of our activity.

2009, the year that was. We did a lot of work to support the implementation of the new Member fee schedule. We worked initially with KPMG to provide them with data and information about the organization and the Membership base. And then worked with the EC to provide them with more data and models to help them analyze different options. Budget submission for 2010 is a major piece of work and it's something that we do each year. The audit of the 2009 financial accounts. The EC approved a new audit rotation policy this year so we changed auditors from PWC to Ernst & Young for the first time and we had a successful audit this year. Implementation of policy such as the transfer policy. In the background, we maintained focus on strong financial controls working on policies and ensuring we have robust procedures to support the organization.

We provide the ongoing reporting to the EC and to the management of APNIC and we continue to provide the support in the Secretariat function for the ISIF program. In human resource management, we continue to drive a focus on continuous improvement in the organization and we work with our performance review programs to ensure that there's a strong alignment between performance and remuneration. In training development, one of the new activities that the HR managers in the RIRs have been working on is an exchange program to encourage our staff to work for short periods of time in other RIRs to increase their knowledge of how other RIRs work and learn at the same time and we think that this is going to be very valuable. We're also working to ensure that our trainers and hostmasters complete formal qualifications in training so that that is the baseline for all of our staff in dealing with the Membership as far as training.

And we continue in recruitment retention to increase the use of students as short-term resources, beginning with a student from Africa starting in April 2010.

Policies and procedures, we've had significant changes to the workplace laws in Australia, so it's been a large piece of work to review all of our current processes and procedures to ensure that we comply with the legislation. And we continue to develop comprehensive guidelines for managers so that they can effectively monitor and coach their staff.

Work place health and safety, this was mentioned at the last meeting. We really like to focus on a healthy work/life balance for our staff. One of the programs we undertook this year very successfully was the Global Corporate Challenge where nearly half of the staff at APNIC took on that challenge, and there was some rivalry from the other RIRs, but I think we may have come out on top! And we will continue to do that program again this year. We continue to provide other options for staff, bringing in yoga, pilates, massage and that type of thing. We facilitate that and the staff use and pay for that when they need it. And we really focus on ensuring that staff take their leave so that everyone can continue to have a healthy work/life balance.

Operational planning, Paul alluded to this in his presentation earlier. The Business area has taken responsibility for implementing this. There has always been a plan in process but we really felt that the organization had grown to a point where we probably need to revisit it and develop an ongoing process so that we can ensure alignment with what our stakeholders expect from us and what our core goals are, so working with Dr John Earls and Connie and myself, we established a team. Part of that first run is understanding that it is an evolutionary process. We maybe aren't going to get it 100% first go, but you're starting to see through all of this is that there's a common alignment between all the areas as to what we're trying to do.

So the initial process, we kicked off late last year and we will continue to drive that change through an annual and a biannual process where probably each second year is a major review and each interim year is more of a check point to make sure that everything is in alignment. So that's incorporating information from the stakeholder survey. Some less formal survey work that we do and, of course, taking into account a lot of the external issues affecting our environment and our community, so you'll continue to see the theme of this operational planning more and more in these meetings as it really gets to be part of the way we all think.

Commercial and risk management, Paul mentioned this earlier. We've continued to work on the business continuity planning. We've developed the manuals and processes. We've done a lot of work on our technical disaster recovery planning and we're really comfortable that we've come a long way with that, and we're planning to have an audit, probably mid-this year so check how we went. But we felt that with the ongoing scenario testing and the updating of the manuals, based on a continual review, we feel that we've done very well in this area. We continue to review our corporate insurance policies to ensure that we have the level of coverage that we need and that we're getting the best value for money. And as I mentioned before, the EC approved a new rotation policy. We felt it was important that there were fresh orders in there to review our work from time to time.

Priorities for 2010 - well we continue to implement the 2010 fee schedule. We work on policy implementation and most recently, transfer policy. We identify a need for a more comprehensive ERP solution for APNIC's future needs, so that's an area that we'll be working hard on this year to fine an application that supports our business more effectively. We continue to roll out and have the audit of the BCP. We want today establish a much more comprehensive HR strategy. We, next week, when we return to Brisbane, we'll be presented with our eco-Biz accreditation which an initiative of the Queensland Government Environmental Protection Agency, where they recognize corporations for their focus on energy efficiency and green initiatives and we've achieved that this year and we'll be presented with that next week.

A major activity for us in 2010 is the acquisition of the new APNIC premises. I won't dwell on this too long. The Treasurer has more detailed information to give you an update on this, but that's a large piece of work for us and we're currently working on that. We went through a negotiation and due diligence process through the end of last year and we will work on the relocation and the fit-out of the new building. Thank you very much.

AKINORI MAEMURA: Thank you RIchard. All right, and then, in the program, the next is ISIF report, but at this moment, we will take a short break which is maybe 15 minutes. Is that right, Sunny? I'm sorry. We are now doing the election procedure.

PAUL WILSON: Thank you, Akinori and Sunny. We will take a break very shortly, but because the election is an important part of today, we tried to provide some information about the procedures as early as possible in order that if there are any questions that arise, then they can come up during this break. If not, or at lunchtime when the voting is opened. This is an annual meeting, so we have an EC election to be held today. At this election, there are three positions out of the seven, which are open for election. The three positions are held by Akinori Maemura, by Che-Hoo Cheng and Ma Yan. So these three current EC Members will be vacate their positions and the positions will be appointed as a result of the election. The terms for the three elected candidates will be with two-year term starting on 8th of May and proceeding until the election in two years' time.

There was a call for nominations which ended on the 17th of February in accordance with the by-laws, the APNIC by-laws are quite specific about election procedure and of course, we follow those. This is, of course, an APNIC EC election, so the election, the voting is open to formal Members of APNIC only.

To summarize, the voting methods. It was decided, well, it has always been the case in fact that only authorized contacts for APNIC members can vote and it was decided a little while back, as I hope you all know, that the authorization a formally done now through MyAPNIC. So in order to be able to vote, you need to have the, you need to be registered as a voting contact within your Membership account by MyAPNIC.

Online voting via MyAPNIC is also available now. It started on February 19th and it ended at 9 am. That is Bangkok time, UTC +8. Sorry, KL time, the regional time--UTC +8 on the 3rd of March. The proxy voting, as always, is carried out in accordance with the APNIC by-laws and likewise, the proxy voting registration ended at 9am KL time, that is UTC +8 on the 3rd of March.

Onsite voting is available today, and that, again, is restricted to those who are specifically authorized. So corporate contacts or contacts who have been given the voting right through MyAPNIC or the nominated proxy can collect ballot papers from the registration desk until 2 pm local time today. So that again is something that you need to pay some attention to today. If you wish to vote, you'll need to collect the ballot papers, obviously before the ballot closes today.

APNIC Members are entitled to vote according to the Membership tier, which is established by the address holdings, and so, depending on your tier, from Associate to Extra Large, you have a number of votes available to you, as displayed here. There is a specific ballot paper which is for the number, which corresponds to the number of votes that you carry, so here on the screen is illustrated a ballot paper which is valid for four votes, and I'm sorry that the display there is not too clear. The colors are a little bit subtle on the screen here, but you should have a ballot paper which displays the number of votes available to you quite clearly as a large number behind the text, and the ballot paper lists the six candidates for this election and also some important notes about the election itself.

The election process.

So we call these bulk ballot papers because the ballot paper shows the specific number of votes--we used to have identical ballot papers which had to be counted individually, and that resulted in a long counting process. If anyone is concerned that, for instance, you're carrying an extra large ballot paper that provides 64 votes, or you think that the number of votes on your ballot paper might somehow compromise the anonymity of the election, you are free to split your vote by swapping your ballot paper. For instance, swap an 8 vote ballot paper for eight one-vote ballot papers prior to the close of the election. And if you want to do that, you need to see the staff at the registration desk.

The procedure is that all ballot papers have got a validity stamp which is stamped on the back. We have an election for three candidates this time, so you must mark only up to three. No more than three, with an X in the right spot. You can mark less than three, but definitely not more. So your ballot paper will be invalid if you mark more than three. If your marking is not clear to the scrutineers or if no boxes are marked. The normal procedure here is that we call for independent scrutineers. Volunteer who would like to offer their services to help to count the votes, and this excludes anyone who is actually an APNIC Member or anyone who is voting, and I assume that we're excluding candidates as well who may correspond to APNIC Members.

So, what we will do, I think, prior to lunch is call for scrutineers. Or should we do that now? Let's do that prior to lunch. The ballot box is at the registration desk. It's open now for those who wish to vote. Right now, you can go ahead. The voting will close at 2 pm sharp local time here in KL and there will be a reminder of that. The result will be announced at about 3:20 this afternoon. That's quite an approximate time given, I think, given that by the end of the day, we could have some drift of the agenda. So the scrutineers will need to do their work. Bear in mind, scrutineers, you would need to do work between 2 pm and that time later on in the afternoon when the result is declared, determined. Now, the nominees are here. Listed here and there will be an opportunity, which I suggest we take after the break, with the permission of the chair, for any of these nominees to say a few words to the audience.

So that's something that anyone who is nominated, an opportunity that you can take and if anyone is not in the room, then we normally provide, if any candidate is not in the room, we normally provide an opportunity for someone to speak on their behalf.

OK, are there any questions? OK, well, I think I'll leave the chair to determine when the candidates will speak, and I'm sorry if any of the candidates are ready to speak right now, but I think we should take the coffee break and I assume that we should take the coffee break and come back to the speeches in a little while. Thank you.


AKINORI MAEMURA: Coffee break! And the next session will be beginning at 11 am so please come back. Thank you very much for your support.

11:00 - 12:30 (UTC+8) Friday 5 March 2010

AKINORI MAEMURA: OK. It's already 11 o'clock, so we'd like to start the second session of the APNIC Member Meeting.

Alright, everyone has come back. No one missing? Alright, anyway. As we told you before the tea break, the session will begin with the candidate speech. So who is the first one? I don't like to MC this session. So, please, Paul.

PAUL WILSON: Thanks Akinori. I'll ask the EC candidates who would like to speak to approach the microphone. The first one on the list - and I'll go through the list in the order as you see, the first is Ma Yan.

MA YAN: OK. Thank you, chair. Thank you, Paul. Good morning, everyone. My name is Ma Yan from Beijing University in the post of Networking Communications. I've been working with the Internet from 1994, when that time, China has no official Internet connection yet. As one of the Internet community, I really appreciate the Internet providing central infrastructure, and technology. And let all human beings can be connected and promoting the social and economic development. And I'm very happy working with this community in APNIC, and especially in the current term, I'll also the EC Member. So it's an extraordinary period of time to have the transition, from original IPv4 to the next generation deploy the new infrastructure relating to v6 connection. Not only human beings, but all things, also the more sophisticated infrastructure. Let human life be even better than before.

So during such a transition time, I'm very happy working with the community, during the last few years. And I'm really happy to be able serving with the community, to the community, and working together for the next two years' term. So I really appreciate all your kind support and let's work together in for a bright future. Thank you.

PAUL WILSON: The next candidate is Vinh Ngo.

VINH NGO: Thanks, Paul. Good morning, everyone. Thanks for the opportunity of standing up here and trying to campaign for your vote. I know a lot of you have already cast your vote. If you already have done, thank you very much for your effort. To try to win some of you who haven't voted yet for the EC Election yet, my name is Vinh Ngo. I work for a company called CSC, it's a computer science corp, with a size of 95,000 staff globally, representing 90 countries around the world in terms of IT outsourcing.

My background for the last 12 to 13, roughly about 12 years, I've been involved with APNIC. From the early days. And I was on the APNIC EC for four years from 2004 to 2008.

I'm standing here asking for your vote again, as a Member of APNIC, to represent you, the smaller minority or to some other Members to represent you on the board, with your interests and, hopefully, I can do a good job - hopefully - I can do a good job representing you on the board member. I've been trying to campaign with most of you for the last few days. And, hopefully, I portrayed my case in the best of my ability and I thank you for your vote. Thanks.


AKINORI MAEMURA: Alright. My name is Akinori Maemura. Japan Network Information Center. This is the - OK, my first appointment as the EC Member was the year 2000. In October. So if I renew my term, successfully, then I will be turning 10 as the EC Member.

And last time, I mean my last election, I was not in the room but I appear on the screen and I think my reason at the time to be elected as the EC Member is I appear bigger than others. But this time I am in person. Smaller than before, but I am - OK.

You find that I am not a 2-dimension guy but a 3-dimension guy.

Last time I said, as the candidate speech, we were encountering the very tough time. We were encountering the exhaustion. We need to revise the fee schedule, blah, blah, blah. Yes, the EC did the fee revision in the previous two years but, still, we need to work on exhaustion and that means the Internet Registry's business operations will dramatically change and we need to work on the policy, for example, the transfer policy proposition 50 was just implemented. We will have some need to, you know, have the kind of policy really working for the community.

So we will have a lot of agenda if I renew my term at the EC. A lot of jobs will be there but I will do my best. I think hopefully there's better than ever for my last decade as the EC. And I will contribute for the APNIC community. So thank you very much for your support. Thank you very much.


PAUL WILSON: Thanks. Ravi Shanker?

RAVI SHANKER: A very good morning to all of you. My name is Ravi Shanker. I'm a government servant in the government of India. Part of the civil service known as the Indian Administrative Service. My educational background is a Bachelor in Electrical and Electronics Engineering from the prestigious Institute of Science in Bangalore. I have had about 30 years of experience in the civil service, public administration, and public policy is my forte. But the last 2.5 years, I exactly 2.5 years since I joined on the 6th September 2007, I have been associated in the IT industry as Joint Secretary IT Department of Information Technology Government of India. I handle eLearning, eInfrastructure, and Internet governance activities in the Government of India. By virtue of being a government official, I'm a country representative on the IGF and GAC and ICANN. I'd like to highlight a bit of my contribution.

In 2008, we managed to host the ICANN in India in February 2008 at New Delhi and also the IGF in December 2008 at Hyderabad. So in a way I can say I've been closely associated with Internet governance activities.

At ICANN, we were able to articulate the country's position on the need for multiple languages in IDN ccTLD activities, subsequently the ICANN, the GAC community and ICANN were convinced of the need to introduce multiple languages in order to bridge the digital divide. And take the Internet across to the next billion - all the billions.

As part of my engagement in the Internet community, I'm also the Chief Executive Officer of the National Internet Exchange of India. NIXI is the sole neutral peering body for ISPs in the country. And we have three lines of business as of now. Two premier lines of business are the Internet Exchange and the second one is running the ccTLD and we also run the IDN ccTLDs. We have recently, as Paul mentioned, we have recently been granted NIR in India and so the NIXI will be operating the NIR in India. We can say in a way that as the representative of the Internet community being the CEO of NIXI, we are very much ingrained into Internet-related activities.

I'd like to mention some of the initiatives from the government side which we have are the National Knowledge Network. We're trying to have a government connectivity across institutions of higher learning and educations all over India. This will have about 20,000 institutions of higher learning across the country. And the phenomenal outreach to the educational profile of the country will meet so much demand for IP addresses. So this is where I see I need to work alongside the APNIC community in order to see that the requirements of a developing country like India and similarly placed countries are articulated at this forum. We have been participating of late at the APNIC forums, and the NIR has been one particular success if one can say so, since our engagement. The APRICOT, which we will take to India and then developing all the technologies would be another thing.

I truly wish to represent the APNIC community as a Member of the APNIC community. I look forward to your support on this thing. I would like to leave a thought for all of you. Change is the order of nature and I think it's about time for change. Thankyou.


