1 Https://2015.apricot.net/program#sessions/apnicagm3 ************ >>Ryoichi Hosoya: It's almost 14:00, two more minutes to go. Please cast your vote outside the room now. It's almost 14:00, one more minute to go. Please cast your vote outside the room now. It's now 14:00. No more votes. The election officers and tellers will move the ballot box to a private room and commence counting. The entire process is supervised by the election scrutineers. Thank you. >>Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much, Hosoya-san. Now voting is closed. Before starting the afternoon session, I invite Miwa for some housekeeping. >>Miwa Fuji: Welcome back, everybody. I hope you had a wonderful enjoyable lunch. Before starting the afternoon session, I just would like to give a quick housekeeping matter. We have closing dinner tonight from 6 to 8 pm. Shuttle bus arranged departing from the FICC, from this building, from 5.30 pm onwards. We are going to Ishikura Brewery. If you are interested in joining this closing dinner social gathering, please talk to APNIC staff in the registration desk area. 2 Now back to AGM business and I would like to hand over to our EC Chairman, Maemura-san. >>Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much, Miwa-san. As the Election Chair said, now the vote is being counted and then we have the result in the last part of the afternoon session, so wait and see. The afternoon sessions consists of a couple of reports from the SIGs and some other sessions. To begin with, the afternoon session, I will invite Toshio Tachibana, who is NIR SIG Chair, to give his NIR SIG report. >>Toshio Tachibana: Thank you very much, Maemura-san. Good afternoon, everyone. I'm Toshio Tachibana. I'm from GREE. I'm Chair of the NIR SIG. I talk about the report from the NIR SIG on Tuesday. We have one session on Tuesday, March 3, from 9 am to 10.30. The participants is 40 people. Thank you for coming to our session. Agenda here, I'm very happy with all NIR share the information by their presentation continuously, since last meeting. I would like to share about summary of each update. IRINN showed the affiliate number increase from 674 to 854. They held Open Policy Meeting last November. 3 They participate to the IPv6 migration workshop organized by the Department of Telecom, India. CNNIC plan their OPM in the mid year with a training IPv6/RPKI/DNS. Number of IPv6 end users have reached 10 million. TWNIC held 23rd TWNIC IP OPM last November. Also, they hold a lot of IPv6 training class in last year. JPNIC begin their RPKI service on the day, congratulations. So they are holding their OPM in November. I'm the Chair of the Japanese Policy Forum also. VNNIC, national IPv6 Taskforce set this year as final year of the implementation phase of national IPv6 plan. Very great achievement, I think. KISA's organization will be changing, so they explain about the history and the future plan of KISA. IDNIC hold Open Policy Meeting last December in Jakarta. Jakarta is the next APNIC meeting venue. So they will publish the market research 2014 in April or May. After the update session, we had a Q&A and discussion time. The main topic, one of the topics is cooperation with law enforcement authority and National Internet Registry. There is speakers and Chair and Co-chairs. Thank you for speaking on this session. 4 For the next meeting, Chair and Co-chair terms will be expiring in end of August. Secretariat will post call for nominations. Thank you very much. That's all. >>Maemura Akinori: Thank you, Toshio. Q&A, comments? No? Nothing? All right. Thank you, Toshio. APPLAUSE Moving to another SIG report from the Cooperation SIG, Dr Govind. >>Dr Govind: Thank you, Maemura-san. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. I'm reporting here the APNIC Cooperation SIG report. As you all know, this election was held on 3 March here, the Chair and Co-chair, so these two posts were elected unopposed. My Co-chair here, Mr Billy Cheon, is here. Can you stand up? I would like to give thanks to the outgoing Co-chairs, Mr Aftab Siddiqui, and Dr Kenny Huang. Then, after the election process is over, we reached a consensus on the SIG charter on the Cooperation SIG. These are the main points of the charter, which I'm not going to read. We agreed during that meeting to adhere to these guidelines and the charter to go forward in the next meetings, and because completely new charter, new chapter -- I mean SIG Cooperation, so we would like to see how this gets developed over the time, because 5 there's challenges here, how the public policy issues are going to impact the APNIC numbers community and the Internet governance issues. Then we had the panel discussion. Before that, my Co-chair made some comments, which I would like to say here, Mr Cheon, how the KISA is going to intend to partake in the process to achieve the shared goal through main initiative, safe Internet. KISA will be able to share Korea's hands-on experience and the best practices. This will effectively help more countries and organizations engaged in the relevant activities and dialogue to cybersecurity issues. He further talked about the plan to discuss a way to come up with a collaborative prevention and response system against cybersecurity threats at a global level through information sharing among member states; along with this, like to facilitate the development of human based technologies, which encompasses fundamental values of mankind and to consider a set of standards that would be the foundation of the global cyberspace through the human-centric