Transcript - Global Reports


While every effort is made to capture a live speaker's words, it is possible at times that the transcript contains some errors or mistranslations. APNIC apologizes for any inconvenience, but accepts no liability for any event or action resulting from the transcripts.

Philip Smith: Good morning, everybody, we will make a start to the session. This is the global reports session so it's an opportunity for the international community, international organizations, to come and present an update on their activities over the last six months and what's being planned for the next few months.

We have had so many offers of presentations, there are nine speakers for this time slot. We are going to do the format, for a change, the same as we do lightning talks sessions. Each speaker has a grand total of 8 minutes and Bhadrika is sitting here at the front with stopwatch in hand. When I say "Start", the first speaker gets the opportunity to jump to the slides, go through their presentation, hopefully within their 8-minute time slot.

I see Paul is getting himself ready to make use of that.

I would like to ask all speakers to please stay within the 8-minute time slot that you have been allocated. As we said in all the preparation, this is an opportunity for you to present the highlights, and we hope this will be an interesting session.

First up we have Paul.

Paul Wilson: I think I don't need to rush too much because I don't think I will be speaking for 8 minutes.

Good morning, everyone. I'm starting with an update from the Number Resource Organization which would normally be presented by John Curran, the Chair, but he's not available, so I get the chance, being the Secretary.

I hope most of us know what the NRO is but it's an important part of our community. In brief summary, it's the vehicle we have for cooperation and coordination amongst all the RIRs. It's a lightweight body, not incorporated. It started in 2003 when ICANN was going through its reform and evolution process and it seemed necessary then to really create a single body, as we say, to protect the unallocated number resource pool, particularly in the event of anything happening with ICANN.

We are also here very much as a focal point and a contact point for Internet Community input into the global systems, so in terms of working with and representing ourselves into the ITU or intergovernmental organizations, we do that as well.

We also fulfill the role of the ICANN ASO, which you will be hearing more about.

The structure involves what we call the EC, which is really a group of the heads of all the RIRs, plus some observers from the RIR boards and staff, three office holders, rotating Secretary and Secretariat with a number of coordination groups, including key staff from all the RIRs. We have this thing called the Numbers Council, which acts as the ASO Address Council.

This year, John Curran is the Chair, I'm the Secretary, Adiel is the treasurer of the NRO EC, and the Secretariat is hosted very ably by APNIC staff.

The Numbers Council involves three individuals elected from each region, so there is a total of 15 people who serve on the Numbers Council, effectively on the Address Council, the ASO. I think you will hear more about the Address Council as well during the course of this session.

The NRO incurs some finances in contributions to ICANN. We make a voluntary contribution every year of $823,000, which these days is a relatively small contribution to the growing ICANN budget, but we have kept that level over the years.

What changes each year is a weighted formula for a share of the NRO expenses, which is taken by each of the RIRs. This formula is based in the budgets and IPv4 address allocations of each of the RIRs or IPv4 address holdings of each of the RIRs. APNIC recently has moved into the first place, in that we take the largest share, 37.5 per cent of the NRO financial responsibilities.

That includes not just the contribution to ICANN, but we also make a contribution to the Internet Governance Forum, which is a contribution of $75,000 a year, which has been doubled this year and from this year onwards as an expression of our ongoing support for the IGF.

There are a number of other financial commitments made by the NRO, where we have a shared representation in exhibitions or conferences where there are incurring of expenses and we share some of the expenses for the Address Council travel and meetings.

Under the NRO we conducted the review of the ASO.

We are responsible under the ICANN by-laws for the regular review of the functioning of the ASO, but that was completely contracted out, after an open process of selection, to a group called ITEMS, based in Latin America, and it was conducted last year. They reported back in March this year and the ITEMS report into the ASO is published on the ASO website, the ICANN ASO website.

There has been a public comment period. There's also been a joint response to the report and to the comments that's come from the NRO and ASO Address Council combined, so that response is also available on the NRO website. It addresses the comments and the recommendations on the ASO review report.

The next thing is that this body of material -- the report, the comments and the response -- are going on to the ICANN structural review committee for review by the ICANN board.

If you are interested in any of this stuff about how the ASO has functioned and how it's been independently evaluated, you can find that via the website.

Another significant event that has happened in a reasonably coordinated fashion amongst the NRO is that after the approval of a global policy for IANA to continue the allocations of IPv4 addresses, several of the RIRs who have had unallocated legacy address pools have decided to return that address space to the IANA for redistribution under this new policy.

At the end of the conventional IPv4 address pool, the IANA had no more addresses to allocate under its prior policy and it needed a new policy for reallocating any dribs and drabs of addresses that were returned to it. Because that policy was finally approved last year, the RIRs have been comfortable to return addresses to the IANA. That is a small way to redistribute unused legacy address space that has been pooled into different RIRs on a needs-based policy to those RIRs who need it.

I will stress there's not a lot of address space involved in that return. I think the total returns to the IANA have been less than a /8 in total. Actually, Leslie is shaking her head, because ARIN has returned maybe a /8, so maybe you can help me with those figures when you get up here, Leslie.

In other developments, in the final minute of this presentation, the public affairs coordination group has been formed to look after public affairs matters amongst all the RIRs, in particular that includes the ITU meetings, the WCIT, the World Conference on International Telecommunications and its related processes. We are also liaising and coordinating more with other Internet organizations in a formal sense, ISOC, IETF, IAB, ICANN and W3C. We are co-ordinating quite closely on technical matters, including RPKI and the WEIRDS developments in the Whois space.

The registration services managers are coordinating on legacy IPv4 address space.

Thank you very much for your attention. 3, 2, 1 -- I'll hand back to the Chair.

Philip Smith: Thank you very much, Paul. That was perfect timing.

Guangliang, you needed to have started your walk a minute ago. Your time is counting down now.

Just to remind the speakers, when the previous one is finishing, you need to start your walk to the stage.

Guangliang Pan: Good morning, everyone. My name is Guangliang Pan, Registration Services Manager at APNIC.