PAUL WILSON: Thank you. The next is Che-Hoo Cheng.

CHE-HOO CHENG: Thank you, Paul. My name is Che-Hoo. As you may know, I'm the longest-serving EC Member at APNIC. I've been with APNIC EC for 12 years. In fact, I have been with this community for a long time because I attended all the previous APRICOT conferences and all the previous APNIC meetings. So I'm really dedicated to this community.

In the next few years, there are a lot of challenges to APNIC. Besides the financial part, there are also issues like IPv4 address exhaustion. The slowness of IPv6 deployment. And, also, the associated politics with ITU and the governments.

I think we all witnessed the seriousness of the issue on Wednesday. So, I think APNIC EC needs to have someone who really, who truly believes in and who would buy in the multi-stakeholder policy development approach. And I think I am the one who can contribute and play that role. I hope you can support me. Thank you.


PAUL WILSON: Thank you. There's one more candidate, Jonny Martin.

JONNY MARTIN: For those of you who don't recognize me, I am Jonny Martin. I know the pants are a little longer than normal. I'm a bit of a new guy to the EC. This is the first time I've run for the election. I'll keep this short. I'll keep this short. Basically, I think I can bring a bit of balance to the EC. I'm neutral in the sense that I work for a non-profit at the moment. So I don't have any specific interests with any companies one way or another. And I believe I've got a good range of skills across technical, policy, and governmental, governance skills. That's pretty much it. I tried to get around and meet as many people as I can. Talk to people, get their views. And I hope to represent the entire community in a fair and balanced way. If I get your votes, thank you.


PAUL WILSON: Thanks, Jonny. That concludes the speeches from the six candidates. It's good to have all six in the room here and all available to put their case forward. If you would like to look at the EC Election page which is showing here - quite easy to find from the Meeting web page - and it has more details on the nominees. There will be more reminders and details of the election process before we break for lunch. I'll hand it back to the chair. Thanks.

AKINORI MAEMURA: OK. According to the timetable, the next is the APNIC - sorry, I need to go to the front. OK. Here, I deliver you the APNIC Executive Council Report.

This is the current line-up of the EC members. EC members, please stand up to show off your face. Alright. OK. Akinori Maemura, I'm from Japan. Chair. Kuo Wei Wu, from Taiwan. Che-Hoo Cheng, Secretary, from Hong Kong, Hyun Joon Kwon from KiSA, Korea. And Ma Yan from China. And James Spenceley from Australia. Then Jian Zhang from China, CNNIC. She apologizes this meeting she's in China and she cannot participate in the discussion online. So please remember Jian Zhang. Let's, please. And then this is, these seven are the Members elected, EC Members. And we have the eighth EC member, who is Paul Wilson, the Director General. The ex-officio. The Executive Council is the representative of the APNIC Membership. If you have any questions, comments on APNIC's business operations, please don't hesitate to catch any of the EC Members to say, to, you know, to let us have the input and answer some questions or some other.

Functions of the APNIC EC is these - I don't think, I don't think I need to read all the text. Go ahead. EC Meetings since the last meeting of APNIC 28. We have basically, we have the monthly regulator conference but sometimes we do retreat or sometimes we have the extraordinary EC teleconference. And this half year, we had more, a bit more meetings, as the EC.

Membership - we have 2,170 Members of APNIC in by December 2009. And actually in the year 2009 we had additionally 300 something new Members to APNIC. So we still have a big increase in terms of the number of the Membership.

One of the EC function is to endorse the APNIC policy. So, as you know, APNIC policy is discussed in Policy SIG onsite or online and we had consensus and the proposal which reaches consensus are passed to the EC. And for the endorsement.

This time, from the previous, from the outcome of the previous meeting, we endorsed prop-050 - IPv4 address transfers. Prop-073, simplifying allocation assignment of IPv6 to APNIC Members with existing IPv4 addresses.

Prop-074 - Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, IANA, policy for allocation of ASN Blocks to Regional Internet Registries. And prop-075 - ensuring efficient use of the historical AS numbers.

These endorsed the following policy proposals have been implemented in February.

Budget and activities - I don't go in to detail, because after this report, Mr Treasurer will deliver you a really fantastic report. So I leave that to him.

One of the major decisions for this time for the APNIC EC was the approval for the purchase of the permanent office accommodation. Actually, we had a bunch of discussion for this and we formed a sub-committee to, to have the focal - sorry, discussion for that. And including the site inspection. And, finally, we decided to allow the APNIC Secretariat to obtain permanent office. Because it is sometimes difficult to understand some of you to hold this kind of big purchase. But in administration in Australia, rent cost is getting higher and we can find quite good, realistic ways for reducing the cost. We had a thorough analysis thanks to the Business area, to do a really, how I say, the deliberate consideration which is we were in debt. And, finally, we found having the permanent office would be sufficient, more sufficient than going to a rent office.

And the next - yes, we had several big decisions and the next one is the Indian NIR.

In December, actually, the Indian NIR have been discussed for a couple of years. Finally, in December 2009, EC has reached recognition in-principle for the India NIR. Now we're doing something for the operational arrangement between APNIC and the Indian NIR. The India NIR has already recognized in-principle but we're still working on that.

OK, the next decision was the non-Member fee schedule. EC has reviewed the non-Member fee schedule. We had the Membership fee revision in April - no, last April. And we thought that non-Member fee schedule should be revised in the line of the new Membership fee schedule. We've already adopted a new non-Member fee schedule and it is to be implemented in January 2011. It's not so big change but it is just, you know, to have the non-Member fee has quite good - combination with the Membership fee. And, especially, we don't, we don't start the charging, the legacy of the space for example. So we thought this revision can be done by us without consultation and the big consultation for the Membership.

OK, Member feedback. It means, you know, APNIC business is getting bigger and bigger. It is a totally different scale from that in 10 years ago. We have - Executive Council - feel increased concern is now on the APNIC's business operations. So APNIC EC is the position to answer such a question. So if you have such kind of concerns, please don't hesitate to send an email to our Executive Secretary, so the APNIC EC can discuss about that and prepare the answer for such concern.

Alright, this is our last slide. Again, I mean, I tell you every time but still I'd like to emphasize APNIC EC, regarding the APNIC EC, we have the website, www.apnic.net/ec really easy. and you can find any, for example, the meeting minutes and some other documentation for the operation of the EC. So if you're concerned or interested in what EC is doing, then please, please, please visit EC website and you can find some answer or some information there.

That's all from me. Thank you very much.


KUO WEI WU: As APNIC EC Treasurer, today, my report will be cover three parts. The first part we're talking about the 2009 financial statements.

And the second part will be talking about 2010 budget statement. The third part will be just actually already have two person talking about the office building purchasing. So I will a bit of a reason how the EC decide to this kind of office building purchasing.

First of all for 2009, the financial status, basically all the report for many years, we already turn from the US dollar to Australian dollars because our office is located in Australia and it is sufficient report under the Australian dollar. And the second one is, which already mentioned, we already complete the audit for the annual account by Ernst & Young. And that is operation profit of AUD$145,054. The chair already mentioned by 2009 last year, we reached 2,170 Members. And the net growth is 315 Members. And the next one, as you know, in 2009, we face a financial crisis. So, we are making decisions to make a conservative approach to financial activities. So later on you will see in the revenue side and expense side, you can see some of the numbers a little bit different to the original budget. So this is 2009 statement, the income statement, the expense, original budget is expecting AUD$11,923,479 but actually the final statement on 2009 is a little bit about 5% less, is the number is AUD$11,356,866. The revenue side originally budgeting for the AUD$12,086,125 but actually, we only got AUD$11,550,749 is budget a little bit different, less than 4%. Something like that. OK. Based on the revenue and the expenditure, you can see the operation profit is just, we mentioned about is after the tax is AUD$145,054. There is the statement for 2009. And also this is our asset. Our asset right now, still remain is AUD$14,737,450. As you remember for a long time, and the EC decides and we report to the AMM we try to keep the operation cash reserve at least for one year, 12 months.

And we tried to raise to 18 months, but due to the financial crisis last year, we have a little bit difficult to do that. But we still maintain the 12 months' reserve, cash reserve for APNIC office operations.

And so you can see this is APNIC Reserve Analysis. We are kind of stall things since 2006 till now and numbers are changing. For the annual revenues and expenditure you can see in the last two years, 2007 and 2008, we all run there. And last year 2009, we, back to the normal process, have an operation profit. Although it's not much but at least it's not in the red.

OK. For 2009 statement, do you have any questions that you'd like to ask or comment? If you agree, I will move to 2010 budget statements.

AKINORI MAEMURA: Question or comments?

KUO WEI WU: Can I go on? For 2010, the APNIC budget statement, first of all, as we see, the 2009 APNIC Member and stakeholder survey was used as a basis to develop the activity plan and initiatives for the 2010 budget. And second of all, again, we're looking for the financial stability for long-term operation of APNIC office. The number three is ensure a high level of financial governance and control in APNIC activities.

First of all, based on the principle, we set up the expenditure for 2010, is something like that. We are looking for AUD$13,027,805 for the expenditures. And then in the revenue side, as you know, last year, for the Beijing meeting, we passed the fee structure and the new fee structure will apply from this year. So we're expecting the income side, for the 2010, we would reach about AUD$20,878,340. So based on the current budget and revenue, we might expect a deficit for AUD$149,465. It's not that big but we still have a concern about the financial stability but that's why we say in the very beginning for financial stability. This is the budget statement. And then of course for real operations and expenditure and the EC chair mentioned about we continually go through every month teleconference in the EC, usually the business side operation, they will continue to give us the statement, the financial statement to the EC, so we're watching this financial statement every month.

So that is for the 2010 budget statement. Do you have any questions or comments?

AKINORI MAEMURA: I think that means that was really fantastic.

KUO WEI WU: The third one is, the EC, before we're talking about the new office building for the APNIC, actually, this issue we discuss for many, many years in the APNIC EC meeting. But at a time for several time that is the housing in Brisbane is really raising very fast. At the same time, sometimes when we decided we begin to negotiate and the price go up again. So it's very difficult to do that. And the reason we are looking for the office building for the APNIC - if you look at the expenditure for every year in the statement, you will find that the APNIC always spend almost about $600,000 rental fee for our office occupations. And $600,000 for office building in rental fee, you can see that if we continue paying the rental, it is much preferred that we put the money into buying our own permanent office. And second of all, as you see, the last year, the financial crisis, it happened, it's good and bad.

The good thing is that the housing price in Brisbane finally come down. And, give us a chance to go in. And the second of all, is at the same time, we are kind of begin to thinking about how we are much smarter to use those in reserve. As you see, we have about $12-$13 million of the cash reserve there. Usually we put in to the bond or some kind of financial tool, but since the financial crisis, it seems like a loss of financial tool is not necessarily secure and good. So we decided to move some of the cash reserve in to the housing purchase. So this - two things. One is making sure our cash reserve is better use. Second of all, we can, we do some kind of simulation. We find in the second year to third year, actually our operation costs would go down because you see the $600,000 rental, once we own our own house, then your operation, in that kind of rental, will be reduced.

And it help our financial operation buying the APNIC office. This is the reason the EC, we under several of the teleconference and also Chair and me, we fly into Brisbane to look in the property. And basically the EC just do a couple of things. First of all, we make sure this purchasing is better use our reserve. And, also, is good for our financial stability. And number three, this is a good office building for our employees. We don't give the detailed instruction, because EC don't use the office space there. So we prefer APNIC make their own decision. But those process must be monitored by EC and make sure everything is good. And investment is right. And better use our reserve and at the same time, in helping us to long-run the financial stability.

I think Richard already give you the real picture. And this is just a sketching. Once this office is finished buying, then we need to go in to do some of the remodelling and so they can move in.

So, then after we can move in, then we don't need to pay - well, we don't need in the next two or three years, we don't need to pay any rental and parking fee anymore. We have our own house. And as EC, as an APNIC member, I'm very happy to APNIC have a new home to go.

So, about new building. I don't think I need to go in too much detail. But I think from the EC point of view, just a look at some of the principle and if it is the correct and right decisions there and as I mentioned, about why we purchased that is, like, cash reserve, and you can see the purchase price is $4.5 million. It's good enough for our APNIC operation. We make sure everyone have a space to work. They have an office desk to use. And you see our previous statement, we pay almost $600,000 every year for rental. It much makes sense to have our own building. And, also, when we visit that and based on Brisbane rules, we know the building actually can reconstruct to be a higher level of the building. That add value for this property. Hopefully, this in the long run can generate some of the asset to APNIC.

OK. I think if you have a chance, stop by in Brisbane. Give APNIC office a call. And maybe they can drive you to take a look about the office building. I'm quite excited to see that. And I think there is a good step to do that. And I don't know what is this picture for, because I only see the highway and it's not real. But, anyway, just try to point out it's a very convenient location.

OK, that is the third part on my report. Any questions or comments?

AKINORI MAEMURA: Questions or comments? Nothing?

KUO WEI WU: Well, thank you very much for your attention. Let's look forward to the new APNIC office. And hopefully our staff are happy about it. Thank you very much.


AKINORI MAEMURA: Thank you. Alright, reports from the EC are done. Then the next is the report from the SIGs and BoFs. The first presenter from this section is Randy Bush who is the chair of the Policy SIG. Go ahead. The proposal which reached consensus in Policy SIG, need to have consensus in Membership Meeting.

RANDY BUSH: OK. We did not have our Wednesday meeting. And we met and compressed time Thursday. I think almost all of you were probably there. So I will go fairly quickly. I'm going to do something a little different than we did last, usually.

This is where woe are in the process, which is yesterday, we had the face-to-face discussions, reached consensus or not. Reporting on that. For those where we reached consensus, yesterday, we get to reconsent or not today.

OK. The proposals which were discussed and the green ones here were approved, consensus was gained. The ones in black, it was not. And I will go over each one in some summary detail, so we know what we're talking about.

OK. So we essentially passed three and did not pass three.

Prop-078 was dealing with the problem that allocations from the final /8 could be used to expand v4 networks and did not have conditions to force people to prepare for IPv4-v6 transition. The proposal was to get space from the final /8, the proposer must demonstrate they're moving to IPv6 and prepare for it.

The proposal said essentially that it was to expand, not to expand but it also v6. This proposal did not pass. Why am I redoing things? OK. Probably my mistake in editing slides. I'm sorry. But this has been returned to the mailing list for further discussion. If people have comments on it now, please feel free.

OK. Prop-079 was abuse contact information and Whois. There was no formal way in the Whois to send abuse reports. The proposed solution was to formerly use IRT subject in inetnums and inet6nums and autnums, these supported by our PSL and basically the software we currently use and there would be a mandatory abuse mailbox field, and we would delete the mailbox fields and the objects without the IRT.

So pending the approval, there was agreement to pass this proposal. So, would anybody care to - we should reconsent to this proposal here? Would anybody care to speak to it or for or against it first? OK, then I'd like to ask for consensus on this proposal. All those in favor, could they please raise hands? And all those against? Thank you. I think the conclusion is that this proposal continues to go forward. I would note. That somebody has raised the interesting question is should we allow IDN and foreign email address, non-ASCII email addresses in the field. That will be a fun one to work on. Prop-080 The removal of IPv4 prefix exchange policy. Currently, with the historical exchange policy, if you have three or more little network segments you can come to APNIC and trade them in for an equivalent single address allocation.