Internet for the future. He wants to cooperate more with KISA and AP region in this regard. I think I talked about something about how the Digital India program in India is going on in the length and breadth of the country and how the Internet 6 governance perspective, where the multistakeholder approach is largely accepted and how the various stakeholders are going to be involved in the public policy issues in the governance structure. The panel discussion was a very enlightened panel. We had Mr George Sadowsky, the ICANN board member; Izumi, JPNIC, CRISP, IGF MAG; Rinalia, ICANN board member; Sameer Sharma from ITU; Kuo-Wei Wu from ICANN board; and Akinori from JPNIC. So it was a very enlightened panel discussion that day, apart from the comments from the other persons during the thing. George talked about the size and complexities of the Internet governance space and the institutions involved in it. He gave two definitions of Internet governance, like governance of the Internet, which has to do with doing everything that keeps the Internet running; and the governance on the Internet, on the other hand, would refer to the problems which have always existed in the human society, but because of the introduction of the Internet, it is taking a different shape today, because of the cyber-crime and the privacy and other issues. He cautioned APNIC as a community to analyze this large multi-dimensional policy space and suggested that our neighbours in this regard, in this endeavour, may be considerably larger than what we expect. 7 There needs an analysis of the policy space of the issue space and look for areas in which there can be crossover issues between the people involved in the public policy and primarily technical functions in running the RIR. The second panelist, Izumi, talked about the IGF, its structure and the mandate and described her role and activities as part of the IGF Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group. It is very much dialogue-based, as you all know, so the focus is not on negotiations or agreements, so that the people can talk to each other and understand the issues, different stakeholder groups. Other principles we are quite familiar with, open, bottom up, because that is what to do, multistakeholder may not be something that we use commonly in our community. She indicated a new area of intersessional work for the IGF as a best practice forum and she encouraged people to participate in the IGF and indicated the deadline for the coming IGF workshop, which is 30 March, to submit more and more proposals on this in this area. The third panelist, Rinalia, talked generally about the public policy issues that are important to governments and to which the neighbouring community, numbering community, could contribute, in particular universal access and access for marginalized 8 communities. The test of the public policy is going to be what is the difference between or the impact that policy is having on citizens and, in the case of Internet, how it is going to affect the end users. She also spoke about the areas of interest within other ICANN communities and that would intersect, including cybersecurity, Whois accuracy and universal acceptance of top level domains and issues around internationalized domain names. The fourth panelist, Mr Sameer Sharma from ITU, talked about the ITU, the structures and its regional developments and the regional initiatives, enhancing confidence, cybersecurity, ICT applications, building human and institutional capacity, environmental protection, disaster mitigation and climate change. Six key areas which will be adopted by 2020 are the Smartly Digital Asia Pacific investing in ICT infrastructure, stimulating innovation, encouraging innovation in the public/private partnership, promoting sustainable development, fostering digital inclusion, which also includes empowerment of women, persons with disabilities and digital literacy. He described and elaborated the large number of collaborative projects undertaken by the ITU in the Asia Pacific region and, in particular, its capacity building 9 work done in conjunction with APNIC. Kuo-Wei talked about the main difference between the numbers community and other ICANN communities is that the number community will develop policies by themselves. Very little policies go to the ICANN. It is done after a global consensus among the five RIRs have a global policy and then bring to ICANN to verify and to officialize it. He described some of the responsibilities of the board and how effective the numbers community are at creating effective policy. He also addressed the issue of universal acceptance in terms of the adoption of IPv6. The final thing he said about was the importance for the numbers community to participate in ICANN activities, the numbers and the names work together through their DNS resolver. That is the main crux of his deliberations. Mr Akinori Maemura talked about, explained the structure of the NetMundial initiative coordination council and talked about how the NMI is intended to be a continuous activity that will fill the gaps between stakeholders to pick up orphan issues and act as a catalyst to enable Internet Governance practitioners to collaborate in seeking solutions. 