Today I am going to give the NRO Internet number resource status report.

First, let's look at IPv4 address space. We have 256 /8s in IPv4 address space. Out of that, 91 have been allocated before the RIRs and 130 are allocated to the RIRs by IANA, and others are reserved for Telecom purpose.

You can see, since February 2011, IANA delegated its last /8 and the IANA reserve has become zero. You can also see the number of /8s received by each RIR, and APNIC has 45 /8s from IANA. Actually, it is more than ny other region.

How many IPv4 address spaces are still available in each RIR pool? Let's look at the graph. When I first arrived here, I heard that some people believe APNIC has run out of IPv4 and no longer delegated IPv4 address space. In the last few days, I also received similar questions, and people asked me, is APNIC still allocating IPv4 address, can they request IPv4 address from APNIC? So I would like to use this opportunity to clear the air.

APNIC has not run out of its IPv4 address space. We just reached the final /8 in April 2011, and since then the final /8 policy kicked in, and each account holder can receive a maximum of a /22 IPv4 address from APNIC.

Since we hit the final /8, from the last 16 months we only delegated 8 per cent from our final /8. You can see, APNIC still has 92 per cent of the final /8 address.

If you don't have IPv4 delegated to your large customers or downstream ISP, you can actually refer them to become an APNIC member to receive IPv4 from APNIC.

Based on the size of the final /8, we can welcome over 10,000 new members with IPv4 address space, probably in the last 10 years, if the final /8 policy is still maintained.

Going back to the presentation, you can see what happens when the last RIR hit the final /8. As this data was generated on 30 June, I looked at the data yesterday, they only have 1.36 /8 at the moment and it will be interesting to see, they probably hit into the final /8 in the next few months.

This is the graph showing the IPv4 delegation by RIR, by year. You can see it reached the peak in 2010 and then slowed down, because APNIC reached its final /8 and probably we will keep slowing down when RIPE NCC reaches its final /8 later this year.

This is the total IPv4 delegation by each RIR since 1999. You can also see APNIC actually allocated more IPv4 addresses than any other region.

This is the AS number assignments. There is not much change. I think we still delegated 5,000 AS numbers per year, roughly, globally. This is the total AS numbers delegated by each RIR. RIPE NCC and ARIN delegated more numbers than other regions.

Look at the 4-byte assignment, since 2007 the RIRs start delegating 4-byte AS numbers and you can see this graph shows each RIR 4-byte number delegations by year.

Here is the total 4-byte AS number delegated by each RIR. You can see, RIPE NCC, LACNIC, and APNIC delegated more 4-byte AS numbers than ARIN and AFRINIC.

The current policy space, there's no difference between 4-byte and 2-byte AS numbers. It's just the practice, because RIPE NCC, LACNIC, and APNIC delegated 4-byte AS numbers by default and ARIN and AFRINIC delegated 2-byte numbers by default. It's not against the policy, it's just the practice.

Here you can see the 4-byte numbers in use. Thanks to Philip for providing the data. You can see 2,757 4-byte AS numbers in the routing table, and announcing over 7,000 prefixes. The 4-byte AS numbers are actually in use.

Finally, let's look at the IPv6. This is the overview of the global IPv6 address space.

This is the graph showing IPv6 delegation by each RIR. You can see the growth in the last three years.

This is the total number of IPv6 allocations by each RIR.

Here is the assignment. APNIC and other RIRs also make portable assignments to end users.

This is an interesting slide, which is how many per cent of members received IPv6 in each RIR. It will be interesting to see, RIPE NCC is a bit over 50 per cent but others are still under 50 per cent. There will be more than half of the members -- actually, they only have IPv4 but not IPv6 now, so they still have a lot of work to do.

Philip Smith: I think your time is up.

Guangliang Pan: Thank you.

Philip Smith: Tomohiro Fujisaki. Good morning.

Tomohiro Fujisaki: My name is Tomohiro Fujisaki. I am a member of the ASO AC from the APNIC region. Today I speak about the ASO AC update.

First, I will introduce the ASO. ASO is the ICANN Address Supporting Organization and ASO has a committee called ASO AC, and the AC function is performed by the NRO Number Council, as Paul mentioned. Our job is overseeing the global policy and select the ICANN board, there are 50 ICANN board seats and seats number 9 and 10 are selected by us and we select one ICANN NomCom board members and serve on various ICANN bodies, such as the development team, and also we advise the ICANN Board on number resource issues.

Our activities is mostly teleconference and face-to-face meetings.

We consist of 15 members, three from each region.

This year, Louis Lee from ARIN is our Chair and we have 15 members.

After the previous APNIC Meeting, APNIC 33, we had a total of eight meeting and 17 teleconferences, including a special one discussing the ICANN board selection and one face-to-face meeting in Vancouver after the IETF meeting.

At the meeting we discussed the following topics.

One big topic is global policy management. As I described, this is our main job and this global policy is discussed by the ICANN board. The status is now under implementation.

After my presentation, I will introduce the implementation status.

About the ICANN board selection, this is also our main job. We selected the ICANN board seat number 9, and the next ICANN board selection has already started, and the nomination period will close this fall. So if you are interested in the ICANN board, please visit this web page.

The next topic is ICANN participation of ASO AC. We have ASO AC workshop on IP addressing at each ICANN meeting and at this meeting at least one member from each region attended, to introduce the policy activities in their region. ICANN 43 in Costa Rica, I attended, and in ICANN 44 in Prague, Naresh attended and introduced the APNIC policy activities.

Also we have many meetings with ICANN organizations like ICANN board, GAC and other ICANN supporting organizations, discussing and exchanging much information.

Our activities of the ASO AC, including the meeting minutes, can be referred to at this URL. If you are interested, please visit this web page. Thank you.

Philip Smith: Thank you. We have four minutes for questions, if anybody has any questions. If there are no questions, we will move on.


Philip Smith: Next up we have Elise.

Elise Gerich: As they say in Mastermind, your time starts now! Hello, everybody. I was hoping Philip will give me the extra four minutes, but I probably don't need them.