This was to encourage reduction of routing table abuse. The problem is that as we exhaust IPv4, Freepool from IANA, it will be harder and harder to find large enough and unallocated blocks so somebody could come in on Wednesday and want to trade it in and be told that sorry we don't have it. Somebody else could come in on Thursday and, "Today we have it." It would be unfair and a little chaos creating etc. The proposed solution was to remove the exchange policy. And this did reach consensus at the meeting. If we like it today, it will continue to go forward. Does anybody have any new comments on the subject? Considering not, I would like to ask those in favor of this proposal to raise their hands? OK. Did I not say it loud enough? Am I missing some really interesting email?

May I ask those opposed to this proposal to raise their hands? OK. Thank you. This continues to go forward, I believe.

Prop-081 - the problem is perceived under the current prop-050, the final /8 policy, only allocations can be made, not assignments. I.e., we can give it to ISPs for allocating to their customers but we can't give it to end-sites, critical infrastructure, etc.

The proposal was to allow each account holder to receive one assignment. If they did not receive an allocation also. So they could get one or the other.

There was much discussion, this did not gain consensus. OK. So it's going to be go back to the mailing list for further discussion.

Prop-082 was removing aggregation for IPv6 initial allocations. Under current policy, your initial allocation, you have to swear and promise you will not deaggregate it. Subsequent allocations, there's no such requirement. This seemed inconsistent. OK.

So, the proposed solution was remove the requirement for the first one and there were a number of reasons of course the most obvious is we always say that we don't tell people about route, how to do routing. This did not pass - whoops. Pardon me. I'm lying entirely. Prop-082 passed. OK. And we agreed yesterday that this made sense. Does anybody wish to speak further to removing the initial promise that you won't deaggregate? OK. Hello, now. Look up from the email. Those in favor - I know, we went through this all yesterday. I'll discuss that problem later. Those in favor of this proposal, please raise their hands?

Those opposed to this proposal, please raise their hands?

Thank you. This proposal continues ahead.

Prop-083 - an alternative criteria for subsequent IPv6 allocations. So, an APNIC account holder has two or more separate networks that are not directly connected to each other, but connect through the global Internet. They ask for an IPv6 allocation, they get a /32, and there's worry that they can't deaggregate that /32 and give /30s to their four POPs, etc. So this means that current routing and filtering out on the Internet of prefixes longer than a /32, might inhibit somebody from building such networks. So it proposed that account holders with networks in multiple locations, without connecting infrastructure, could get /32s or shorter as appropriate for each of those locations.

OK. This did not gain consensus. So, we will discuss it on the mailing list as appropriate.

And that's the story here. Would somebody at more skill of where things are on this laptop please?

SRINIVAS CHENDI: I'll get it, Randy.

RANDY BUSH: My hero.

SRINIVAS CHENDI: Why, thank you.

AKINORI MAEMURA: Can I ask you for clarification? So, after your report and conformation of the consensus, what are the proposal which is approved by the Members' meeting this time? Prop-079, prop-080?

RANDY BUSH: I flipped from that but I'll go back. Sunny? How do you know? The green ones. Prop-079, prop-080, prop-082.

AKINORI MAEMURA: Clear enough for you all? That's OK? That's the Members' meeting consensus, alright. Go ahead. Thanks.

RANDY BUSH: I probably hit this button here. Yes! Then I hit this button here. This is a report, Tuesday late in the day, we held a Birds of a Feather session, to discuss the policy development process itself. We reviewed the history of the policy development process and what we were, the goal of the meeting was to try and increase participation in discussions and deliberation. We have problems that were very set of diverse cultures with diverse ways of communicating. We're very infrequently actually together where we can talk to each other, etc.

So, probably 20 people attended - I'm not exactly sure. And we discussed how we could change the policy development process to facilitate more discussion. And some of these changes will be formal changes to the written procedure, others would just be ways to try to get more participation. In reality, maybe if you look on the mailing lists, maybe 20 people actively participate and so I said, "Let's not even shoot for 1000, let's settle for 40." Let's just double the participation over the next year. But we'll see.

One idea was to move the deadline for proposals - before the meeting, in other words, how much before the meeting did you have to get your proposal in - from four to six weeks. This would give the community 50% more time to discuss them and, also importantly, to give the NIRs time to discuss them internally.

We noted particularly that, for instance, that the JPNIC community is very active in discussing the proposals internally within JPNIC and, you know, presents a pretty clear view both on the mailing list and at the meeting of a community and how they feel about things. So, maybe if we give it a little bit more time before the meeting, more people will be able to have a broader, wider view.

The suggestion was you notice how much fun it was to hold the consensus call again this morning, that we did yesterday. The reason we do it is because up until the last few years, the Policy SIG would be meeting as one track in parallel to other meetings. To other APNIC meetings. At this point, this is no longer the practice. So, maybe we don't need to reach the same consensus twice. It would save a little time at the AMM which we're having now.

Maybe, after the meeting, you know, we think we reached consensus on three items here. And, didn't reach consensus on three others. Maybe we should more aggressively inform the Membership of what happened? Maybe emails should go out to every Member reporting on the results of the Policy SIG, the discussion, etc. And I would note, also, we had the concern that you don't just have to be a Member to participate in discussions. So, how would we also include non-Members in an agressive information campaign?

OK. We had an interesting incident in the last year, over 4-byte ASNs that policy proposals have to be, you know, we have this whole process it takes a while. It takes six months. And sometimes we need something in an emergency. ARIN and LACNIC both have emergency policy proposals. The problem we hit was the first of January, we wanted to act on a policy that we'd agreed on but didn't agree on it till September, October, or something like that.

So should we have an emergency process, or a short period, a fast-track? And the real problem is, especially that there are global policy things that require coordination between all the RIRs, and that takes forever to happen everywhere. And if you're waiting for it, you can get in to technical trouble.

How else might we increase participation? One idea was a Wiki. Where everybody would get to edit, kind of like Wikipedia except Policypedia or something or WikiPolicy or whatever. Because people find it hard to track the mailing list discussion a little. It requires you go back to archives and long mailing list threads are hard to follow. And if the arguments are maybe succinctly stated and it's a single page proposal, this might be helpful. This wouldn't actually be a change to process. It would just be something more we would try to do.

OK. Maybe when a new contact is added to the database, to Whois, it might automatically spam them and say, "Come participate. Here's where it is. Here's where the information is." So on and so forth.

And that was about the end of this. Now the policy development process helps develop its own process. So, as you think about these suggestions and maybe have others, what we would do is come up with one or more proposals for altering the policy development process as policy proposals. And we would consider them on the mailing list of course, and consider them when we meet in Bangkok six months hence. What did I do wrong? That's last. That's the end. Sorry to create panic.

So, does anybody have - that's the end! OK. That shows you my mind!

MA YAN: Thank you. This is Ma Yan. I appreciate the concept, to create the Wiki kind of tool, that a community is more aware about the policy development and the current status. And maybe also add another point that some of the examples, some of the key studies could also be added. Really, not I suppose as a non-English speaking community Member. Then more those kind of examples will show how the system works and what kind of current practice could be included and what would be the next, if that could go around to the Members?

RANDY BUSH: It would be great if the NIRs or people in the countries that don't have NIRs translated parts of it. To try to break through the language barrier. I feel really bad, as an English speaker, you know - what do you call somebody who only speaks one language - an American.

OWEN DELONG: Owen Delong, member of the ARIN Advisory Council. Since it was pointed out ARIN has an emergency policy development process, I would like to point out it was actually exercised once in recent history and it was the first time it was exercised. And the general community reaction, the word lead balloon comes to mind.

RANDY BUSH: Idioms don't translate well. The reaction was definitely not positive. Right? But just because an emergency or fast-track processes can be misused, you know, it was an ill considered thing and I'm sure your Board of directors will probably not make that mistake again.

OWEN DELONG: I suspect you're right. But I will say that if you do construct an emergency policy process, it should be constructed carefully with a great deal of deliberation and with a lot of consideration for what might be done with it.

RANDY BUSH: Yep. Jonny.

JONNY MARTIN: Jonny Martin. I'm wondering if you could clarify for my the two consensus that we take for each of the policies yesterday and the Policy SIG session and today? Which one counts?

RANDY BUSH: Both do. And the mailing list afterwards.


RANDY BUSH: But for instance, if yesterday we had consensus, and today we did not, it would not go forward. The model that this was built under was that the people at the Policy SIG were a smaller and less representative number than the number here today, due to the fact that the Policy SIG was in conflict with other tracks. Does that make some sense?


SKEEVE STEVENS: Regarding the language barrier. I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure with the resources of APNIC that I'm wondering if it's possible with some of the SIG policy discussion lists that there are alternate language mirror lists in which either the community members that can translate between or if APNIC has got it? I do feel some, with the many economies we have and the many languages we have, that a lot of the non-English speakers don't participate anywhere near as much. So Japan, China, many other countries - if they had a discussion list like SIG policy - JP or CN?

RANDY BUSH: They do.

SKEEVE STEVENS: Is anyone translating back and forward between these lists so we know what they're talking about and they know what we're talking about? Does APNIC do that at present?

RANDY BUSH: No, but JPNIC, I believe, translates into the Japanese list. The Japanese list discusses it fairly actively and then representatives from JPNIC, if you remember, Izumi-san in particular has come to the microphone and said that we've discussed it and some people felt this way and some people felt that way. And this is kind of summarizes the feeling of the Japan operator community.

SKEEVE STEVENS: I think that's a good model, is there any way we can do it with some of the other languages?

RANDY BUSH: During the BoF they were held up as an example. And Korea, I believe, also has an active policy discussion community. I'm not sure about China yet. But I think there are a number of aspects where we could encourage and help the NIRs to help deal with the cultural and language problems. Strongly agree.

SKEEVE STEVENS: The Japanese list, the model that they've done is to be held up and I like that. I'd like to see their discussion too. I think that would be useful.

RANDY BUSH: You're welcome to join their list.

SKEEVE STEVENS: Yeah. But it would be nice if there were some kind of translation, it would be nice.

RANDY BUSH: I don't know, well. Hat off, personal opinion. I don't know how fair it is to ask them to take the additional burden of translation to let us see their thought process.

SKEEVE STEVENS: I realize there's a burden in translating the English list in to 15 other languages and so forth.

RANDY BUSH: But then it's translating back. I think Izumi-san keeps thinking of standing up. Do you mind, Adiel, if we hear Izumi-san's reaction to the point?

IZUMI OKUTANI: I try to share, if there are major comments within our community, and translate it in to English, and then share it in APNIC mailing lists. This time it was quite quiet in general about most of the policy proposals so I didn't really do that this time but I usually try to do that, if there is any notable comments within our mailing list.

ADIEL AKPLOGAN: I'm from AfriNIC. Just to say that we're also doing a review of policy development process and there will be a provision for a fast-track policy adoption also in our region. And something interesting from the BoF is the way to better share policy on that discussion. And what we also are planning to do is to, in addition to inform our Member, we are going to systematically also send new policy proposal to government representative and regulators in our region.

TOMOYA YOSHIDA: NTT Communications. I have one suggestion about the, to making some consensus two times. If my understanding is correct, so while we decided to have a consensus two times is the difference of the participants. So for the policy meeting is open to the, of course the APNIC Member or the other member, but this meeting, APNIC Member meeting, is for the APNIC Member. So that's the point, so I think that Randy said recently we don't have a conflict of the meeting, but I understand the other point. But I think that we need to make decision two times. Not only Policy SIG but also the APNIC Member meeting.

RANDY BUSH: Good point.

KUO WEI WU: I just like to answer the previous question. Actually, TWNIC, they have annual meeting twice a year, just before APNIC annual meeting, also APRICOT meetings. And that's the reason why TWNIC, because in the open policy meeting in TWNIC for its Member, it's all speaking in Chinese. But if anyone, you are interested to join with TWNIC Open Policy Meeting, - well, actually, the schedule is on the TWNIC website. Let me check with them if they're willing to translate into English or not. But they do have this kind of discussion. Once TWNIC come here, and in general, they will represent its own Member and so they can correct all the information and go to the APNIC. Thanks.

FELIZ YAMAZ: I want to give a bit of incite about what you have raised about the emergency policies etc. In the RIPE policy development process, we do not use fixed lines, fixed timelines. Which are attached to the RIPE meetings. Every individual proposal follows on timeline. So what happens there, you have this flexibility around proposals because you don't have to arrange them according where the meetings are within the year. This gives also advantage for the remote participation because not everybody can come to the meeting. And we don't make decisions in the meetings. So each proposal has a decision time on its own and at that decision time, both feedback coming from the meeting and the mailing list feedback is considered. However, I want to say one more thing about global policies that you mentioned - this is recognized that it has an impact on the regional policy development process.

And in our last RIPE meeting, there was interest to add global policy-making process more explicitly within our PDP this so people know how it's evaluated as well. Thank you.

JUDITH DUAVIT VAZQUEZ: There's a huge advantage to having a country NIC and we don't have one and we're not requesting one. But there's much I can do to assist my local community and I'd like to work with APNIC in anticipation of proposals that still have to be discussed and forthcoming and I'd like to know whom in particular within APNIC to work with, is this Sunny? Do I work with Sunny on this, Paul?

RANDY BUSH: I'd contact them both. Just contact them both, Sunny and Sam. That's just my opinion. When I built support infrastructures, the first rule is it is not my job - is a firing offence. If you call one of the knocks I built and you said, "My dog is wet." They will say, "I don't really know anything about net dogs, but I will find out who does and we will call you back." So write to Sunny and Sam and if they can't solve it, they'll call you back.


WENDY ZHAO: CNNIC. I'd just like to make update about how we discuss the APNIC policy within CNNIC members. We do have particular special mailing lists or platform for the policy discussion. But actually we have two ways to let out the message and people can give feedback.

One is the member mailing list actually from earlier this year, we started sending a dialogue monthly, including the statistic data about the IP address allocation delegation information. And also the recent hot topic and news coming up. So those are the APNIC policy proposals actually go out with the dialogue from January and February this year. And also we have another unofficial platform that Members can give out their idea about how they think about the current policy, which is - sorry, OK. It is QQ room which is really unofficial. With most of our Members. So it's not specific for the policy discussion because people to generally talk in their room about what problem they have. Normally they catch up the hostmaster from that platform. Anyone who can understand Chinese are welcome to join the room. But I do apologize - we don't have actual person to translate every sentence in that room.

But you are always welcome to join. Thank you.

RANDY BUSH: Thank you, Wendy. I find this discussion and people's interest in the problem very cheering, because I think reaching out to all of our Members and all of the affected people in the regions is very important. I think, clearly, we should have, I personally think we should have another BoF at the next meeting in Bangkok and maybe we can start trying to move details of this forward. And I'm really cheered and thank you all for doing this.

One more item is between yesterday's meeting and today's, what happens is we pass or not the different proposals yesterday and then the Policy SIG chairs, the three of us meet with the AEC before dinner, to review what happened with the EC so that, you know, what if we agreed on a policy that was absolutely impossible to implement? Or, you know, would cause some damage etc? The EC can say, "Can you watch out or have you checked this detail?" So when we come to the Membership meeting today, we've kind of coordinated with the APNIC as the Secretariat and as the Executive Committee. We went through that last evening as normal. And I brought up one additional item. I come from a culture which is very rule-obsessed. And which is one of the kind of rules we have that we're obsessed about is what we call conflict of interest, people wearing multiple hats.