10 These are the panel discussions and outcomes. Thank you. >>Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much. Questions or comments? >>Izumi Okutani: Izumi Okutani, wearing the hat of IGF MAG, one of the program committee members. Thank you very much, Dr Govind, for this great detailed summary. Since I haven't had a chance to share with this group -- I shared it with the Cooperation SIG -- I want to highlight again that we are having this intersessional work on what's called best practices on certain areas, which may have some relevance with our community here. So, to share the topics, there's expected to have best practices on spam, best practices on IPv6, best practices on IXPs. So those are the things that may be relevant to our community. The expected next steps would be to gather the best practices, document it and spread to different groups of what's called stakeholders, including governments and any other major entities. So I think it's important that we actually have those documented accurately in reality. I don't know how many of you are interested in getting directly involved in the IGF, but if any of you are interested to give your input, please contact me and I'll be happy to 11 think of ways on how we can coordinate. Thanks. >>Dr Govind: Thank you. >>Maemura Akinori: Okay. Any other comments or questions? All right. Thank you very much, Dr Govind. APPLAUSE Then I need to apologize to you that I change by myself the order of this report. It was meant to be the IPv6 Measurement BoF report before the Cooperation SIG report, so I would like to invite Prof Shian-Shyong Tseng to deliver the report. >>Shian-Shyong Tseng: Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Shian-Shyong Tseng, from TWNIC. It's my great pleasure to briefly introduce the Current Status of IPv6 Readiness BoF. The first BoF meeting was held here in the afternoon of this Wednesday. In this BoF meeting, we have invited six speakers, involving Fujisaki-san from NTT Japan, Prof Sinchai from Thailand, Mr Dung from VNNIC, Ai-Chin Lu from TWNIC, as well as Vesna from RIPE NCC and Tsuchiya-san from Cisco. First of all, I would like to briefly introduce the workflow for the IPv6 readiness measurement BoF. As you can see, in the very beginning, there are several measurement criteria have been proposed, so in the year 2013, we have held the first BoF meeting and 12 the first workshop and we have discussed the measurement criteria and they reach the consensus for three common measurement criteria. We also created a mailing list and a website. As you can see, the common criteria include the IPv6 allocation, the BGP advertisement, the service availability and the user availability. Besides we also defined the structure of the post processing after having the common criteria; for example, the data acquisition, the data analysis and the data visualization. Then in the year 2014, we have held the second BoF meeting, the second workshop and the third BoF meeting. We continuously discuss the data acquisition about the common criteria and the developed the tool for the IPv6 server detection function and we further discussed the service availability and analyzed the outcome of the criteria. Let me briefly introduce the six reports. Fujisaki-san, firstly, presented the current Japan status. He said many fixed line ISPs have started their commercial IPv6 services for both enterprise and consumer users. He said IPv6-ready governmental services are increasing, but large content providers do not support IPv6 yet. 13 In Japan, IPv6 Internet connectivity has been smoothly deployed, but the content provider and the cellular provider, we should tackle this kind of issues. The second report was given by Prof Sinchai. Prof Sinchai introduce the national IPv6 Thailand master plan from the year 2014 to 2016. It's a three-year plan including four parts: IPv6 infrastructure, the human development services, and the supports and the public awareness. He also mentioned that Thailand develop its own monitoring system based on five colour labeling models to stimulate the deployment of IPv6 in Thailand. The good news is that there are good progress in Ministry of Finance, Ministry of ICT and the Ministry of Science and Technology. Besides, some users experience that IPv6 is faster than IPv4, but not all the time. The third speech was given by Mr Dung from VNNIC. He introduce the three-phase national IPv6 master plan and the key activities in 2014. He show the survey results of their ISPs using three dimensions with 16 criteria. Among all the 43 local ISPs and content providers participated in this survey and three of them are with full criteria ready, six others are with 10 criteria ready and the remaining are only with very low ready 14 percentage. Ai-Chin presented the Taiwan current IPv6 status. She updated the status of three common measurement criteria, including the IPv6 allocation, BGP advertisement, user availability and service availability. She also introduce two new measurement criteria. The first one is access router/gateway availability and the second one is home gateway availability. She showed the survey result of ISP Internet access service device IPv6 availability. By analyzing the home gateway devices from 15 major vendors, we can find over 50 per cent of vendors in Taiwan provide IPv6 available home gateway devices. Let me illustrate two new measurement criteria by using this figure. As you can see, in this figure, there are three major measurement criteria mentioned. The first one is user, the second one is the network and the third one is service. Regarding the user availability, assuming the user availability made by the APNIC is very great. But up to now, most countries user availability are still very low. So we want to look at this issue from another point of view. As you may know, the home gateway plays a very important role from