I'm Elise Gerich and I'm from ICANN and I do the IANA department. I am just going to talk about one topic, which has been mentioned several times already, the global policy for post IPv4 exhaustion. We are in the implementation phase right now.

I am going to talk about the ratification, which I have just talked about -- it's done, the ICANN board ratified it -- then follow up with the kind of implementation things we are considering.

Basically, this is the global policy. I'm not going to read it. I'm sure you are all well aware of it.

Basically what you have agreed to do or you have asked IANA and ICANN to do is to receive blocks of bits and pieces of IPv4. I want to thank APNIC and ARIN and RIPE, who have already said they are going to contribute IPv4 that they have recovered, to fulfill this policy.

Just to put it in scope, the total amount of the bits and bytes that we have gotten -- and other people can correct me if I have added incorrectly -- is about 19.8 million addresses. If you know what the population of the world is, and how much demand there is for IPv4,v19.8 million individual addresses doesn't go very far.

But thank you very much for the contributions and when the trigger is hit, we will be distributing them equally and 1/5 of that pool, whatever the pool size is at the time. If it's less than a /24 for each RIR, it will be held in the pool until there's more than a /24, if that time should happen.

What is it we have to do to implement this? Basically, there are two things we are looking at. We are looking at what the format in the registry should be and also what the address selection mechanism should be for handing out the slashes of whatever to each RIR.

There have been several different options proposed, and we have been discussing this with the NRO and the technical folks from each of the RIRs, as well as the IESG. That's because some people said, why IESG, what do they care? The IESG thinks they own the IPv4 address registry so they are curious at what we might do for creating a new registry for IPv4 or for consolidating the return space into the existing IPv4 registry.

We feel that the IESG as well as the RIRs are all equal stakeholders in how this is formulated, and that's one of the conversations that is happening right now with all of us.

The other part is a selection mechanism. When we receive these slashes, and they are not like one contiguous block of addresses, they are bits and pieces of blocks of addresses, how should those be allocated to each of the RIRs? There are different opinions about that.

One is that you could create some sort of formula and everybody could run it on a daily basis about the pool and the registry, whenever the registry is up there, than say, ah, now I know what APNIC would get or what RIPE would get.

Or we could do it manually, so once we know what the totality of the pool is, we could sit down together and somebody could say, I have a huge chunk of this address block, can I have those bits and pieces that will fill in the gaps in my address block? There are different ways to approach this and we are trying to figure out the way the community would like to do this.

How are we going to figure out what everybody wants to do? Right now, we are in discussions with the RIRs and the IESG and we are hoping to have a public comment with the proposals or a proposal put out for public comment before the end of September. At that point there will be a 21-day public comment period and everyone will get to weigh in on what they think is the right way to select these, then we will go forward and have a recovery pool that the IANA will host, and we do again thank you guys for starting to fill the pool.

Thank you very much.

Philip Smith: We have three minutes for questions.

No questions for Elise.


Philip Smith: Next up we have Maemura Akinori, who will be talking about ICANN GNSO ISPCP.

Maemura Akinori: I think many of you recognize me as a member of the Executive Council. For sure, I am also involved in the ICANN activities which are now being introduced to you.

I am now inviting you to the ICANN GNSO ISPCP. For you, ICANN is for domain name issues, but as it is reported, ICANN is doing the policy development for any ICANN resources.

So ICANN is the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, and coordinates the global Internet's unique identifiers and the stable operation of the system of them at the global level, which is extracted from their bios.

The ICANN meeting are held three times a year and held all around the world.

This slide shows ICANN's organizational structure.

ICANN has a board of directors which is determining all the decisions of the ICANN, all the final decisions of ICANN, and the board of directors consists of multi-stakeholder membership from the ASO, GNSO, CCNSO and the other NomCom appointees and liaison from other committees.

It is the ICANN multi-stakeholder model, but for the ASO the numbers issue is handled by the Regional Internet Registries, and the ccTLDs are handled by the ccTLD managers, so ICANN's main focus is on the gTLD.

GNSO is the main body concerned with gTLD issues.

GNSO stands for Generic Names Supporting Organization and it is responsible for developing the substantive policies relating to gTLDs and GNSO makes recommendations to the ICANN Board.

GNSO takes the multi-stakeholder approach. It is a bit different from the RIRs one. We see in the next side it is a bit complicated. GNSO consists of 22members and the councillors are from the contracted parties and from non-contracted parties. Contracted parties consist of the registries and the registrars who have the direct contract with ICANN.

The non-contracted parties are other than that, for example, business constituency and the intellectual property constituency. The business constituency is the group of domain name users for their business; the intellectual property constituency is the group concerned with intellectual property rights.

We at ISPCP are constituted within the commercial stakeholder group of the non-contracted parties. It is a bit complicated, but this is the way that GNSO takes the multi-stakeholder approach, with taking a balance between the various stakes.

What is ISPCP? It stands for Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers constituency within GNSO and within the commercial stakeholder group. The membership criteria is ISPs, carriers and associations of those. JPNIC is regarded as an association of the ISPs, and we have such associations within ISPCP and also the ISPs and the carriers are eligible to join the ISPCP.

This is really important, ISPs and carriers -- it's you. So many of the people who gather at RIR meetings, of course in the APNIC Meeting, many of you are eligible to participate in ISPCP. So that is why I make an invitation to you.

I am pretty sure that many of you are not very interested in gTLD policies, because it is quite different from numbers, anyway, and it seems complicated, it seems really, really kind of political -- I guess so.

Right now, the new gTLDs are influencing your business, because we have now the new gTLD programs, which are increasing the number of gTLDs from a couple of tens to 1,200 and more. From now on, in one or two years time frame, we will have the additional 1,200 new gTLDs, which are injected into the root DNS zone.

I think it has a big influence on your business, and you might start to be concerned about new gTLD policies.

From ICANN's point of view, from its multi-stakeholder approach, ICANN still needs more voices from the stakeholder ISPs. Again, that is why I am now inviting you to this constituency.