And yesterday, Skeeve raised a point with which I agree. I had great hesitation when I joined Philip in being the author of prop-062. But I felt it was important enough, etc. Being a co-chair and being on a proposal was something that is not part of my culture. So we discussed this at the EC meeting last night and there were many aspects. Should APNIC Secretariat staff be allowed to make proposals or speak from the floor? You will notice that ARIN and RIPE staff do not express opinions here. And they also, ARIN staff does not do it in an ARIN meeting. That's the American-obsessive culture about this. This does not seem to be the culture here. Anyway, the results of yesterday's discussion were essentially that staff and chairs, etc, are chosen in here because they have a clue. So, we shouldn't shut them up.

We should not prevent them from making proposals. The point that Skeeve particularly raised was that it's hard to tell who's chairing each item up here. And we actually were chairing defer items and Sam's telling us which ones, etc. But it's hard to tell. So what we're going to try next time is that there's only going to be one of the chairs up here at a time. And, that chair will not be one of the proposers in that piece of the section. So that chair will also not speak about the proposal. Their opinion on the proposal. And will not be an author of the proposal. The other co-chairs will sit out in the audience and participate as needed.

Is there comment or discussion on that? Thank you all. It's been fun. Geoff couldn't resist!

GEOFF HUSTON: Geoff Huston, APNIC. Does that mean I'm allowed to be here at the microphone?


GEOFF HUSTON: Thank you. That was all. A minor exercise of an ability that seems to have appeared. Thank you.

RANDY BUSH: Thanks, everyone. Sorry to take so long.

AKINORI MAEMURA: Thank you, Randy. It is approaching to the lunch time. I'd like to present some reports. Izumi, are you ready? Next presenter is Izumi Okutani, who is the chair of the NIR SIG. To deliver a report from the NIR SIG.

IZUMI OKUTANI: Izumi Okutani. I would like to briefly share what we discussed at NIR SIG which was held this Wednesday for 1.5 hours.

This time, we usually share the activities of NIRs and had five informational presentations. And because of the situation that we're facing as the industry, a lot of the presentations focused on what NIRs are doing to address the IPv4 address exhaustion, or how to promote IPv6 deployment. So lots of information exchanges about this topic.

Also, we had a presentation from Miwa from APNIC, on how APNIC is doing the promotion on IPv6 deployment and she also introduced how APNIC collaborated with each NIR on this area.

So just picking up at a couple of information that seemed quite interesting to me. Is that a number of NIRs are trying to do measurement on the actual deployment level of IPv6 awareness of their ISPs within the economy about the situation, of IPv4 address exhaustion. So TWNIC and JPNIC did a survey about that and TWNIC are planning to take measures based on this survey result on what would be the good measures they should take in the coming phase. JPNIC is already, based on the result of the survey, taking a couple of measures, search as providing trainings to Members, providing testing environments so Members can connect and participate freely, using the equipment or providing a milestone as the economy on which each industry player should do. What ISPs should do at a certain timing - not should, but recommended timing for ISPs, cable TV providers, things like that.

And in relationship with APNIC, as most of you already know, APNIC did a media campaign on IANA's block, that is cutting 10%. And they also collaborated with NIRs and shared the media release. So a couple of local media picked up this issue in each NIR's economies as well.

So, we shared this kind of situation, and tried to seek what would be the area that we could collaborate between NIRs and APNIC.

And food for thoughts for future collaboration, was that we do meet up at meetings and also at hostmaster or technical level, but there's not a lot of opportunity for NIR to meet up with APNIC Board members, so we're going to try and strengthen collaboration in this area as well and APNIC has offered to visit individual NIRs and discuss what would be the good for the future plan for registries' business model as well as addressing issues towards v4 exhaustion. And we're considering among NIR SIG chairs that it's a shame we exchange this kind of information very actively, just at the meetings. So trying to think of ways, if we can do this better in between meetings as well, such as setting up maybe Wikis so each NIR can share their situation or dedicated mailing list for sharing information that may be you don't feel comfortable to share publicly initially and maybe make it open afterwards.

So that's something we're thinking at the moment.

AKINORI MAEMURA: Thank you, Izumi.

IZUMI OKUTANI: That's all from me.

AKINORI MAEMURA: Alright. OK. We have one more here, the record from the Resource Certification BoF. Sanjaya, are you ready?

SANJAYA: Just one slide for this. We had BoF on Wednesday from 5:30 to 7pm. There were about 20 people attending from different economies. I can see Japan, Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia.

It started with a report from Geoff Huston about the latest development in IETF SIDR working group. SIDR working group is actually talking about the protocol that will use the resource certification product that the RIR is going to take part of. Followed by Byron reporting the NRO, resource allocation roadmap and then Byron continued with how APNIC implements its RPKI.

And George Michaelson showed a quick slideshow what RKPI funtion is available in MyAPNIC at the moment, followed by me showing some general purpose RPKI signing verification tools that we are thinking of developing in the future.

Any other business - Save discussed, asked a question and we discussed the single trust anchor - whether we will do it and so on?

And then Steve Kent also presented his update which is about the local trust anchor management, that he presented earlier on in the day in the main APRICOT conference.

Needless to say, this is very important work that we're doing at the moment. Like I said, earlier in my presentation, in my area report, resource security would be the next thing that we need to do. To return the level of trust that we, to maintain the level of trust that we always enjoy in the Internet and this is just improving the pools that we can use to maintain that trust. And the RIR, APNIC and the other RIRs play a role in that. Of course, security is everyone's business but the RIR's role in that is in saying which entity is the custodian of which resources. And that's what we have always done. That's what we continue to do in the future. And the resource certification is one additional tool for us to be able to make that statement, that is cryptographically can be verified. I'm looking forward to having more support from everyone in this endeavor.

Thank you.

AKINORI MAEMURA: Thank you, Sanjaya.


Finally, we come to the last part of the morning's session.

PAUL WILSON: I'd just like to ask if you can hear me? I'd like to mention and remind you - OK - I'd like to remind everyone who is voting in the election today that the ballot box will close at 2pm. So, please, have your ballot papers completed and submitted into the ballot box which is a blue prominent blue box at the registration desk outside by 2pm today local time at the latest. To remind you, you're electing three candidates only. So up to but not exceeding three clear crosses against the three chosen candidates, in order for your ballot paper to be valid and counted. The other thing that we need to do now is find a group of willing volunteers to act as scrutineers for this, to supervise this voting process and the counting process and to announce the results. Could I ask for volunteers who are neither APNIC Members nor candidates, nor nominees?

So, it seems that we have possibly more than we need. Not to be an APNIC Member, no?

Look, OK, it's far be it from me to select scrutineers but providing that all of you are qualified, according to the criteria, I would suggest that you assemble at some point for, for instance, in front of the stage here, and decide whether you are all, whether you're all needed and what your process will be? So, thank you. It may be that you don't, that more than say three people is not needed, but we'll leave that up to you to decide. I suggest you do that at the beginning of lunchtime, then take it from there. Thanks.

SRINIVAS CHENDI: OK. As usual, we have informal dinner tonight, to close off the APNIC meeting, APNIC 29 It's Italian on the Sixth Restaurant and Bar Pavilion. Sixth floor, if you've been to the closing reception last night it's just next door to C-club. We will meet at 6:30 at the KLCC main entrance. We will provide the bus if it's raining, otherwise you can walk. As you know, last night, it's a 2-minute walk from here. There's a 4-course dinner provided. And the cost, you can see on the screen there, you can pay in US dollars or local currency. Or Australian dollars. So that's $35 US, 120 RM or AUD$40. You can register yourself and pay for it at the registration desk. Thank you.

AKINORI MAEMURA: Alright. Thankyou, Sunny. OK. This is the end of the morning session. Thank you very much to everyone. Please enjoy lunch. And please be sure you will come back at 2pm, sharp. Thankyou very much.

14:00 - 15:30 (UTC+8) Friday 5 March 2010

The afternoon session will start very soon. We're just starting with the NRO report. OK, just extending the opportunity in the time. I got the information that we had the cable cart in the sixth submarine cable which is going through the south of Taiwan. And you might encounter some slow sponsor delay in your communication over the Internet. So, please, just be informed and it is not a problem of the conference network. Which has been really, really good. OK, can we go ahead?

Alright, let's get down for our job! In the afternoon. Alright, the first session in the afternoon begins with the NRO report presented by Axel Pawlik who is the NRO EC Chair. Of course, he's the Executive Director for the RIPE NCC.

AXEL PAWLIK: Thank you. Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls. Nice to see you all back after lunch. I'll try to do my best to keep the afternoon short. This is the standardized NRO report. To let you know what the NRO is and what we have been doing recently over the course of last year and what we have planned for next year, maybe. So the NRO, is your organization in a way. It is a cooperation between the RIRs basically to coordinate what we are doing similarly and to also form a single point of entry for anyone who wants to have any dealings with the RIRs, or a couple of them. The purpose is to protect the IANA unallocated number resource pool. Promoting and protecting the bottom-up policy and development process and acting as a focal point.

There is an MoU that we signed. The NRO does perform the functions of the ICANN address supporting organization. We do rotate officers every year, just to keep us awake and on our toes, and also to give some of us a break. So this year, I'm the chairman and Raul from LACNIC is the Secretary, and John of ARIN is the Treasurer and Adiel sits there and enjoys his two-year NRO holidays. We have a couple of coordination groups. We do coordinate among ourselves the thing that we have to do together. There is the ECG, the Engineering Coordination Group and Andrei Robachevsky of RIPE NCC is the chairman of that. And then the communications and the public liaison coordination group which is paired by Paul Rendek by the RIPE NCC.

And Andrei and Paul, we decided at some point last year that it would be more efficient if the coordination group chairs would stick close to the chairman. So those guys got to do it another year.

For quite some time, we divide up various costs, starting with the ICANN contributions that the RIRs do. Among ourselves, we have a fairly complex formula for that that is basically based on the revenue derived from the registry services, and the amount of resources within the RIR region. And that's the current distribution. We have renewed our agreement with ICANN sometime last year, that we would again contribute, was it $823,000 to their budget, and we will, of course, do that again this year. We do go to most of the ICANN meetings. Someone from the RIRs is typically there. Sometimes it is more, sometimes it is a little bit less and we typically also go and talk to the Government Advisory Committee there just to keep us close to them and keep us in their heads a bit, and of course to present us as the point, the people to address any questions to.

IGF is, of course, and I don't want to replicate everything that my colleagues have said and will say. We have been active in the IGF from the start. At this time, Raul is representing the IGF in the multi-stakeholder advisory group. The last IGF meeting happened in Egypt, and as you heard before, it was quite full of workshops and sessions and parallel sessions and even more workshops. That's a bit of the challenge there. First of all, of course, everybody tries to contribute to the thing and then we see we have too many workshops and then we have to merge them and then coordinate more. But it is great fun. The IGF is good for us and we love to go there.

Other international cooperation. As you've heard earlier this week is about the ITU. It's also contributing to the OECD and quite a number of other international organizations where they contact us.

Ongoing activities last year and continuing into this year. Basically, the very high level focus here in engineering is on resource certification, RPKI implementation coordination. Sharing experiences there and making engineering planning, communications and outreach obviously is, if I say so, is the main overall focus of the NRO, and, of course, v4 and v6, IGF preparation again. Contributing to ITU working group on IPv6. Stuff like that. Very, very important. Recently, I think APNIC tried to drown us by hosting a retreat on the Gold Coast about three weeks ago. One night, it flooded pretty badly, 400mm of rain, I've never seen that in one night. Buckets of stuff.

That's when I left and some of us had to stay there because it was pretty flooded as I said. It was a rather long meeting. Most of us met the CCG, so the Communications Coordination people, the Executive Council and after that, the public liaison folks. And again, the main outcome of that is the preparation for the v6 working group. What do we want to deliver there? And how do we do this? We talked about the IGF. As I said, the IGF is a good thing for us and we have established a bit of a tradition to contribute financially to the IGF Secretariat. We're among the top five sponsors there, and it is well received and I think the Secretariat is doing a good job. So that's what we do. What we decided to do again, and of course, we talked about coordination on the RPKI front.

You've heard about trust anchors, multiple trust anchors, single trust anchors, what is our strategy there? What do you want to do there? How do you plant it into time? So we have a road map. And we also looked into sharing some of the development costs. It does make sense if every RIR does the same thing in parallel and checks that it all works together and we want to economize that. And then we are also busy looking into our schedules and agendas to see if we can have another retreat that will probably be sometime in July or early August. We'll see how that goes. Again to then take stock of where we are with the IPv6 debate around the ITU and stuff like that. And that concludes my short report at this time. If you have any questions, shoot away. OK, thank you.


AKINORI MAEMURA: Next, another report from the NRO which is the statistics report. To be done by Guangliang Pan of APNIC.

GUANGLIANG PAN: Hello everyone. My name is Guangliang Pan, a Resource Services manager at APNIC. I'm here to do the NRO statistics report. We generated this report quarterly, so the data in this report is up to December 2009. OK, so first, let's look at the IPv4. This slide shows the total IPv4 address space let's look at the number in the middle. That is the IANA reserved box. We also call it the IANA freepool or unallocated box. The number is 26 at the end of last year. But now, this number has gone down to 22. Because if you have four allocations earlier this year.

When this number is down to zero, it means that the IANA freepool is running down, run out. So we expect that that will happen by the end of next year. So that's a very interesting period. Let's look at the yearly allocation in each region and globally. You can see, since 2004, and until 2008, the growth is like a linear growth in IPv4 consumption. And in the last year, we allocated above eleven /8s. It's a little bit less than 2008. In 2008, we allocated more than 12 /8s. And probably due to the global financial crisis, so the allocation was slowed down a little bit in the last year. But we expect that it will go up again this year. And here is the total allocation since 1999. And you can see, APNIC region has been allocated more IPv4 address than other regions in the last ten years.

Let's move on to the AS numbers. You can see the allocation changed along the RIRs and globally. We allocated about 4,800 AS numbers last year, globally. And compared to the year in 2008, it was above 5,000. It's also a little bit less last year. But we still allocate about 5,000 AS numbers per year. I just checked the IANA 2-byte ASN pool. And there were about 8,000 2-byte AS numbers there. So it means that it is based on the consumption of 2-byte AS number is also running out next year, possibly at the end of this year.

Here is the total AS number assignment since 1999. You can see the ARIN region consumed more AS numbers than other regions.

Finally, let's look at the IPv6 address space. This graph shows the total global IPv6 address space. Yesterday, not yesterday, actually, it was on Wednesday, during the consultation about IPv6 and ITU, there's a few people who mentioned that IANA IPv6 allocation, actually this graph shows the overall picture and the history. Since October 2006, IANA allocated a /12 to each RIR. Here are the ranges for each RIR. I think in the discussion, people mentioned a few time about the /12 allocation to each of the RIRs. And looking at the bigger picture, actually, this is a very small chunk of the IPv6 address space. You can see that the Global Unicast address, it's like a /3 of the IPv6. It's like, still has 2006 /12s in the IANA pool.

And we're not going to run out of v6, of course, at this stage. Let's look at the graph of the growth of the IPv6 allocation. You can see the growth in 2007, 2008, and 2009. It is certainly growth. And last year, globally, we make more than 1,000 IPv6 allocations, and compared to 2008, it is around 40% growth. And we also expect that there will be more this year. As close to the IPv4 exhaustion, I think that the IPv6 allocation will be more and more and go up faster.

And this graph shows the total allocated IPv6 space from the RIRs. In the left-hand side is the number of allocations - it doesn't matter the size - and on the right-hand side is the total size of the allocations.