the user's point of view, so 15 we add the home gateway availability in this dimension to enhance the accuracy of the estimation of the user availability. Regarding the network availability, in addition to the IPv6 allocation and the BGP advertisement, we add one new attribute, one new measurement attribute, that is the access router or gateway availability. This can enhance the accuracy of the prediction of the network availability. Vesna presented the RIPE NCC IPv6 status. She introduced IPv6 RIPEness and the RIPE Atlas IPv6 measurements. RIPE Atlas can be used for IPv6 reachability testing, IPv6 traceroute visualization and investigating IPv6 filtering based on the packet size and researching IPv6 extension headers filtering. She also encourage more people to join the RIPE Atlas research group. The last presentation was given by Tsuchiya-san. He said Cisco used the public existing data to do the readiness measurement. Cisco proposed two measurement criteria, metric. The first one is the deployment ratio and the second one is the relative index. They use colours to indicate the relative deployment index. Both of the ratios depend on the IPv6 transit AS and the contents and the users. 16 Now let me make a comparison between the methodology to compute the service availability. As you can see, there are two different kinds of the approach. The first one is the data can be acquired from the public existing data sources. This one is the easy way, but the answer is only in the rough estimation of the service availability. The second one is we can collect the data from the ccTLD database. I would like to thank the five ccTLDs for that in the previous days, they provide the ccTLD database to us. As we know, the data acquisition from Alexa top 500 websites for each country have been used in several countries, but we still want to enhance the accuracy, want to enhance the precision of the estimation. So we would like to suggest to using the top 1 million websites instead of only use the 500 websites for each country to enhance the accuracy of the estimation. Let me briefly introduce the statistic data about all the measurement criteria. The first one is related to the IPv6 allocation and the BGP advertisement. This result is part of the RIPE NCC data. As you can see, in Asia Pacific, the number 1 is Japan, it is reached 41.56 per cent; the second one is Singapore, with 38 per cent; the third one is Malaysia and so on. The second criteria is usability. I don't want to 17 elaborate the detail. You can find the detail from the APNIC website and top one is still Japan. The third criteria is the service availability. We have three service availability. The first one is web server availability. The data is collected from Alexa top 1 million websites. As you can see, the top one is Singapore, with 12.19 per cent; the second one is Thailand, with 9.18 per cent; and the third one is Hong Kong with 6.39 per cent; the fourth one is Taiwan; and so on. Next is the data about DNS service availability. As you can see, the first one is Singapore with 19.79 per cent; the second one is Thailand with 13.97 per cent; the third one is Hong Kong with 11.12 per cent; the fourth one is Japan; and so on. The third, service availability, email service availability. As you can see, the first one is Vietnam with 19.09 per cent; the second one is Singapore; the third one is Taiwan; and the fourth one is Thailand; and so on. Finally, I would like to make a conclusion. In addition to measurement results from the public existing data sources, the results from ccTLD database are also presented in the meeting. More than 30 organizations have given presentations in previous meetings. We will 18 invite more ccTLD registries to participate in the future BoF meetings. IPv6 access router gateway availability and home gateway availability have been proposed and different methodologies and criteria of measurement criteria are still very welcome. Thank you very much. That's the end of my talk. APPLAUSE >>Maemura Akinori: Very impressive. Questions or comments? I'm actually impressed with the certain facts that Japan is really, really good at access, but bad at availability. Comments? Questions? All right. Thank you very much, Prof Tseng. APPLAUSE Next to be presented is the report from IANA Fellowship Transition session. This session proceeded in a productive way. We will have Izumi Okutani, who is the Chair of the CRISP Team and the representative from the Asia Pacific region. >>Izumi Okutani: Hello, everybody. I'll be presenting with the hat of the Chair of the CRISP Team and a participant of the session on The IANA Stewardship Transition, which was a session held on Monday afternoon. 19 Before I go into the details of sharing the overview of the session, I would like to do a brief recap of the current situation on the IANA Stewardship Transition process. After the NTIA has made an announcement in March last year, 2014, to its intention to transition its stewardship of the IANA function to the global multistakeholder community, three of the operational communities, on the diagram shown over here, have been tasked to develop the proposal for each of the three components of the IANA functions respectively. So the IETF community will be developing the proposal on the protocol parameter component of the IANA function; the naming cross-community working group within the ICANN will be developing the proposal related to the domain name DNS related function of the IANA; and the RIR communities, which is us, have been tasked to develop the proposal on the number resources component of the IANA function. As you all know, RIR communities since then have been discussing, from September last year until the proposal deadline, which has been set up, is 15 January this year, to come up with a proposal. In the last meeting in Brisbane, APNIC 38, we had discussions as the APNIC community, which were followed by four RIR meetings, as well as discussions online. 