I think you have a lot of questions. If so, please catch up with me here during this week, and of course you can email to the ISPCP Secretariat.

I would like to inform you that the ICANN meeting will come to Asia in April next year, to Beijing, so you will have the chance to have a look at an ICANN meeting.

I have another 10 seconds. Thank you very much.


Philip Smith: Thank you very much. Next up we have Thip Chomprang from the Internet Society, who will be talking about the Internet Society.

Duangthip Chomprang: Good morning, everyone. All these wonderful reports, and who does it serve? Well, it serves people who use the Internet, and I'm here to report on Internet Society membership and what's happening globally and regionally.

My PowerPoints are also available on the APNIC website. This is just an outline of what I will be presenting.

This is a summary of our membership. Asia Pacific has 17 chapters; Africa, which includes the Middle East, has 30; Europe has 26 chapters; Latin America 11, North America 7; in total 91.

What is interesting is the number of members you have, which is in brackets. The number without the brackets, for instance in Asia Pacific 10,699, is the standing as of July of this year, and 8,575 is the previous year at the same time. So that will give you an idea of a comparison of the growth.

If you look at the numbers, you will see that Europe has 14,399 members and Asia Pacific has 10,699. I am just checking whether there's a switch in the numbers.

In total, we have 64,000 members, and they represent members who are global members as well as local chapter members.

Two important points I would like to mention relate to the Asia Pacific Bureau and the African Bureau.

Although we have had a presence in Asia Pacific for more than five years, we now have an office in Singapore, which was officially launched on 14 May.

Asia Pacific is the largest growth in membership, and hence on 7 July, we also launched the e-newsletter, which is regional. Every two months we issue this newsletter to inform our stakeholders, members and non-members what we do and how we engage, what are the types of dialogues about the Internet and the interests in this region.

A very important event is also ISOC was chosen by the African Union on 23 August. This is a full credit to our African Bureau, headed by Mr David.

We have been appointed to establish basically capacity building for 30 African countries, by building 60 communities of basically technical people who will be able to run the IXPs in the African continent.

If you are not aware of the African continent, all Internet traffic is routed outside of Africa, then brought back. This will provide 900 million people on the African continent direct access to Internet and also will promote greater use of the Internet on that continent. I would like to congratulate the African continent and also Africa Bureau.

Our key chapter activities, if I were to summarize, so far in the last eight months, have been focused on IPv6. We had a global launch on 6 June and 32 chapters organized different types of events relating to IPv6.

Some of them are still rolling out those programs until year end. There are eight YouTube videos that you can also find on our website and 11 chapters have requested assistance to host their own local chapters to promote IPv6.

Another important activity is also engaging on issues relating to WCIT, we now have a page on the ISOC website that provides information on WCIT and we also had a webinar, where our public policy people provided information to all the different chapters. You can also go into our website for more information.

Last but not least is Internet Society marks 20 years, and we had a global INET in April, and again these events are also being rolled out within the region and also outside the region, and we provide funding to them, USD 1,000.

Here, I am going to give you an update of the different activities happening. In Asia Pacific we have four new interests to create chapters and we have five chapters, Thailand, Cambodia, Japan, Philippines and Korea, which are up for new election, some have completed elections, so there is new leadership.

In Europe we have four new interests, in Estonia, Azerbaijan, Russia and Ukraine, and three chapters, which are doing rejuvenation.

Africa and Middle East, in the Middle East we have three countries, Lesotho, Burkina Faso and Yemen, which are interested to establish their own chapters, and in Africa and the Middle East, Kenya, Egypt, Libya, Malawi, Iraq, Zambia, Chad, and Liberia, for rejuvenation and application.

In Latin America we have Jamaica, and in North America we have Canada and Toronto.

Approximately 20 new requests for chapters to be established in different regions. With that, we also provide chapter support. The first one is we are piloting for chapters that need assistance, do not have a website of their own, we can provide assistance. So these are the links you can go to.

We also now provide webex licence support, which means if you need to do a chapter meeting within your country or within the region, we do that for you free.

On our website we have IPv6 toolkits and WCIT web page, which can help you disseminate information about these tools and about WCIT.

We are also hiring staff. The Latin America chapter is hiring a development manager. That is already in process. We have an opening for Director of global chapter, and we have also announced for a manager for the Asia Pacific chapter development, but this will be on a six-month contract. If anyone is interested, please do send us your application.

Basically, there is a continuation to support IPv6 launch, and a great deal more outreach in terms of education to all the chapters; continued celebration of the Internet Society anniversary.

Just to let you see, these are activities, regional activities in Asia Pacific which ISOC is sponsoring or conducting. This is outside Asia Pacific, all ISOC, and we have the non-ISOC, these are key events that we are very involved in.

That is more than 200 to 300 events in a year that we are involved in. I would like to pass on the message that if you have a chapter, this is where we can engage with you and provide different support. Thank you very much.


Philip Smith: Thank you very much, Thip.

Given we are about 6 minutes ahead of the schedule, the remaining speakers have the good fortune of getting 9 minutes rather than 8 minutes. I gave Thip an extra minute there.

Next up is George from AfriNIC.

George Nyabuga: Good morning, and greetings from Africa and the Indian Ocean office.

Thank you very much for giving me an extra minute.

Hopefully, I will blitz through the presentation.

The way I have organized it is to give you a broad overview of what we are doing, and some of that includes statistics, the IP resource allocation statistics as well, and talk a little bit about the kind of rebranding we have been doing and AfriNIC's initiatives and then the events.

Just to bring you up to speed, recently we increased the number of staff we have. Currently we have 32 members of staff, and I'm one of the few new recruits, so this is my first meeting outside the AFRINIC region.

I am really delighted to be here, to share experiences and to meet people from the other Regional Internet Registries.

We have also hired a Chief Operations Officer recently, who joined AFRINIC from ICANN, so we have a huge pool of resources and expertise on board. This is obviously in part growing the human capital that we need to ensure we move along with the other Internet registries and in trying to obviously develop the kind of Internet capacity that we have in Africa, and obviously the region.