And all of the statistics information you can get from the website. That's the NRO statistic website and also some IANA website related to all this data, and you can always go there to have a look, and we update every quarter.

OK, thank you. Any questions? Thank you.


AKINORI MAEMURA: Thank you very much, Guangliang. The next report is from ASO, a supporting organization of ICANN, by Tomohiro Fujisaki who is the APNIC appointee for the NRO EC.

TOMOHIRO FUJISAKI: Thank you, Maemura-san. This report is on the ASO activities. The ASO EC is a Member Council and we are a number resource policy advisory body. And our members is 15 members, each from, three from each region, and in this three, two members are elected at large and one is RIR appointed member. And our term is two years for the elected members for elected members and one year for appointed members. And our job is to advise the ICANN board with the number resource policy and select ICANN board members and select ICANN NomCom members. And the meetings are a monthly teleconference and a physical meeting.

And the current 2010, this year, Louie from ARIN is our chair. This is our recent activities. We have five teleconferences after APNIC 28. And we have been discussing the following topics. And one is the member election of the ICANN NomCom 2010 and we elected Wilfried from RIPE NCC as a NomCom member. And now we're conducting the ICANN board election and now we have five nominees. These nominees. And current is the comment phase, and we will choose one person by the end of the month. And one more big job is the global policy management, and we have currently two global policies. One is global policy proposal for the allocation of IPv4 address blocks to other RIRs, and the current status of this global policy is adopted in APNIC, LACNIC and final call is concluded in AfriNIC. And this policy also adopted in ARIN, but they adopted a different text so we decided that this policy proposal failed to get global consensus and the advised the NRO EC about that.

And one more global policy, the allocation of ASN numbers to RIRs, and this was adopted in APNIC, RIPE, and ARIN, and we are waiting for ratification by LACNIC and AfriNIC boards. This policy will be implemented soon as a global policy. We have our website and our activities can be referred to this website. If you are interested in our activities, please look at this website. Thank you, any questions?

AKINORI MAEMURA: Any questions or comments?


Thank you very much. All right, the next report is from IANA. Via Save Vocea of ICANN covering our region.

SAVE VOCEA: Hello, I'm presenting this on behalf of Leo Vegoda, who is the Manager Member Resources and wanted to talk about IPv4 status, reverse DNS and DNSSEC and some of the activities in the IANA. Since the last APNIC 28, there's been six prefixes which have been allocated and those are the /8s that you can see there on the table. How that is generated in the selection is randomly made and it is documented in the IANA website. Just to concur with the NRO stats that there's also 22 /8s left to be allocated and the Q1, 2006, to the Q1, 2010. So you can see the 2010 on the very far right is four /8s.

In the changes to the in-addr.arpa and ipv6.arpa, the IESG approved draft-jabley-reverse-servers on 2nd of February, 2010. And this document will see the creation of In-addr-servers.arpa and IPv6-servers.arpa and they will be pro, the nameservers will be provided by ICANN and the RIRs. On the DNS update front, the root is on target to be signed in July. The DURZ zone has been rolled out at the moment and there's regular updates make to the technical updates are being posted to DNS technical groups. And there's a dedicated website as well and it's documented on the IANA website. On the IDN, Internationalized Domain Names, ccTLD fast track, a number of applications have passed the string evaluation since the launch on 6th of November last year. We received about 17 applications and a number of them have passed string evaluation.

What's happened now is this is follow by a regular IANA process for delegation and there's a blog also on the IANA website which explains this. With the information of commitment that's been signed, one of the areas, work areas that we had to concentrate on was excel the IANA operations. So there was a self-assessment carried out by IANA in year in January and that identified several areas for improvement. The improvement projects are being planned and started and a further self-assessment will be scheduled for Q4 2010 and Q1 2011. They are inviting people if you're interested to participate in this and there's a URL there. And that's my presentation. Thank you.


AKINORI MAEMURA: Thank you Save. Next one is from Yamanishi-san, are you ready? Actually, Yamanishi-san accepted to be the chair of this session and he did a great job.

MASATO YAMANISHI: Thank you very much. Yes, today, I'm not wearing a jacket, so it is APNIC style! Anyway, I will briefly report about the APNIC Community Consultation. The APNIC Community Consultation was held from 2 pm to 5:20 pm last Wednesday, in this room, and the objective of this session is IPv6 address management and ITU is an additional parallel structure required? It was objective. And the number of participants was 160 people in person, and also 115 people via web cast. 20 people via an audio feed people and 51 people via chat. So I think it means almost more than 300 persons participated. Participated for the session and it shows huge interest for this topic, I think.

And the session was chaired by myself and also there is another co-chair who is Sharil Tarmizi, who is from Malaysian Communication and Multimedia Commision.

And there were four panellists were Xiaoya Yang representative of ITU, and Sureswaran Ramadass from Nav6, and Adiel Akplogan from AfriNIC, and Save Vocea from ICANN.

Each panellist presented their topic, and the first presenter was Xiaoya Yang, and the key point of the presentation was some ITU members have concerns for IPv6 address distribution and also she explained the difficulties for developing countries to participate to the IP address management policy processes of the RIR system. Also, she explained about the decision of the ITU to study issues related to IP addressing and its activities for this issue. And the second presenter was Sureswaran Ramadass and he explained about the description of the proposed model to the ITU and also its aim, pros and cons. Also explained about the relationship with existing RIR/NIR and the proposed model.

And the third presenter was Adiel Akplogan and he explained about all of the operation of AfriNIC as the RIR serving the biggest concentration of developing countries in the world. Also, he explained about AfriNIC's effort for limited government awareness of the Internet IP address management system. Also, the third point was participation of several regulatory authorities in AfriNIC's policy development process already. Then, the last presenter was Save Vocea and he pointed out the current distribution of IPv6 address and also ICANN's support for the current policy development process. Then there was a long, long discussion, as you know. But I tried to capture a high level summary of the discussion, and actually it had seven points. This slide shows the first power point.

And the first one is the Internet community and the RIRs need to build more awareness by governments of the current RIR processes. And the second point is, there needs to be a clear problem statement regarding the specific IPv6 addressing issues that ITU discussions are trying to address. And the third point was, there needs to be an investigation into the actual likelihood of an IPv6 address scarcity problem arising in the foreseeable future. And the fourth point was, IPv6 address allocation is equitable under the current address model. Addresses are already readily available via RIRs and NIRs, and each RIR has equal sized IPv6 blocks.

And the fifth point is economic problems associated with receiving addresses appear to be perception rather than reality. So it means, I think we need more investigation. And the sixth point is, there is concern about the ability to keep policies in synchronization with the RIR system and the CIR model which is proposed to the ITU. And the last one is that there is a desire by the Internet community to be able to coordinate with ITU in discussions relating to the Internet.

Then, the session, the meeting was, I'm sorry... the kind participant proposed statement. This proposed statement was reached to consensus. It's still a little bit long statement, but it is quite important, so let me introduce briefly. And the first section is the introduction. And the second section is the importance of an open environment. And then the third section talks about risks of introducing a parallel address management system. And then the fourth section talks about equitable distribution. Then actions. Actions is very important, so please let me read all sentence. The first is the proposal for a parallel address management system involves significant risks, and therefore requires a clear problem statement, complete explanation of its details and a thorough risk analysis of its consequence.

Nav6 paper satisfied none of these requirements. Therefore, the Nav6 proposal, the paper itself can not be considered as a substantial basis for discussion at the ITU IPv6 group's work.

And the second action is, we ask the ITU's IPv6 group to follow the example of the Internet community and the IGF process and make its documents and records available publically so that all Internet stakeholders can participate in deliberations which could have global ramifications. We ask ITU member states and the sector members to recall the Tunis Agenda's call for a multi-stakeholder approach to Internet governance and call on the ITU to support the current multi-stakeholder system of address management. That's the whole of the consensus statement and at the end of this report, I would like to express my appreciation for all participants of the session. And also all of the panellists. And in particular, I would like to express my appreciation for Xiaoya because she kindly accepted to attend this session, even though she is working in ITU.

Also, I would like to express my appreciation to the great effort of the APNIC staff, especially German and Sam and Miwa-san. And of course, also Paul Wilson. Thank you very much.


AKINORI MAEMURA: OK, what's next? The ISIF report. Are you ready, Paul?

PAUL WILSON: I've got a short report here about an activity that APNIC has taken up as a separately funded project. It was originally scheduled for this morning, but as the time ran over a little bit, we moved it down into this part of the meeting procedure. So this is the information Society Innovation Fund. I spoke about it the last time and this is an update on the current use activities. The ISIF is a small grants program that's a partnership program that's aimed at stimulating creative solutions, as it says, to ICT development needs in the Asia-Pacific. It's all about the role of the Internet in particular, not just ICTs in general, but the Internet in particular and in social and economic development and using today's terminology towards the effective development of the Information Society throughout the region.

It's a partnership program, as I said. It's one of the activities that we are undertaking in cooperation with like-minded partners with an interest in the region. The lead is IDRC which has been a leading development agency, aid agency. It's Canadian, but it's been a leading agency for around about 30 years in development activities around the world. They've got a particular interest in research and hence have been interested in ICTs and networking for much, much longer than most organizations in the aid sector. Alongside IDRC is the Internet Society, ourselves, APNIC, and most recently, the .Asia organization. APNIC has been involved with various incarnations of this small grants process of for quite a few years now. So ISIF is the latest one, and one difference with ISIF is that APNIC is acting as the Secretariat for the program, so we have a full time staffer funded to look after this program, to look after the grant's selection committee and the process, the website, the Wiki development, the design activities, public relations, etc.

So, we've also, as we had in previous years, contributed to the fund itself as one of the contributors in order to help to support the small grants programs, projects that are supported. Now, 2009 was the first year of ISIF, so I can report on what happened in 2009 that that cycle of the grants process is almost finished with final reports received and under review. In 2009, ISIF gave $321,000 to 11 projects which were cited from eleven different economies addressing the application of technology in a bunch of different aid-related development priority areas such as disaster management and health, multilingualism, capacity-building, etc. We processed 148 applications from 22 economies in order to arrive at the final 11.

So that was last year. This year, the call for applications has been made and the grants have been awarded already. Or the recipients have been selected, at least. We had 207 applications from 25 economies from all over the region. A whole range of different institutions interested in putting these projects forward, and again, a whole range of interesting Internet-related applications with a development focus. So, as you see there, just as a selection, we had Telehealth and Multilingualism, VoIP, IPv6 infrastructure development and upgrade. Various policy and technical and non-technical and policy and application areas that were being proposed and there were... the font of the presentation is gone strange. So I believe we had ten grantees, they've spilled off the bottom of the screen.

But as you can see there, there's a range of different recipients who were actually selected through the final grant selection process. That selection process involves a committee of individuals who were appointed by the partners in the funding process. That's where we are. Those projects have been selected. APNIC has been the administrating body. Sylvia has been busy with all of the interactions with the grantees in preparing them for the receipt of the grant and so forth. So that's underway and will be underway for the next year, and I expect to be back here speaking about it in the next year. ISIF is a program though that relies on support from its partners. It may be due to changes in the IDRC structure that we no longer have IDRC as a supporter, which may be the end of the program.

IDRC has not just contributed funds to the program, but they actually fully supported the administrative activities of the program which APNIC carried out under their funding, and their interest in doing that was to see that the small grants process go ahead, to see that contributors such as APNIC and others could put funds into the pot, into the fund, and see 100% of the funds go to the actual projects, rather than having to contribute to administrative costs. So that was a very generous act on the part of IDRC. Unfortunately, because of changes in their focus, it seems that they probably won't be continuing, so whether or not ISIF goes ahead will depend on whether there's some partners available to fund it in the future. But at least what we do have, APNIC as Secretariat has been funded to continue the process through the current grants and make sure that everything is tidied up and reported.

So that's all that I had to mention on ISIF. And by the way, if anyone does have any brilliant thoughts about contributions or ideas for the future of this program, then please feel free to contact myself or Sylvia. You'll find contact points on the website which is www.isif.asia.

AKINORI MAEMURA: Thank you very much, Paul. After the ISIF report, we'll have the RIR reports. OK, Adiel. Are you ready? OK, come up to the stage. OK, the update from AfriNIC by Adiel Akplogan, the CEO of AfriNIC. Thank you.

ADIEL AKPLOGAN: Thank you. So, I'll give you a brief update of AfriNIC activities. What we are doing and where we are going. At a glance, we have 15 people working full time at AfriNIC. Last year, we have recruited seven new staff from which four were replacements of outgoing staff. We will continue this year to reinforce our resource capacity by hiring more people in different areas. We have a plan for eight in 2010. We have 600 Members in 2009 and we are expecting about 25% growth in 2010. Our 2010 budget is a little bit more than $2.1 million. This is mainly due to the new hiring, because it is a big increase, compared to last year. But also to the fit-out of our new office space. So far, we had 11 public policy, where about 17 policies were adopted.

We currently have two policies under discussion in the policy discussion list. Those are the Soft Landing policy and the review of the current PDP.

Key orientation in our 2010 budget - technically, we are going to continue to reinforce our technical infrastructure by improving resiliency and redundancy of the whole infrastructure. The infrastructure we have now is almost the same as it was when we started with a few improvements. So now we are reviewing most of the equipment and putting in place the review system. We are also working to deploy DNSSEC on our DNS infrastructure. We are working to deploy routing registry, so tests are ongoing now. As you know, we have used South Africa for the past few years as our technical operation where we do everything from South Africa. Now we are slowly moving everything to Mauritius to be the main NOC, but we are, of course, keeping a point of presence both in South Africa and in Egypt.

RPKI and Business PKI is important activity in 2010, so we have dedicated resources for that. We will continue to consolidate our financial health by better cost control and better management of the Membership fees. IPv6 support, we will continue to do that and we are planning, among people we are hiring, to have someone dedicated to that to provide support to the community in general, Members and non-Members. We have a new training plan which we will start deploying in 2010, that will include elearning and training of trainer. One challenge that we have in the region is to be able to cover all of the countries in travel. Travel being one of the issues in the region, so we want to train more trainers Who can do training on behalf of AfriNIC in different countries.

This is also being extended to the universities and academic institutions to bring the training activity into the academic environment more formally. We will have to complete our office relocation project too. So, what are we currently busy on? That is what we're going to do in 2010. Currently, we are working to finalize our communication plan towards now what we're calling non-conventional stakeholders. Governments, civil societies, and mobile operators. Mobile operators because in the region, mobile operators are the ones who are providing more and more Internet service in the region through their mobile infrastructure, and we want to get closer to them and communicate more with them. For that, we are reactivating the Associate Membership category which is Membership for organizations that are not LIR.

Are not PI space holders. This will allow us to have more formal communication channel with these non-conventional stakeholders, and also able to generate some income from their contribution. In terms of the technical area, as I said RPKI, we are committed as an RIR to be ready and have a common road map so we are actively working on that. Testing the routing registry and we are moving our server to a new data center in South Africa, so this is ongoing right now. We are also migrating most of our service to the virtualized environment, which will allow us more flexibility in our deployment plan. We have launched, last year, a root server copy. I think APNIC has the same program in the RIR. We have learned a lot from the first deployment we have done. And using this experience, we are reviewing the whole program to make it more efficient, and actually, to be more involved in some aspect of the project, so we will continue that as soon as this review is completed and probably the next deployment will be Mauritius, Mozambique, and Senegal.