20 A team called the CRISP Team has been set up from November and we have worked from December until the submissions deadline. The CRISP Team is the team composed of representatives from five RIR regions, a team of 15 members, and so we have worked on consolidating the ideas and proposals that have been discussed in each of the five RIR regions into a single global proposal. We have completed a submission on time, and so did the IETF community. Out of the three operational communities, the names community are still working on submitting their proposal, so there's no proposal on the naming part. But the two components of the IANA function, the number resources and the protocol parameter, were done with submitting the proposal. What did we discuss in the session on Monday afternoon? We actually shared this current status and additional perspectives from different people representing from different positions. These were the speakers at the session. Craig Ng from APNIC, he was being a moderator, he was also our CRISP Team member from the APNIC region. Paul Wilson, many of you know him as the Secretary General of APNIC, he spoke with that hat as well, but he also spoke with the hat of an ICG member representing 21 the numbers. ICG is a group that is working to coordinate proposals into a single proposal, the proposal from three of the operational communities into a single proposal and will be working on coordinating hearing from different communities. Paul Wilson is a member of this group. I myself joined as the Chair of the CRISP Team. Seichi Kawamura, who is the Chair of JANOG, has participated to give input from an operator's perspective. Edmon Chung from DotAsia has given his input from the names perspective. We try to have these shared views from different perspectives. What we actually discussed at the session is we had a recap of the role of the NTIA are playing today on the IANA functions and the overall timeline and the process. As well, we also had discussions on the future steps, which I will be sharing in later slides, implementation of the number of proposals by RIRs. In the course of discussions, some points were raised, such as what would be the implications if we did not meet the target deadline, which is currently September this year. So would this be a disaster or not? Why do we have to care that we meet the deadline, or maybe we want to consider more outreach to other 22 groups who are not coming to this meeting, so that people are aware of the process, what's being discussed, in parallel with moving the process forward. These are the kinds of things that have been discussed at the session. What I would like to especially highlight is the future steps. We are done with developing the proposal and the next phase is preparing the implementation of this proposal, especially two of the elements that have been proposed is develop SLA text, which is the contract to be exchanged between ICANN and the RIRs, and the other part will be the details of the review committee. These are the two things that need preparation by RIRs in implementing based on the proposal, the numbers community's proposal. For the SLA text, it is expected that RIRs will be of course communicating and discussing with ICANN, because they will be the counterpart organization of the contract. But of course they will be consulting with the RIR communities, of course, APNIC meeting will be one of this and as well as communicating online on the mailing list. So these are the future steps that's expected. There was at the session a question raised by APNIC Secretariat as to implement, preparing the 23 implementation of the SLA, how much flexibility can be accommodated from what's being described on the numbers proposal, because maybe when we start discussing with other entities, well, ICANN or maybe, I don't know, other communities outside of the ICANN would want to give input or possibly NTIA would want to have a say about the details of the SLA. So in that case, how should we be prepared and as key points, the condition of termination and jurisdiction has been raised as a possible area where we may be asked to take a re-look at the CRISP Team proposal -- well, the numbers community's proposal. So based on this question, as a way forward, as a suggested way forward, yes, these questions may come up and we may need to consider those things, but at this stage, we're not really hearing any specific feedback from anybody, not from ICANN, not from NTIA, not from ICG at this stage. So what would make sense as a way forward is that until we hear any specific input, which we can review as openly, as the number community, the RIRs, we expect the RIRs to develop the SLA text on what is actually being described in the CRISP Team proposal, the numbers proposal, on the principles to be listed in the SLA. So that's what seems like a pragmatic way forward 24 and in case anybody has any further questions, inputs outside the numbers community, such as ICANN, NTIA or ICG, we would certainly expect them to communicate with us openly, so that we are able to reconsider as needed and in consultation openly with the community. To be clear about the