We also have 1,251 members. These are the members we allocate the IP resources to. According to the latest statistics I was given, it seems like we are distributing the IPv4 addresses, about 3 million of them, recently.

By June 2012 we had also allocated 861 IPv6 addresses and 304 in 2012 alone.

As we shall see in the next slide, it seems like the countries that we allocate the resources to are the ones that already possess Internet -- connectivity is high, rather. South Africa and Kenya alone take up about 106 of those allocations, which means that the rest of Africa is actually less than that, and this is a huge disparity that has to be flagged.

I think we have to move along and ensure that every African in their different communities are connected as well, and that they benefit from some of these global resources, and I think if we want to promote the idea that Internet is for everyone, then a lot more has to be done to ensure that they are connected, brought on board and share the resources that are available on the international super-highway, if you may.

We also re-branded this year in May, prior to our first public policy meeting. We have a new logo. We have moved on from the old logo of AFRINIC. I would request that anybody who has the old logo, please change to the new logo now. We are happy to share the new logo with you.

The new logo represents the move from old writing, using feathers, to IPv6-ready situation. The dots represent the movement towards IPv6, and IPv6 adoption.

As we know, obviously we are slowly exhausting our IPv4 resource, although we still have a bit. I'm not sure what the policy is, but don't ask me for IPv4 resources.

Some of you have exhausted yours. I think that will be discussed at other levels.

We also have a new website. The address is the same,, but there is new material on there, and we have tried to make sure that this is a repository for all the information that you may need, not only from our region but also from the other parts of the world as well.

In terms of training, as we move towards IPv6, we have tried to ensure that our members do not only possess the information and skills to be able to apply them, but to ensure that we play a critical role in ensuring that adoption. As such, we have conducted many trainings, 11 in 2012, and over 40 countries in Africa have benefited, 10 of them in 2012.

A majority of the training is focused on IPv6, for various actors within the Internet Community, mainly network engineers, system administrators and managers.

We also want to ensure that people -- for example, from the government sector or public sector -- are also involved in some of the trainings, because of the critical role they play in the IPv6 adoption and the policies that they pass to ensure that there is effective adoption of some of these technologies.

We have recently got the IPv6 Forum Gold Certification, which means that we have moved a notch higher, because now we can go out there and say, we are not just offering this training but it is gold certified. It means that it is more trusted and it is because we play that critical role in offering the kind of support and training that is relevant to the different situations, that we are in right now.

On top of that, we have developed a new training portal, that is On this site you can find all the information about the different training we offer, the course materials, and what you expect or what the participants would expect to get from the kind of training that we have.

On top of this, we also conduct a monthly webinar, so that people who cannot be physically present in any situation or environment where the training is conducted can benefit from that remote training. I suppose this is meant to widen participation and involvement in the kind of training that we offer.

We have had different initiatives this year. From next year, rather than have the public policy meeting we will have the African Internet Summit. This will broaden the kind of participation that we have from different actors within the African community but also the Internet Community around the world.

We reckon that other than just the public policy discussions we have, we should move that to include business people, for example, and the policy makers, so that we can have a broad discussion of the issues that pertain to the Internet development in Africa and around the world.

We also have set up the AFRINIC fund for Internet research and education, the FIRE program, which is part of the Seed Alliance. We do this with APNIC and LACNIC.

What we do is we give up to $10,000 to support projects and programs by different people from around Africa, and this is meant to enhance the skills and expertise of the African community.

We also support fellows to come to our public policy meetings. I will blitz through the rest, because I have 7 second right now.

I am sure all of you know that we had the AFRINIC 16 meeting, and in our meeting we conducted training, we had workshops. But one thing I want to mention is the African Government Working Group Initiative, which is meant to bring government actors to the meeting to ensure Internet governance issues are discussed. This is especially because we appreciate the critical role the governments play in promoting Internet adoption in Africa, and we want to play a critical role in bringing them together and ensuring the issues that pertain to Internet development in Africa are given the government support.

We have also supported regional IGFs. I want to take the opportunity, lastly, to invite you to the next public policy meeting, which will be held in Khartoum between 24 and 30 November this year. You are all welcome and I hope to see you there. Thank you very much.

Philip Smith: Next up is Leslie Nobile, who will give the ARIN report.

Leslie Nobile: Good morning, everyone. I have a very quick update.

Our 2012 focus, like all the RIRs, we are focusing on IPv4 depletion and IPv6 uptake, which is a prevailing theme, working on processes, procedures, et cetera.

One of the big things has been our IPv4 depletion plan, we are going to do it in phases and we have posted that on our home page, if anyone is interested in seeing what is going on, continuing IPv6 route outreach.

We are focusing on IPv4 transfers, which is becoming quite a hot topic. There are quite a few different transfer policies in the region so we are doing a lot of work in that area.

We are working on the ARIN Online System, our web-based portal, it has taken a number of years to integrate all the old systems into the new systems. We are still working on it. We have some bits to finish up.

We are working on RPKI deployment and making great progress on that and we are continuing our participation in the Internet governance forums, like all the RIRs.

Our current IPv4 inventory stands at 3.04 /8s -- I checked it this morning -- and that is in our "available" pool, space that we are issuing from currently.

We also have space that we have quarantined, 5.09 /16 equivalents in this "hold" bucket, the space we hold on to, to clear filters, for six months, it's space we get back, that gets returned or revoked or reclaimed.

We also have a single /10 reserved for a policy called dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6 deployment.

This slide already came up in somebody's slide, the number of the members at ARIN that have both IPv4 and IPv6. Out of our 4,100 or 4,200 ISP subscriber members.

58 per cent are IPv4 only, 6 per cent are IPv6 only and 36 per cent have both IPv4 and IPv4. That number has not changed a great deal. It is very slow at the moment, so we are hoping to see some uptake in IPv6. It has slowed down a bit.

Total organizations we serve. We have about 35,000 organizations registered in the ARIN database and we categorize them to see who is a member and who is not.