For DNSSEC, currently the technical team is reviewing our DNS provisioning system to integrate provisioning. This that will make us ready to provide DNSSEC also to the community. We have finished, a few weeks ago, the review of our Membership process, an audit of the whole Membership process and we've started implementing the outcome of this review. This is mainly to enhance the automation for Membership process so that the process is quicker. And we are also dedicating some resources to support frontline support for Members.

A quick review of policy on discussion which is still open in the region. We have the Soft Landing policy, which is a policy that defines how AfriNIC will manage the last /8 which will be allocated by IANA. This policy is still under discussion. No consensus on it yet. During our last meeting, a policy for IPv6 allocation to not-for-profit organization networks has been rejected by the community. Mainly because the main rationale behind the policy was financial. Meaning that the not-for-profit networks don't feel that they can pay that. But our fee structure, decided by the board, it was agreed that the board would look at the situation and probably derive a special fee for not-for-profit networks. There is a policy under discussion right now on reviewing our current policy development process.

A few improvements are being proposed and this is ongoing, and we have the policy for IANA, ASN block allocation to the RIR which is waiting ratification from the board.

A few numbers. As you can see from these four graphs. Mainly the three there. The Membership has continued to grow, and we are seeing growth more in the extra small category and very small. This is due to the size of the market, of course. But what we also notice is that then they grow very quickly as soon as they become a Member. The IPv6 allocation has continued to grow. We have seen a kind of low allocation for the past year, last year, and that is what is pushing us to put more effort and more resources in this area. The pie there shows the distribution of the IPv4 address by economy, the top five or seven. South Africa is still leading, but their proportion is reducing since the first five years when we started AfriNIC. South Africa was holding more than 60% of the IP addresses in the region.

Now they're around 51%. And that means that other countries are also getting more addresses, countries like Kenya, Gabon, Nigeria has made tremendous progress during the past years.

We continue our collaboration and cooperation also with other organizations, even though, if this year, AfriNIC is not holding any formal office within the NRO, we continue to contribute and support the NRO activities through the CCG, the EC, the ECG and PCG and all the other groups. We are getting more and more involved with governments within the region. We have set up a Government Working Group. The first meeting took place in January in Mauritius this year. We focused on cyber crime for law enforcement agencies. It was a very successful meeting. We had 35 people who attended the meeting from 11 countries, and what is very interesting is that we even, we haven't provided any sponsorship or fellowship for people to come.

They came because they were interested and they have shown a very big interest in what we are doing And that's encouraged us to continue this Government working group and formalizing it and getting it more involved in the working process. We have participated heavily in the African Union work and to the last meeting that they had in Addis Abeba which was dedicated to ICT to find the global strategy for the continent. We had a booth there which allowed us, again, to reach out to the Government representatives And also to give out the opportunity to be an observer for the ICT and communication minister conference. So we can formally input in their work related to ICT and to mainly to Internet infrastructure in the region. We continue to collaborate with all of the original organizations like the African Union, AfNOG, and AfTLD for which we have a secretarial function. And we have recently signed an MoU with the African Union to match up the remaining 50% for academic institutions membership fees. We have waived 50% of the fees for academic institutions in our region but still, some of them have difficulty in paying the 50%. So we agreed with the AU to seek for funding, to look for funding to cover the 50% so, we got funding managed by AfriNIC and the AU. So that will cost zero for all academic institutions in our region to get resources from AfriNIC.

This is the last slide to talk about the upcoming events. The next AfriNIC will take place in Kigali, in Rwanda in June, end of May first week of June. You are invited. We will also have the second meeting of the African/Asia collaboration group. I don't know if you're aware of that. It is a group where we try to exchange on different aspects between some interested parties in Asia and the African community. AfriNIC is leading this effort with some others from the region like Professor Shun (sp?) and others. We will have AfriNIC 13 in Cape Town in South Africa and it is 90% sure that it will be in Cape Town. 100% sure that it will be in South Africa. And then AfriNIC 14 will be on the same date as AfriNIC-12, but the venue is still to be confirmed. As you can see, I'm the only one from AfriNIC here today because most of the other staff are now in Nairobi attending the AfTLD meeting and also to prepare for the AfriNIC booth at the ICANN meeting.

Thank you, that's it for AfriNIC. And I'll be happy to take any questions or clarifications. APPLAUSE

AKINORI MAEMURA: Questions or comments? Thank you very much, Adiel. Thank you also for your contribution in the panel. Thank you very much. Alright, next it is ARIN.

CHE-HOO CHENG: Sorry for interrupting the agenda here, as a candidate in the election, now I would like to ask about the list of scrutineers. I think the election process was mentioned very clearly before the election started. But it seems that it's not being followed strictly. So I would like to know the list of the scrutineers and I'm not quite comfortable with the current situation.

PAUL WILSON: Che Hoo, we don't have a list of the scrutineers. Could you describe the issue?

CHE-HOO CHENG: In the election process that was stated on the screen a few hours ago, it was clear that the scrutineers could not be an APNIC Member or any candidates, and I think, of course, I think it is related to a conflict of interest, but it seems to me, at least I heard, that someone is insisting to be a scrutineer, but the person has very clear conflict of interest. And can someone give me a clear picture?

PAUL WILSON: Geoff, I think you've been outside. Thanks.

GEOFF HUSTON: Thank you, Che Hoo. I have been informed about this concern and I did go and talk to the individual in question. He has indicated, sorry, in my role as Executive Secretary of the EC, I should note under the rules of the by-laws of this organization that the election is actually undertaken by the Executive Council and the voting counting is actually being done on the behalf of that council. The individual in question is carrying a name badge with an organization which is not a Member of APNIC and he is of the view that his role is not as a Member and therefore he satisfied the criteria as stated this morning as being one of the scrutineers. Without further direction as the Executive Secretary here, I feel unable, formally, to convey any objection to his being there given the criteria stated this morning.

But, as usual, as your Secretary, if I receive further advice, I will, of course, happily and cheerfully implement that advice. But at this particular point, I've been told by the individual that he apparently does not, he is not inconformant - in other words he conforms with the guidelines for the group selected for voting. I'd be happy to take any further advice on that the EC might like to offer me and I'm very sorry that this is happening.

JAMES SPENCELEY: Just a quick point of clarification. Is he connected with an APNIC Member? I understand that you could probably have multiple roles.

GEOFF HUSTON: The individual in question is on the address council as an APNIC representative and he's certainly part of our broader community. But I would like to say that the name badge he's carrying today, formally he's sitting here, or in part of our meeting here today not as a Member in terms of the name badge. I have no other information.

JAMES SPENCELEY: It would be good to clarify if he's an employee or of a Member? Is that relevant?

GEOFF HUSTON: I don't believe that that was a criteria stated this morning and I don't believe that I can actually answer that question. I don't have an answer, sorry.

KUO-WEI WU: But as we know, the guy is actually related to one of the candidates. If he's in there, the whole election process and the privacy would be exposed and it is very unfair for all of the Members on the floor and voting process be known, and that is no good. If I'm a Member, I don't want to let the people know who I vote for. At least it's not fair and it's bad behaviour. We should stop it or we really encourage people to do it again.

BRAJEST JAIN: I thought that this whole voting is confidential, so whether X is there or Y is there in the election, how shall this be made open? I don't understand that part. I still don't understand what the fuss is about? And why these other Members can be impartial and if one can be impartial, how can it be assumed? May I request the house to give an explanation? And this is, surely going into a clear bias being shown on the part of the, I'm afraid to say... the EC Member spoken just before me.

JAMES SPENCELEY: I'd just like to point out that due to the nature of the voting system, it is probably in a number of circumstances, quite obvious as to potentially who people voted for, if there's a very limited number of, say extra large Members. I think by nature, there could be connections drawn there. The other issue is that potentially, if there's somebody connected with a candidate there. I mean, it just calls the process into repute. Personal opinion.

GEOFF HUSTON: If I could directly respond to the question that was raised about why is there an objection? It is my understanding that the objection has been raised because an EC Member has reported, or a candidate has reported, sorry, a candidate has reported that they are of the opinion, or at least concerned, that a Member of APNIC is part of the voting process. And it is, that was what I was clarifying and I went and spoke to the gentleman and understood that he had represented to me that he was not here today in the capacity or a capacity of being a Member. Now, I have no further information than that, but that, I believe, was the nature of the concern voiced to me.

AKINORI MAEMURA: How should we handle this? I, myself, want to be apart from this discussion because I am a candidate.

GEOFF HUSTON: At this particular juncture, in terms of the delegation of chair responsibilities, I believe that the EC procedures would say that therefore it falls to the Secretary. If the Secretary wishes to recuse himself by being a candidate. Is that the case? Then Kuo-Wei Wu, I believe you are the next delegated office holder and if you would like to offer any view, I would happily convey it.

KUO-WEI WU: I would say this. From the process, we maybe need to know, to at least for the rest of the scrutineers know that it is unfair for every candidate. And it seems that in the Annual Member Meetings, and that the other Members on the floor have a right to decide if this is the right way to do or not right way to do. And I think I can raise the motion. As Members on the floor, we can make a decision here. So, is anyone, like to raise the motion and we can make a decision on the floor? I'm a chair. I'm asking the people in this situation how the APNIC Members, you want to do on these issues.

OWEN DELONG: Hurricane Electric. I think that the problem here with making a motion from the floor may be that virtually nobody on the floor has sufficient knowledge of the issue in question or the individual and/or his alleged relationship to which candidate. In order to know what motion to make.

KUO-WEI WU: Any further comment? I think basically, I would suggest this way, that right now we still have four eligible EC on the floor. And if the rest of the four EC agree and we can ask the Executive Secretary to do something to prevent this, participation happen.

JAMES SPENCELEY: As one of those four. Could I suggest that we possibly take this offline with the Executive Secretary and have a discussion with the person. Because I don't think that we have enough information.

KUO-WEI WU: OK, sure.

JAMES SPENCELEY: I would like to gain some more.

KUO-WEI WU: I think we will go and talk about it and then come back and report to the floor.

AKINORI MAEMURA: Thank you. Hold on please. Wait a minute please. I invite Kuo-Wei Wu as a chair here. No, I can not handle this.

DESI VALLI: Can I speak?

KUO-WEI WU: What do you want to comment?

DESI VALLI: Mr Hoo is the complainant over here, I have my apprehension with him being an complainant, as well as him being the chair of, whatever, the motion or whatever you call it. And there will be partial approach on, partiality on that because he is the complainant. Thank you very much.

KUO-WEI WU: I think we can make a motion here. If the APNIC Members on the floor, you agree eligible EC to take the action, you can vote yes here. Or the APNIC Member, you want to take your own action and that is another alternative. So I would like to raise the motion that the Members on the floor to decide, do you want the EC Members to take this action or the Members yourself, you want to take the action. I think this is the motion I would like to raise to the floor, to all of you.

JAMES SPENCELEY: I think the floor probably doesn't have enough information to make that decision. So...


JAMES SPENCELEY: Could I take five minutes and maybe speak and find out a little more about the issue and report back to the floor. Would that be acceptable?

KUO-WEI WU: OK, all right.

PAUL WILSON: I think in the interest of time we'll continue the meeting while the deliberations are going on. I have two roles here. One as the DG and one as an ex-Officio board member - EC Member. It may be that I'm asked to go outside but for the time being, I will chair the meeting and ask Einar to ascend to the stage and give us the ARIN update.

EINAR BOHLIN: Are we good? Thank you. I'm not John Curran. He sends his regrets. He really hoped to be able to present this, but he's occupied with other business. I'm sorry. So this is the ARIN update. ARIN has different departments like APNIC I'm going to give a few highlights from some of those departments.

That didn't come out right. In any case, from registration services, last year, we got a lot of requests for Autonomous System Numbers. We got several requests for the 4-byte and to make a long story short, only 12 organizations kept those 4-byte AS numbers. Most common response was, "My upstreams could not make use of them." From engineering, we are continuing to make updates to our secure online system. In addition to that, we're working on DNSSEC, RPKI and Whois-RESTful Web Service. The RPKI and Whois-RWS both have pilot programs that are available right now for folks to use. We're going to go production with all of these, some time by the end of this year.

This graph, I know you can't read this, but this is Whois queries per second over the last 10 years. And Whois queries are way up.

And over half of the queries are self-referential. To a specific IP address, it's any IP address asking about itself. Who am I? Most requests happen only once. It's definitely on the increase. It doesn't appear to be a botnet. Somehow it looks like windows boxes, and we would be interested to find out if anybody has information about what might be causing this?

We continue to do a lot of outreach. We have a specific outreach department. We're doing outreach on the topics that you expect. One of our goals is to get a couple of years from now everybody in our community informed about IPv4 depletion so it's not a surprise when v4 runs out.

Cut-off on the bottom of this slide here, I had a bullet that said Micro Site. We're opening a special website just for social media. ARIN's doing Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and we're going to have, the site will be easy for folks to update on the road and it won't be the formal ARIN site about registering numbers and doing updates. It's going to try to be more interesting to get folks to go and check it out.

We'll be posting more information about that on our list in the next couple of weeks.

So last year we implemented policy. I think you guys have actually mentioned almost all of these over the course of this week. Of course, we're doing transfers to specified recipients and we have v6 multiple discreet networks. We have community networks for IPv6, although I don't think anyone has registered one yet.

Alright, this is my favorite slide. I'm the policy analyst at ARIN. These are the proposals that are currently under discussion. A couple of proposals about directory services which is in other words Whois and I think these would especially bring ARIN up to where APNIC is today by allowing folks to optionally list their customer contact information, the organizations and their POCS. So an interesting thing here I think for you guys would be the IPv4 proposals. The community is talking about reducing the minimum prefix sizes. The end-user and the ISP minimums are currently /22s in the ARIN region. And we're looking at moving the assignment size down to a /24 and the ISP size down to a /23.

We also have a proposal about how ARIN should run a list when v4 runs out and someone comes and says, "Can I have a /16," and we don't have one, maybe one will become available in the future. It's a proposal to tell us how to run the queue. It's a small tweak to our mergers and acquisitions transfers.

We have some IPv6 proposals. The first one is the end-user assignment proposal that would make /48s available to pretty much anyone that requests them. For Internet or non-Internet use. And we have a relaxation of the criteria for ISPs under discussion. If you're multihomed, that would be sufficient to get you started with a /32. Unfortunately, the best one on here is in that black zone. So, there's an IPv6 proposal that you can't see but it's the most exciting one. Some folks have referred to it as classful v6. Assuming it moves forward, it specifies five different v6 prefix ranges from /48 to /24 and three stops in between, if you qualify for any one of those ranges and you use it efficiently according to the criteria, then you can come back to ARIN and ask for the next larger size.

There aren't prefixes that would be issued in between, lower than /48 or greater than /24 at this point. If used a /24 and needed more, you'd get another one. But that's not on here.

All those proposals are under discussion on our list. You're welcome to join the ARIN public policy mailing list and participate, of course. You're welcome to attend our meeting. If you can't attend in person, we have remote participation, just like you did here at APNIC. Our next meeting is in Toronto in April, in Canada.

So there's some references here. If you want to find out the text of those proposals, you go to the first bullet and find the information there. That's it. Thank you.

AKINORI MAEMURA: Thank you. Thank you. OK, next - I am back, by the way. From LACNIC. Thank you very much, Ernesto.

ERNESTO MAJO: Hello. I'm the communication manager at LACNIC. I'll give you a brief presentation about LACNIC main activities.