Out of that 35,000, 43 per cent of them are non-member customers, those are our end-user customers. Only 12 per cent are ISP subscriber members, and 45 per cent of all organizations in the ARIN database are legacy organizations, which are people we inherited from the Internet, we inherited the databases from the Internet, the Dodnic, and we have maintained these records for all these years.

Transfers. I wanted to throw in a slide about transfers. It is a boring side because it doesn't tell you much. We have merger and acquisition transfers in the ARIN region at 8.2, we have transfers to specified recipients in the ARIN region, which is where an entity can sell their unused address space, IPv4 address space, to an organization in need, which can demonstrate that need under a current ARIN policy. These numbers have remained steady over the years, 2011 and 2012. M&As transfers were usually between 15 and 30, and between zero and 7 specified recipient transfers but we expect to see that number to grow as we move closer to depletion.

We have a third transfer policy, intra-RIR transfers, and we have not seen any requests for intra-RIR transfers yet. It has been implemented for about one month.

We have a transfer listing service, I believe APNIC has one as well, a voluntary service which was established to facilitate the transfer of IPv4 address space by using that 8.3 specified transfer policy.

There are three types of Listers, three types of people being listed, what we call a Lister, an entity that has v4 available to transfer, we have Seekers -- not Harry Potter seekers, but seekers in need of address space that can show a demonstrated need for v4 under a current ARIN policy and they can pre-qualify that way. We have facilitators, which are IPv4 brokers which facilitate the transfer between agreeing parties.

If anyone is interested in seeing more about that, there is a link.

Recently implemented policies are all transfer policies. Two inter-RIR transfer policy and one ARIN transfer policy, ASNs can now be transferred to specified recipients under that 8.3 transfer policy.

I have put up some links if anyone is interested in checking them out.

Policy proposals. There are six policies that will be discussed at the upcoming ARIN meeting next month in October. There is a link to see more about these policies.

Our public facing development efforts. I mentioned RPKI. We are finally deploying RPKI hosted, it will be completed on 17 September and deployed.

APPLAUSE I agree. Delegators will be started after hosting is deployed and we will be de-commissioning the pilot service after hosted is up.

Our billing integration, we are moving the billing system to the ARIN Online System, which is being worked on now.

We have lots of outreach events, a few coming up for the end of the year. We have two meetings, one in Dallas in October and one in the Caribbean in the spring. Anyone is welcome to attend. That's all I have. Questions? APPLAUSE

Philip Smith: It is amazing what happens, when you give people one extra minute, they go even faster.

Next up is Raul, who will give us the LACNIC report.

Raul Echeberria: I will use the 3 minutes that Leslie left.

Good morning, everybody. As usual, it is a pleasure to be here with you.

I will present the LACNIC update. This is the membership evolution -- nothing special to say, just that actually at this moment we have more than 2,500 members.

This is the status of the IPv4 LACNIC stock, we have at the moment 54 million IPv4 addresses, and this is the graph that shows the evolution of the LACNIC stock, that nothing has changed, it is just going down.

This graph shows the number of IPv4 and IPv6 allocations that we are doing every month. As you can see, the number of IPv6 allocations compared with IPv4 allocations is important, and IPv6 allocations are becoming as important an activity as IPv4 in the registration service department.

This is the number of IPv4 addresses allocated in the past 18 months. There is nothing strange, nothing is happening anything weird at this moment, we keep more or less the same pattern that we have had in the last few months.

Currently, 47 per cent of our members have received IPv6 addresses from LACNIC. From that, 25 per cent of those have been announced on the Internet. In the last year we made more than 500 IPv6 allocations and in the first eight months of 2012 -- we didn't finish August yet, but we have done almost 400 IPv6 allocations.

I think that we will be finishing this year with probably 25 per cent more IPv6 allocations than last year.

Regarding our activities on resource certification, the graph on the left shows the number of signed prefixes. On the right we can see the percentage of IPv4 space covered by ROAs at this moment. While it is between 5 and 6 per cent, it is important to remark that we are not signing prefixes now and in the space that has been allocated by the national registries. We expect to start doing that in the next probably four to six months.

If we only take the IPv4 space that has been allocated directly by LACNIC, not through the national registries, the percentage of IPv4 space that is covered by ROAs currently has increased to 12-point-something per cent, much more than is showing in the graph.

Speaking about other kinds of activities at LACNIC, we have the program that I have presented many times in APNIC meetings, which is the FRIDA program, which is similar to the ISIF Asia. FRIDA operates as part of the Seed Alliance, but since 2012 it has become part of the alliance that has been formed by LACNIC with AfriNIC and APNIC.

We have made two calls this year, one is for giving an award to projects that are making remarkable contributions to the betterment of the information society in the region and also a call for grants.

The first call, the FRIDA awards, the results were announced a few days ago, on 17 August, and the results are published on our website, at and the grants will be announced next month.

We have already had a meeting this year in Ecuador, in the middle of the world, as they say. It was a very good meeting. We had policy forums and meetings also of other organizations that usually meet back to back with LACNIC, like LAC TLD and LACIX, which is the Association of Internet Exchange Points in the region.

We had many technical forums, security interconnection forums and IPv6. We had almost 500 participants, it was a very well populated meeting and a very successful meeting.

There was not very intense discussion on policies, two policies reached consensus at the meeting.

We also had a meeting in the Caribbean, as we do every year, since four years ago. This time it was held in Haiti, in Port-au-Prince. It was a very good meeting. Haiti is the poorest country in the region with the lowest Internet penetration, less than 10 per cent, and it was very good to have a meeting there to contribute to the local community. I think it was much appreciated by the local community.

As a result of that meeting, many things happened and among other things we installed a root server that started operating in Haiti right after our meeting there.

The next meeting will be held at the end of October in Montevideo, Uruguay. We hope to have a good representation of APNIC and are very excited with the idea of having colleagues from other RIRs, but especially from APNIC, since I am speaking here.

It will coincide with the 10th anniversary of LACNIC and will be held back to back with the LACNOG 2012, the network operator forums of Latin America. There will be a lot of outstanding speakers and policy forums. We have already nine proposals to be discussed there.

There will be many recognitions to people who have contributed to the creation and the life of LACNIC during those 10 years, and also we will announce the outstanding achievement awards, an award that we allocate every year, but this year, being a special year for us, celebrating the 10th anniversary, we will give 10 awards, we will award 10 people who have played an important role in the Internet development in the region. Of course, we expect to have a gala dinner according to the situation, for the celebration of the 10th anniversary.

We have new offices in Montevideo. It is really more than a state-of-the-art building. It's much bigger than the previous one. In fact, it is the same as the previous one, but now it is bigger.

Now we have created in that building an Internet hub for Latin America and the Caribbean, the same building is shared by seven organizations, so we name the building as the House of the Internet for Latin America and the Caribbean, and it is the house of those organizations that are listed on the slide.

So, thank you very much, ar kun! Just in time.

Philip Smith: Many thanks. Axel Pawlik.

Axel Pawlik: Thank you to my predecessors. I have 15 minutes now, right? My name is Axel Pawlik. I'm the Managing Director of the RIPE NCC sitting in Amsterdam. Those of you who have seen my last talk might remember that I showed a slide about the weather. It was really cold in winter and all the canals froze over. I'm happy to say that this time we had a real summer, some days it felt like out here, and some of our bikes melted. Sorry about that.

Yes, we have IPv4 addresses still, a couple of them.

Our registrations and sales people are still calm and prepared, which is good. We are, however, approaching the next phase in our run-out process, phase 1. This is the link with all the details.

We did a practice run a couple of weeks ago to see how it would go, if we follow the four eyes principle, and people have to align their lunch breaks and things like that. That does work. We will have two people in front of one terminal in that phase, callbacks to our members are made only in strict order of the ticket coming back to the top and then we do something. Daily graph updates and how much we have left and stuff like that.

Up to now, we have no run detected on resources, which is nice, we will see how it goes over the next couple of days.

Of course, registration services will continue to work for the benefit of our members. We are currently doing about 500 audits a year. We had not quite 8,500 members, not quite, but more than 8,000. We want to audit our members every two to three years, so we have to step up the audit activity quite dramatically.

Also we have started to use the telephone. We have learned there is a telephone that we can use to pick up to talk to our members, because we were very reluctant to do this in the past. We are doing this in special ases where requests are still unresolved after three emails back and forth, so we cut it short and help people. Also, first allocations, we call, just to get people used to how it works.

In customer services we tried a window a day, a couple of hours, on live chat, that was popular and we hope to deploy it on registration services in the future.

Obviously we are doing quite a bit of work on the back-end systems. There are plans to rebuild the database software. We have still quite a lot of legacy systems in house that we are kicking out carefully and replacing them with new stuff. Quite a bit of that work is not quite visible. We also take care to balance this a bit and build membership where it is obvious we are working for the members and they get something out of us -- every year.

RESTful interface of the database. We have been asked to put back what we didn't support any more, as used tool, where members can look at their private holdings and get information about their numbers. We have made that into an API and also a program for a small command line tool for that, and we are working on that together with the community.

RPKI, we are doing, it is quite popular, it's being picked up much more than we thought originally. So we are developing it with the very clear focus on maintaining operator independence there.

RIPE Stat is a tool and we will hear much more about that tomorrow by Emile. Basically to have a look at history and current stuff of various address blocks, just to get all the information out there in a nice interface.

We do measurements for a very long time. We do them new style for a couple of years now, I think. We call it RIPE Atlas, there are small probes. Very simple to deploy, basically we send them out and you plug them in.

There is one somewhere in Phnom Penh which I have seen.

We have not quite 2,000 out yet, and we are sending out more. We have lots of requests.

Obviously there is a focus on the RIPE NCC service region, so basically centered on Europe, but we are happy to expand a little bit as well.

We have now a pilot running for a couple of months on user defined measurements. The idea is that not only the RIPE NCC measures stuff, but also our members can do that on the products they are hosting.

We did test traffic measurements, we still do them, TTM boxes. We want to phase out the service. We have had some feedback that we should not rush it, so we pushed out the fade-out. But the idea is to merge it into RIPE Atlas functionality.

Other ideas about multipurpose RIPE boxes that carry an Atlas Anchor, DB Mirror, database mirror, and maybe also a K root server. Something like that we are looking at.

Communications, our comms group has an immense workload. I am famous for coming up with new meetings if we are doing all the other meetings nicely. I'm speaking of RIPE meetings obviously, of regional meetings, that have been the focus for a new network operators group in the Russian region and one in the Middle East, MENOG, announced the eleventh one coming up in Jordan and another one in Moscow, the fourth ENOG meeting in October, that is quite a success. We are doing more meetings, we are preparing for WCIT and WTSA and all those things that never go away.

We do IPv6 roadshows currently in the Middle East but we want to bring them to other regions as well, especially Russia.

External relations. You know I deployed Paul Rendek to Dubai. He has been busily jetting around the area there. Occasionally he comes back to the office, which is nice. We have a role in the first Arab IGF. Paul is on their MAG and the advisory group their and has been quite active in setting up the program together with the locals there.

That was a success, bringing him to Dubai. We want to do something with Moscow as well. We are looking for staff there. The idea is to have somebody based in Moscow, speaking the local language and we want to prepare the roadshows in the Russian language.

All those big meetings I mentioned, we are busy, busy, busy, together with our friends, the other RIRs and industry partners, preparing for those. A couple of weeks ago, Chris Buckridge, Dmitry Burkhov and I were in St Petersburg supporting APNIC in the APEC TEL meeting.

It was an interesting experience.

On corporate governance, we have slightly over 8,000 members, still growing and we think we will grow even more based on the APNIC experiences.

We want to develop services beyond the registry, and that is completely in line with long-term company strategy. We are running the numbers registry but initially the RIPE agency was set up to do something different from that. We are doing many more things and want to bring this more to the fore.