LACNIC is growing. Growing in resources allocated, and Membership and growing in staff also.

During last year, we suffered a small relaxation on the number of assignments for IPv4 but the first two months of 2010 shows that we are increasing again. IPv6 and ASN were increasing too.

Our membership, at the moment we have almost 1,200 Members. We reach 1,000 last year in August and we are now 1,200.

Policies - this is, the first policy that we discuss at LACNIC community discuss and approve using the new expedite process. The new process was approved in the last meeting in Panama last year. And it's a global policy.

We have four policies under discussion at this moment and we expect to receive one or two more before our annual meeting in May. Well, the most controversial was related to the transfer of IPv4 blocks within the LACNIC region.

Some of engineering projects - at the same of the other RIRs, we are working hard in the resource allocation project, RPKI. At the moment, we have our Beta RPKI system that we expect to start the testing phase. And during our meeting in May, we will have a special training tutorial and some discussion about this. We are working in DNSSEC deployment too. We are committed with DNSSEC deployment and we have already signed some domains like lacnic.org and frida.org. The other relevant engineering project that we are working is the new registry system, based on EP protocol. And it will facilitate the communication within the system from our Members and the registry system from LACNIC. One of the most important steps in this project is the participation of the NIRs. And we expect that they will be ready by the end of the year.

IPv6 activities. Well, we have our IPv6 tour, which in 2009 we visited 11 countries. Some of them, they received LACNIC for the first time. It was the first time that we organized an activity there. Paraguay, Bolivia, and Belize. IPv6 is a 1.5-day workshop. We were able to participate over there, technicians. In this opportunity, we had the help of the project. It is a project from the European Commission. And we are part of this project, jointly with AfriNIC and other RIRs.

Well, this is the youngest lady of LACNIC - AMPARO - it's our new project since June of 2009 we are working on it. This project is, we produced, in fact, already produced the material training, open material training for workshops.

At this moment, we, the idea is to promote the security environment in the region and promote aggregation of computers and security incident response teams.

Our partner in this project is IDRC from Canada. And last week we organized the first workshop, a workshop for trainers. And we will have the next workshop for the meeting for specialists by the end of March in Quito. The information is available at our site, projectamparo.net/en FRIDA is like a big sister to ISIF. We have made five calls there, not six. We founded 59 projects. US$1.2 million. During 2009, we organized the fifth call and we received 120 proposals. And nine projects were selected. And during 2010, we made some change. We announce on December an award for projects, for finished projects. This award will give some funds for projects with the goals of the eLAC program. eLAC is our regional plan for the development of Information Society. That's our governmental plan, and we will give this award for these projects.

Some activities in the public affairs area. I will show some of them. The first one is a workshop we will organize during the CITEL meeting. CITEL is the Intercommunication of the OAS. And the workshop was showing the new model for the interconnection and how the public policies could take an event of this model to review the costs in the region. The other thing I'd like to emphasize is the governmental working group. It's a new initiative. During 2009, we have two meetings. We have 18, not 17, governments there. Representatives from 18 governments. And it shows that it's very good to communicate with the governments. And to share information about IP environment.

The +RAICES Project. It's a project that we have deployed. We are working with the ISC. And we installed the sixth copy in Saint Maarten. And will install the 7th copy in Curacao during this year. And we would like to involve another rootserver operators as well.

And the last one, the last one - well, is our LACNIC 13 meeting. We would like to invite all of you to participate in our annual meeting. This year the meeting will be on Curacao Island of Netherlands Antilles. We will expect more than 300 participants. The dates are May 16 to 21st. That's all.


AKINORI MAEMURA: Thank you Ernesto. James, do you have something to say?

KUO WEI WU: I'd like to ask the chair to report what we are, what we discuss. And we like to bring this to the floor and then the floor can make a decision about it. Can you explain what's happened, James?

JAMES SPENCELEY: A couple of candidates have complained there may be a connection between one of the scrutineers and an APNIC Member. Based on that, we've just had a conversation with the scrutineer in question. That person has asked us to present the fact that they are employed by a company which is not an APNIC Member. Their badge is, in fact, not from an APNIC Member. They are, however, on the board of a company on a voluntary non-paid basis. So they don't take a salary from that company. However, they're on the board of an APNIC Member. And they are also on the Secretary of another APNIC Member. So they don't actually take salary from that. They take salary from their first position. However, that's their voluntary or non-paid positions. So, you know, I think probably the clearest way forward is for the chair to see if that's a conflict of interest and that's probably the best way to address this.

KUO WEI WU: So here I like to raise that as a chair. Does the floor agree this is a conflict of interest? If we say it's OK, then I think we are continue counting the vote, because right now we're stopping the counting. So if the floor say there's a conflict of interest, then we will discuss what is the following step we should take.

JAMES SPENCELEY: I should have taken notes. He also shares that position with one of the candidates. Either one or both of those voluntary board positions with one of those candidates, with one of the those candidates, sorry.

NARESH AJWANI: Hello, dear Members. Before anything started, Geoff had come as a representative of EC and asked me the details. I'm not an employee of Sify Technologies, not an employee of Internet and Mobile Association of India, I'm not an employee of NIXI. I serve all three bodies as a volunteer. I'm an employee of SV Teletek. That is a company that's not a Member of APNIC. I am not voted. My card is out here, it says very explicitly name of my company. But before the counting started, I proposed rather I repeated three times that I can withdraw. But Geoff felt, he doesn't feel that way, and I can continue. Three times I made an offer that I can easily withdraw right now but half the way, if somebody walks in like this, you can imagine what I must have gone through in terms of humiliation and in terms of feeling bad about the situation.

I repeat, I have left it and I have requested them not to stop the voting process because of me, if anything stops, it's not something is my culture and the way I have been brought up. That's it. Thank you.


KUO WEI WU: So, for this issue, I like to hear the comment from the APNIC Members. Do you think this is, two things - we are continuing the voting, counting the vote. The second, is this a valid conflict of interest or not?

VINH NGO: A quick opinion for the Member, what I'm hearing so far I don't see any provision whatsoever because if one, there's a risk in term of fraud, and, yes, I'm sure all Members will have a concern about, but due to the technicality, and even taking my nomination in to hand here, I don't see any problem. So I recommend just continue the counting. Thank you.

SKEEVE STEVENS: I believe with the, probably the not too clear requirements for the scrutineers, I think we need to go forward and not waste any more time. I think next time that we may just want to specify how detailed we want to go whether they're they're employees, volunteer or not. Directors of APNIC Members should probably not fall under the category of scrutineers, I don't think that's kind of relevant whether they're paid or not. I don't think there's fraud or bad intention involved and I think we should move forward quickly.

CVS SURI: Sify Technologies. Mr Ajwani is currently not an employee of Sify Technologies, and that's been so for some time. I stand here with goodwill and warmth and a great deal of admiration for the organizing team, in terms of the fantastic way they've run the proceedings over the last so many days. I think issues in the life of an institution, issues do come up once in a while and issues become opportunities for us to work them through and mature, going forward. That's an important point we need to keep in mind. In terms of the issue that was brought up here, I believe there are two points to consider. One is it's not only important to be transparent, it is also important to be seen to be transparent. I think that is a point that Mr Ajwani had made. Stating he has fulfilled all the regulations, the rules and stipulations that had been set down as a scrutineer.

The other part is maintenance of confidentiality. It's important that confidentiality be maintained and there are a number of ways in the counting process by which confidentiality can indeed be maintained. I think that's what the organizing team needs to consider and work out in terms of how to maintain confidentiality and move the process forward. Thank you.

GEORGE MICHAELSON: I have a comment from Jabber. Randy Bush, affiliation IIJ, who is a Member, wishes me to state "For what it's worth, in my culture, this is a clear conflict of interest."

KUO WEI WU: As a temporary chair, I would raise the motion for the floor agree for two things. Things like the people already expressed. Let's continue counting votes. Second of all, I will, I will continue in the EC. We'll start to modify and tighten the PDP for the future election process. And as you know, this is the very first time for APNIC where we have such issue happen. But for the meeting continue going, I think we shall have some way to keep going and if you agree, I will let the Executive Secretary to tell them to continue counting the votes and our process can go on and if the people complain about this issue, we can do the PDP procedure in the next time.

Can I see your vote? If you agree to continue the counting the vote, please raise your hands?

Thank you.

If anyone has a strong oppose? OK. Geoff, can you help, please, thank you. Secondly, do you agree we should going to modify our PDP for election for the next time and try to avoid this kind of conflict of interest, happen again, happen in the future? If you agree to modify the PDP procedure next time, please raise your hand?

Thank you.

Any oppose?

I think we have a good consensus. So APNIC office, please put that in agenda in the next time we can modify this PDP. Thank you.


RAJESH CHARRIA: Internet Service Providers Association of India. I support the motion of modifying the PDP rules of the election because in this election, the deadline of the proxy was being mentioned, if you can read that line, it will be translated in to a different, different manner. Duvi, along with me, some other guys were confused. This is the time, 9 o'clock KL time, either 5 o'clock KL time. That's the reason I support this motion. The election rules should be modified.

AKINORI MAEMURA: Noted. Any comment from the EC or something?

KUO WEI WU: I think maybe APNIC office can explain a little bit, because that is, that is a complaint. As I know, the other candidates have a different opinion regarding for the proxy ending times.

PAUL WILSON: Since you asked, we have had a complaint from one Member regarding a, the issue of interpretation of the deadline for proxies. And we have noted that and we'll make sure that in future the clarification is that the deadline is as clear as we can make it. Thanks.

DESI VALLI: Since the discussion is about modifying the rules and regulations of the elections, I have a recommendation that I think we as the, the organization which is running Internet, I have no idea why we continue to have this manual process in a voting. We need to start elections conducted through Internet and we shouldn't be having this manual process. And such complaints and such issues, due to different interpretations may continue to happen. That's my recommendation. Thank you.

PAUL WILSON: I'd like to clarify for the sake for anyone in the room who may not be aware, but online voting is available and has been through MyAPNIC for quite some time. So that is an option that's available to every APNIC Member. There was a vote some time ago about the elimination of paper voting and that was a vote among the Members and that vote was defeated. So the current voting system is the subject, it is an approved system according to relatively recent decisions by the membership.

JAMES SPENCELEY: I was going to suggest potentially rather than address this issue around the voting procedures today, if we could schedule it for next meeting? And address it. There isn't an election at the next meeting. So we can adequately spend time on it and move forward with the program today.

AKINORI MAEMURA: Thank you. OK. Still the report from RIPE NCC to be done. I almost forgot. No, no, no... Axel Pawlik again.

AXEL PAWLIK: Alright. Here I am again. I'm happy to be here. This is what I'm probably going back to at home. Well, not that bad anymore, but still too cold.

Right, a few highlights of what we have been doing at the RIPE NCC and what we think is currently interesting, apart from stuff that is easily available on the website.

Last business year, we have quite significantly grown our staff. We do quite a lot of things, I'll speak about them later, that are quite labor intensive and are threatening to become even more so. Although it's for the good of the Internet. That's what we start with for the time being.

The year end result is a slight surplus of 0.8 million euro. A little bit more than we catered for but we've saved some money as well. So that's good.

There is maybe a bit of an impact off the global economy crisis. We do see that's the graph at the bottom, a slower growth in Members. So that's the net growth in Members over time. We do see quite a lot of applications from new Members from companies who want to become a new Member but we do see a slowdown in the conversion rate of those. So many people are interested but in the end less of those actually end up on our books.

That's one of the things that we are quite busy with. That's the policy 2007-1. The idea was to establish contractual relationship with the holders of providing independent address space just to improve the registry and to be sure who's using those resources. Three phrases. The first one started immediately in March 2009. New PI assignments needed, a contract between the RIPE NCC Member and the holder of the resources. The phase two was try to extend it now to May 17 this year. The idea is our Members who we have on our registry as the company that assigned the space, to tell us what happened to that space? Is it their own network infrastructure? Is it used by one of their end-users? One of their customers? There's also a possibility to say, "I don't know these people anymore."

That should be coming back to us and that was a little bit slow overall in the process. We extended that line a bit. And phase three will be us chasing all those people who are not known to our Members anymore. Just going through the registry one by one and trying to find them and call them.

So, some statistics here. Out of the Members that have should have participated in this, 85% actually did. So out of the number of independent resources that should have been flagged either way, it just said 85% have been. That's not so bad. Then about half of them are marked as people that I still know, that I have given those addresses to. That's good. My infrastructure also find that 26% say, "Not my people anymore." Is not so good because those are the people that we'll have to chase in the end ourselves.

And of the, again, in terms of process, My End User, those are resources we want to see a contractual relationship with between our Member and those people and, yeah, 42% of those contracts are currently still missing. We'll just have to go on bagging people about this.

But it's a good activity. It's quite intensive. But it's good for the Internet.

Some developments in our science group. Basically, that's the group that does research and development and thinks up possibly new services. They've been quite busy writing articles and analysis and posted them on RIPE's website. Resource explainer - basically all you ever wanted to know about number resources is a prototype service and available on RIPE's website, rIpe.net. Tell us what you think about it.

Information services - that's one by Mark. He was in the room somewhere here. Currently, Mark is doing quite a bit of traveling, evangelizing about it. But what they're doing, they're looking for good engineers. They've had quite some turnover recently and they're hiring. They're also supplying articles and blogs and stuff for the RIPE website. And they do quite a lot currently in the period of just improvements of stuff that they currently have. That is also a new one, at ripe.net. Please do have a look. And if you have any feelings, thoughts or ideas for improvements, let us please know.

That's overall also the idea about the Labs website. I talked about this last time already. The idea is here that we want to have an easy way to interact with us, an easy way to also put forward some ideas that you might have or that - hello - that we might have. God! It's late. So, to overcome the threshold of putting up a new service, we have over the last couple of years run a little bit into the problem that people want their services to be perfect before they published them to you people. And while that's a good sign, the other one is that it slows down innovation quite a bit. So this is sort of a quick and dirty send box for people to send their ideas to. They're not quite perfect tools to, so the community can see them.

We've done a couple of articles recently. I think the last one is about the allocation rates over time, where we do see quite an increase in v4 allocation rates in the Asia-Pacific region. Then we've done a bit of research on the pollution of the one /8 address block. And some other stuff in there. Again, have a look. We think it is quite interesting but we do need some more participants there are forms there as well. And your contribution here goes in to RIPE Labs. If you have any ideas that you think would fit the RIPE Labs environment, let us know and we'll be happy to put it up there. It's called RIPE Labs but it's basically for everybody.

External relation and communications. That's quite a lot. One of my colleagues have talked about this already. This is done to quite some degree for the NRO. I've dedicated quite a bit of Paul Rendek's time here to work as a chairman of the communications coordinating group for all of the RIRs together. And he hates me for that. But, still, he has to do it. As usual, the ground work of the comms group and the outreach activities. There's the annual report, we made a financial report. It's being made and being set up nicely. Support for all the meetings we do, there's round tables, regional meetings and some more ideas that we have. I was astonished to see how many websites we have. We have RIPE but then we have Labs and then, lots of internal things. And we have the IPv6 Act Now as well. So there's lots of things that need to be fixed there.