Part of that is quite visible in the draft activity plan. We have merged the budget and activity plan documents that we had separately, we were requested to do so, and to show some more information on the per activity cost, which we have done. We plan for a moderate increase in budget next year, about 3 per cent.

We have a draft charging scheme. We have three draft charging schemes really. Last year we had difficulty in setting up something that goes beyond IPv4 and the numbers, being put into a charging scheme. We are putting out three options and basically members are to decide, based on a task force that the community set up earlier this year.

There is a RIPE meeting coming up in Amsterdam.

Please come and have fun.

Since I have 15 minutes, I have some other things.

Latest resource holders, we are preparing a policy for that.

There is nothing after me, just a coffee break.

Philip Smith: No.

Axel Pawlik: I'll cut it short. Legacy resource holders, we want to bring them into the system. There is a pre-policy being discussed and we hope to get that done and nicely dusted for the next meeting. Also we are pursuing the Kingdom of the Netherlands. You might remember, earlier this year, end of last year, the police came and ordered us to block a couple of address blocks. We did that, then we said, that is not really a court order, no judge has seen it, this is not good enough and we unblocked those blocks and took them to court, for clarity on legal tools, what is needed in the Dutch system to make us do things to the registry.

Of course, we want to defend our members' registry there. That is basically it. If you have any questions, I'm still here. Thank you.

Philip Smith: Thank you very much, Axel.

Andy Linton: Will the extra minutes be returned to IANA for use at future RIR meetings?

Elise Gerich: We have a recovery pool we would be happy to put the minutes in.

I was asked by my neighbour Thip if I would do a transfer policy for the APNIC policy.

Philip Smith: We are transferring extra minutes to the Internet Society. Do we have a transfer policy? Never mind, let's not go there.

The question?

Toshio Takahara: I am Toshio Takahara, I am the Chair of the Information Technology Development Forum in Japan.

Thank you very much for the global reports. Thank you to understand easier by stenograph. But I want to understand the voice from the audible speaker.

I request people to speak a little slower, for all the speakers who are coming from the native English speaking country or who have a high skill of English speaking knowledge.

I understand for the timekeeping, it is important, I understand it. But much faster than the previous Conference. This is a small idea. Thank you very much.

Philip Smith: That is a very good point. Thank you very much for making that observation. I should have indicated to the speakers at the start that they should be talking a little bit slower. We will be mindful of this for the lightning talks tomorrow. Lightning talks speakers, you may have 10 minutes but you will have to speak slowly and clearly.

Thank you for making that point, it's a very good observation. That goes to all speakers and all sessions.

Martin Levy (Hurricane Electric): Can I ask -- where did Axel go? This is a question for each and every RIR. We are about a year and a bit past exhaustion at the IANA level, we have also hit exhaustion at APNIC already, and pending in the others. Could each one talk about their -- I didn't see the stat there -- their membership sign-up before and after the run-out, as in, have things changed? Are we seeing fewer members sign up, which is a one-time fee for some RIRs and for others it's a continuous fee. Can each one talk about this and project in the future where, quite frankly, their finances will look as we go forward into a pure v6 with a very different allocation system than the v4 that we have known and maybe loved.

A question for each RIR.

Philip Smith: We have four minutes to answer that question. Any RIRs who would like to jump to the microphone and answer?

Axel Pawlik: Obviously finances are a concern. We have tried last year to get away from our algorithm that takes the allocation rate in the past and makes that into a size for a member. That fell on its face, it wasn't too popular.

We are trying this again. We have now one extreme option, that everybody pays the same. It is very simple to implement, it's a great thing, it has nothing to do with IP addresses really. We do other services. We will see how it goes, we have no idea.

In terms of member growth, we don't see a big change. It is very nicely in line with previous years.

That's a surprise, but good.

Raul Echeberria: What we have seen is very similar to what is happening in APNIC; we are receiving more requests from small ISPs and end users. In our region, end users are considered as members of LACNIC.

The membership is growing at this point. So we do our risk analysis all the time, five years in advance, and we don't see any risk in the next five years. We are now trying to model the situation in the longer term, so as soon as we have some information to share, I will be happy to do it.

Leslie Nobile: We have not seen much of a change in our membership stats. We have seen a bit of a slowdown in our IPv4 allocation, and that IPv4 -- ISPs become members when they get allocations from ARIN. We have not seen a huge increase or a decrease, it's steady but a little bit slower.

As far as the financial situation, our board is constantly examining that. Our fee schedule will be discussed at our upcoming meeting. We don't make predictions, the board is working on that at this point.

The one thing I have to correct is I mentioned transfers and referred to selling addresses to users in need. Basically it is selling the rights of use, as all RIRs take the position that IP addresses are not assets, so they are not property. I just wanted to make that correction.

George Nyabuga: I think from AfriNIC's perspective, while our membership is not growing as fast as we would obviously want it to grow, I think we are putting efforts in place to ensure that we grow the membership.

I think soon we will maybe expand the membership to not only ISPs, governments, but other institutions that we think should be brought on board. We are targeting, for example, financial institutions, we are targeting academic institutions. So from the traditional membership, we are expanding that to other sectors of the various economies.

As you know, obviously with different African countries they have their challenges, and that membership may be a bit slower, but I think ultimately we will get there.

Paul Wilson: For me, Martin, being on this panel in an NRO capacity, I'm really not qualified to speak for APNIC right at this time. I would have to encourage you to come along on Friday to the member meeting, where there will be a lot of very interesting detail about our membership growth and finances and so on. Thanks.

Philip Smith: I think, with that, it times it nicely to 10.30. I would like to thank all the panelists very much for keeping to the time. Apologies to some of the audience if the talking was too fast. We will bear that in mind in future, as we always try to do at each meeting.

Thank you all very much. Please enjoy your coffee break/tea break and return to the session at 11.00 for a prompt start.

Don't forget to visit the members' services lounge outside, if you would like to do that. The folks there will be happy to meet you. Coffee time, and we will see you in 30 minutes. Thanks.