By the way, we're finally getting moving on the, the design of the RIPE website. Of course, there is always something that I need to call Paul about - "There's a meeting coming up, can you please give me some statistics and a nice graph." That typically happens and I'm quite thankful that it does. It's very helpful. In terms of outreach, what we have been doing this year and what we're planning for the rest of it, that's the highlights there. We have a round table for governments and regulators. We do them about twice yearly, typically on the airport. In Amsterdam, I think we have done one last week, or so. There were about 14 participants from governments and regulators come, some of our friends from the Internet technical community. It was a great meeting, but I felt a little bit underparticipated in. That's not a proper word! So we want to have more of them and bring them out also into the regions. So further down you have a regional round table meeting in the Middle East. That's something that Paul currently is figuring out thou to do and where to do that? That will probably be early summer, late spring that we do that. We don't see much participation in these things from our Members in the Middle East and we think it's important that they participate in those and they go in that direction. In 10 days time or so the IPv6 working group in Geneva, all the RIRs are very busy working on that. There's a law enforcement meeting, we have been over the last two years or so in relatively good contact with various law enforcement agencies and, as the other RIRs have done that as well. Basically, managing expectations - we can't just shut down the Internet when you tell us to.

It doesn't work that way. There are expectations that we need to work around and basically tell what we're doing and how we're doing it.

So in two weeks' time, there will be a nearly global meeting. They, the Law Enforcers are running a conference in London. And we get the chance to carry some of them away and do a little meeting ourselves with participation of the other RIRs as well. That's quite handy because most of us are in Geneva and then we go to Europe and London as well.

We do regional meetings. Regional meetings are meant to be for our Members in the regions. It's not a RIPE meeting. RIPE meetings are the big ones where there is policy development and all the working groups come together and all that stuff. Regional meetings are just information meetings about what happened? What's currently cooking in the environment? We do them in Moscow, in the Middle East as well. And the Middle East one has nicely matured in to the Middle Eastern Network Operators' Group, MENOG, and we do have information also. Also the Russian Regional Meeting has finally be seen as the gestation point for something like a Network Operators' Group there. Very good.

We have the WTDC in Hyderabad. We will attend that to some degree. Not the whole time. It's a bit too long for that. And the IGF, in Vilnius, we're looking forward to that a bit earlier in the year. I see some organizing pressure there but it will be fun. And we have IPv6 Act Now. That's our IPv6 outreach and PR site, basically, that we're doing.

Right. Oh, yeah. RIPE meetings. We do RIPE meetings also, as you might remember. And two nice ones. This year, I hope, there's Prague with lots of lovely beer there and later this year, one in Rome. Not much snow but lots of nice wine, I think. This is not our hotel, our hotel has a roof and it won't rain in there of course. That's basically me. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them. If you don't - this is not the latest, not the very latest.

KUO WEI WU: I like to ask a question about it, as you know, the European Commissioning is starting to do IPv6 deployment plan. And as we know, v6 deployment is not just an allocation policy, because it is a very tiny part of that. It's very important to get some kind of measurement index. Some index is quite important is given by the ccTLD server, see how many percent of the Domain name with the v6 to link it. And it's useful for us to understand how the v6 development. At the same time, as you know, as I mentioned a couple of days ago, several of the ccTLD, the small ones, the loose server didn't turn on the v6 services or the stability support is not very good. Is there any way, it might be you - maybe you can talk and get everybody to be part of the successful of the v6 deployments?

AXEL PAWLIK: I'm not sure how much influence we would have on the ccTLD operators but we can gently push in that direction. As you say, as you ask for basically, measurements of v6 deployment, we have last week seen one of those reports from the EC, on what they have measured. Like the top 500 popular websites per country and only very few of them are actually reached under v6. Those are things we want to track over time, and I'm sure we can make something like that available.

KUO WEI WU: Thank you very much.

BILL WOODCOCK: This is to introduce, to address your question. So, PCH provides hosting for 75 top-level domains at this point. All of those are v6 native posted and it's a free service. So, if there are ccTLDs that don't have v6 transit to their name servers, we'll be very happy to help you.

AXEL PAWLIK: I do have one more thing before I leave. There's another question coming.

MARTIN LEVY: Top level domains with IPv6 name servers, 224. That's 80.0%. The stats are out there and they've been going up the hole, every month, going up.

AXEL PAWLIK: Something is happening. That's a good sign.

GAURAB RAJ UPADHAYAI: A question for Martin. Is he paying attention to me? Martin, your stats come from looking at DNS zone data or the INR root zone?

MARTIN LEVY: BGP.he.net and then select the IPv6 Progress Report that what - I can read three paragraphs if you want me to.

GAURAB RAJ UPADHAYAI: No, no, no: No, I've seen discrepancy between your data and my data. I looked through the root zone and I find a lot fewer. When I look at the DNS zone data for those same ccTLD, they don't have the root zone but they have v6 name servers.

MARTIN LEVY: I'll take the conversation off line and say up and to the right. Yes.

AXEL PAWLIK: Actually, up and to the right is quite a good one for my very last slide, that's not in here, and that's one for Richard. There's one for Richard. Because we have done great improvement at the RIPE NCC about internal motivation and improvement and stuff like that and coordination. So, yes, we take, you challenged us, right, to win. Because last year we were confused about what winning would be in this corporate global challenge and so many steps per day or half hour, we are ready and I hope the others are ready too. Thank you.


AKINORI MAEMURA: Thank you. OK. Here I think the vote counting is done. So shall we take it immediately? Not me, but, Paul.

PAUL WILSON: Actually, I think the normally process for this group needs to announce the results, so fellas, if you're the designated person?

FELIZ YILMAZ: We counted the votes, and I'm going to tell you the results now. Total votes counted is 222. Total valid ballots, 222. Invalid ballots, 0. And candidates, got the first three votes, Maemura Akinori - 1,523. Che-Hoo Cheng - 1,444. And we have Ma Yan - 253

MAEMURA AKINORI: Thank you very much. APPLAUSE Thank you very much. Sorry.

FELIZ YILMAZ: Ma Yan is 1,253. Sorry. OK o

MAEMURA AKINORI: OK. Thank you very much. Now, we take a break. And it's already been delayed and please come back here. Come back at 4:30. Please. So, let's have a coffee or tea.

16:30 (UTC+8) Friday 5 March 2010

AKINORI MAEMURA: Here we will watch a video.

(Video plays)

Alright, everyone. Let's get down to the last session. The last session begins with the presentation from the host of the next APNIC meeting, and I will give the floor to Paul Wilson.

PAUL WILSON: Well, I don't have much of a role here. But we've come to this point where we need to start introducing the next meetings. So nearly at the end now. I think everyone knows that APNIC 30 will be in Bangkok. And we're all looking forward very much to descending on Bangkok in around six months for APNIC 30. So at this point, I would like to invite Poompairtip Eamsopa who is the executive Vice-President of marketing at TOT Public Company to come and tell us all about what's coming up for APNIC 30 in Bangkok. So please, would you welcome her to the stage.


POOMPAIRTIP EAMSOPA: Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. A warm welcome to APNIC 30, Bangkok, Thailand in August 2010. It is a great honor for our group from TOT to be here to meet up with all of you to welcome you to Thailand for the next meeting. We have two sessions. First, I have the video introducing Thailand by my Prime Minister, and the second is information about the next APNIC meeting. If it is all ready? OK.

NEW SPEAKER: Thailand today is a peaceful, safe and hospitable country. We are a nation of friendly, and capable people full of potential and opportunities. With regard to the business events industry, Thailand is experienced and well equipped to accommodate all types of world class business meetings and trade exhibitions. Event organizers and business travellers can be assured of the successful event and memorable stay in the Kingdom of Thailand. Our signature smiles and heartfelt hospitality can not be found anywhere else in the world. On behalf of the people of Thailand and as Prime Minister, I would like to warmly welcome all of you to the land of smiles with earnest hospitality.

A majestic land with a collection of magnificent water courses. And situated in the center of Asia. Thailand, offering you all the enchanting colors of Asia. This gentle kingdom originated as an agricultural country. Whose ways of life have been tied closely to the rivers who have flown through her land for centuries. Guided by prevailing monarchy, with mixtures of colorful countries and traditions that surpass the challenges of time. Thailand has thus formulated the uniquely and enchantingly colorful country at the center of all of Asia. A destination open to the entire world. The international airport provides the utmost standard of service for all visitors to Thailand.

Thailand, now equipped with modern digital communications, state of the art technologies, and a fully integrated tourism infrastructure. Thailand has world class facilities whose support and help fulfil the goals of international conventions. There is a wide range of accommodations at competitive rates for everyone to enjoy. Various unique beam venues are available for new experiences in social functions and networking. With our proven track record for hosting various major international events, Thailand has become Asia's most ideal destination for international conventions. Professional and reliable. Thailand PCOs with an extensive range of experience and expertise, offering services beyond your expectation.

With all the enchanting colors of Asia, Thailand offers a uniquely versatile experience that is simply and truly unforgettable. Colors of travel. Colors of adventure. Colors of entertainment. Colors of culture. Thailand awaits the opportunity of welcoming you to experience the unique and the true enchanting colors of Asia.

(Speaks Thai)

POOMPAIRTIP EAMSOPA: This is a message of Thailand. The next APNIC 30 Bangkok, Thailand on August 2010. Thailand is a separate destination. You can listen to the words much the paradise. Bangkok is a thriving metropolis to have the excellent reputation. Bangkok is voted as number one of the best cities in the world. Most popular tourist destination and the international conference delegate attendance in ASEAN. The great holiday escape, to see the sunshine every day. Easy access. More than 100 international... excuse me! 100 international airlines, direct flights to and from 172 cities around the world. Immigration fast track is to be confirmed, and getting a visa. Visa friendly country, 40 countries require no visa. 20 countries can apply on arrival.

About my TOT. The TOT is the host of this next meeting. The venue is the Four Seasons Hotel, Bangkok. The Four Seasons Hotel is one of Bangkok's finest, located in Ratchaprasong district. There's lots of rooms including suites and the garden cabanas. What is Ratchaprasong. Ratchaprasong is a Bangkok shopping crossroads. Location in the heart of the city at the intersection of Radadamri, Pionchit and the Rama roads at the center point of Bangkok. And nearby, you can see from the map, a lot of shops, hotels, office and buildings. The program highlights of the next meeting is the training and conference day and the SIG meetings and the APNIC Member Meeting. More information at the websites. Sponsorship... the target, benefits from the target and the niche Internet market and a lot of content.

APNIC and Thailand TOT. We look forward to welcome you to Thailand and thank you very much for a long time for attention to this presentation. And we look forward you to welcome to Thailand. Thank you.


AKINORI MAEMURA: OK, next is the prize draw result.

SRINIVAS CHENDI: Yes. OK, we have three prize draws to draw in this meeting. One is for visiting our Member Services lounge just outside the door of this hall. And we do appreciate your time for visiting Member Services lounge and inquiry about APNIC services. So I would like to request the Member Services manager, George Kuo to come up. So we won't keep you too long here, so we'll just draw the name. It's Sue, client manager from Global Transit.


Since we have the business card, what we'll do is we'll send the gift to her.

OK, this is the NICT... I need to look at the English one. Yashituchi Katimura.


And the last one is, we actually did a survey of the program. It was closed this morning and we asked our Members and we asked the community to give us some feedback on how we're running our programs for the meeting so we can improve and offer more content that's suitable for them. That is interesting, so we can increase the number of attendees to the meeting. So, these are the names that I got from the online survey, so I would like to request Paul Wilson to pick a name. Someone has to be here, otherwise we know the details of the person.

PAUL WILSON: The winner is Eric Kachi.

SRINIVAS CHENDI: OK, we did collect the information when we did the online survey, so we will post the gift to that person. And if anyone would like to know, it is a two terabyte external hard drive. Thank you.

PAUL WILSON: I can't tell if we're disappointed at not having a winner in the room or relieved at not having to go through a drawing process. This really is very close to the end, so I'm here to acknowledge the help and support that we've had for the meeting from all of the APNIC 29 sponsors. So, as you know, as I've said numerous times in this from the stage before, these meetings would not happen without the generous support of sponsors and so it's really my pleasure and my duty to ask you to also put your hands together to thank the sponsors who have helped to make the meeting so successful. In particular, the Platinum sponsor was Telekom Malaysia and we did acknowledge the support earlier in the week, but I would like to say thanks again because the platinum sponsor is the one right up at the top who gives a very substantial contribution.

So thank you to TM.


The gold sponsor is a lady we all know who I think has just left this afternoon. PHCOLO who of the gold sponsor and we'll be sending the gift to PHCOLO. So let's say thanks anyway.


We had a great night a few nights ago for the APNIC social event. Probably even greater for the fact that we didn't actually have any speeches due to technical problems. But I would like to say thanks, again, to Google and Hurricane Electric because that was a really good night and the support from Google and Hurricane Electric was fantastic. Thank you very much.


I would like to call to the stage, representatives of these organizations, our friends at CNNIC, JPNIC, KRN... KRNIC of KISA and TWNIC, all of whom have sponsored today's session, the member meeting with a generous contribution. So if we have representatives. I would like to mention that CNNIC also has a special thanks, a belated thanks today for the last meeting. We had a bit of a problem with the gift, the trophies from last time. So I'm presenting to CNNIC who I hope are here. A gift of thanks for the last meeting. Terence? Wendy?


Do we have? We just have someone from JPNIC? Surely.




And KRNIC. Fantastic, please come up.




As you know, we had two sites where, from a long way away, we had participants in this meeting in Thailand and in Laos, so those remote locations were sponsored very kindly and helpfully by Internet Thailand. Thailand by the IPv6 Forum Thailand and the National University of Laos in Vientiane, so that's something we'd like to keep improving to get people from the remote locations to come into the meetings. And it is a very important contribution from the remote location sponsors, so let's thank them as well.

Thank you also to the SIG chairs, in particular Izumi and Randy Bush. To our faithful stenocaptioners, Emer and Dean from Red Bee. Thanks in particular to APNIC EC. To the RIR colleagues who have come from quite a long way away, and also many speakers who come from a very long way away. I would like to thank the APNIC staff in particular as well for a lot of long hours and late nights here in this week, not to mention the preparations, and not to mention also the APNIC staff who are back at home base keeping things running back there. So if you don't mind, if you could give everyone at APNIC's Secretariat a big round of applause, thank you very much. And as usual, and not least, everyone who came again from a long way away, from a few long days of long sessions.

Some very vigorous and heated, sometimes participation which was really great to see this time. So thank you for being here and thank you for supporting the meeting and your support for APNIC as well and we will see you again next time.

But... a special thanks here to the local host, PIKOM, and if Molly is in the audience, I've got something for Molly.


While I'm thanking Molly, I really should acknowledge that this meeting has been part of the APRICOT week and Molly has been a backbone of the APRICOT organization and the Secretariat which runs APRICOT, but also PIKOM and Molly's employer have leaned on her very much as well as I know her team. Thanks also to my co-board members of APIA for their support of APNIC 29, through APNIC. Philip is here. Thank you, Philip. And everyone else involved with APRICOT and APIA.

The next meeting, we've just heard it's in Bangkok, so we will see you in Bangkok in about six months time. In the meantime, information is going up on to the website and you can find it all there and we're well past the tea break so we will see you in Thailand. Thank you very much.


SRINIVAS CHENDI: Just one final announcement. We found, I guess it is a mobile charger. If anyone has lost it, it is with me here. We've got a US B charger along with it. Anyone here lost it?

AKINORI MAEMURA: Please don't forget anything, like me!


SRINIVAS CHENDI: OK, I think we'll hand over this one to PIKOM in case anyone is looking for it. They can contact PIKOM. Thank you.

AKINORI MAEMURA: OK. This is all of the APNIC meeting. Thank you very much.