next step, the suggested next step would be the RIRs to develop SLA text based on what's actually being described in the CRISP Team proposal and to reiterate what these are in terms of the key points which has been listed. We want to keep the condition that today we're happy with continuing with the ICANN operating on the IANA function on the number resources function, but in future, give it a possibility that we are able to change the IANA operator given the reasonable notice advance notice, which is basically very much in line with the existing contract that NTIA is having with ICANN, we're simply replacing this part. NTIA part with RIRs and in terms of jurisdiction, I think we're pretty much clear that we would want to come up with a jurisdiction and mechanism that all involved parties feel comfortable and considered as fair. So there's other things that we would expect to be reflected in the SLA. For the future steps, so build on confirmation at this meeting, at APNIC 38 and then there will be four 25 other face-to-face meetings to be conducted in other RIR regions as well. So I would expect that the preparation process and when the SLA text is ready, those will be shared with these other communities, as well as with APNIC. From the perspective of the APNIC community, I think these updates will be shared on the IANAxfer NRO mailing list, as well as we have the regional list for the APNIC, so those will be shared. We are, of course, able to also join discussions at other RIR meetings either physically or remotely. So that's my suggestion for the next step. Also, I would like to confirm with the community about the way forward. So I'll stop here and leave it to Akinori on how we want to go ahead with the confirmation on this. >>Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much, Izumi. First of all, I would like to seek the comments or questions for this presentation. Okay. >>Paul Wilson: Thanks very much, Izumi. I just wanted to relay one set of details about the CRISP Team's work. Izumi has been very modest, I think, about the amount of work involved that the CRISP Team was actually able to do. As you all recall, there was series of RIR 26 discussions last year which concluded quite late in the year with the AFRINIC meeting. It was only after the AFRINIC meeting had been finished that the CRISP Team was actually able to assemble and to do its work. That work had to be completed by the middle of January, so they actually started I think with the first teleconference on 6 December, around about then, and they had 14 teleconferences involving all of the CRISP members around the world, between 6 December and 15 January. That was across, for many people, the Christmas and New Year period, which is a holiday time. So I really think everyone here should be aware of how much work was put in by the CRISP Team collectively to do that quite difficult job of bringing together all of those five RIR discussions and then negotiating not only one, but at least a couple of drafts of a document that went out and needed to be reviewed and commented by the community. So, yes, the 14 or so teleconferences in that five-week period is an absolutely incredible effort. So I think we should say thanks to the CRISP Team and the Chair of the CRISP Team, Izumi. >>Izumi Okutani: Thank you very much. I would like to have the CRISP Team members here to stand up and show your faces. Dr Govind, Craig and Nurani Nimpuno. We really had a great team, so I think 27 it was a team effort. Thank you, all, for highlighting this. APPLAUSE >>Maemura Akinori: Now CRISP Team proposal is done CRISP has done their job, then now protocol parameter has submitted the proposal and now ICG is still waiting for that from names. The numbers community's consensus is there at the CRISP proposal. But, you know, sitting there is a bit different from the consensus itself. It need to be negotiated with ICANN, who is IANA function operators, then from what we had as consensus in CRISP proposal, and then what we should do as the SLA, between them we have some gap. So that may be the part of the question from your side to the community. >>Izumi Okutani: Well, it's not so much of a question, but, yes, I think as a short answer, yes. It's not so much of a question, but like a reconfirmation that the way forward we're in the right track, so we're not creating anything new and go forward with the implementation of what's being proposed. It may be obvious, but since we have other stakeholders being involved, we just want to be clear that we'll actually expect the RIRs to prepare the SLA text on the CRISP Team proposal at this stage, because 28 we're not hearing any feedback from any other communities. So I think it may be useful if anybody has any concerns about this and we would be happy to hear it. >>Shiva Upadhyay (NIXI): Service level agreement clearly indicates that jurisdiction for the current mechanism lies with the US applicable government contracting law in that relations, and the agreement would also provide for jurisdiction and governing law regarding the new agreement. But my concern is the final draft response clearly mentions that the RIRs are satisfied with the current arrangement and performance of ICANN, as IANA function operator, and clearly states that in the initial stage, they would like to continue the work with ICANN, as IANA function operator. Once the NTIA agreement with IANA expires and gets replaced by the SLA with the RIRs, the jurisdiction and the future mechanism may also remain as in the current mechanism. Is that clear? As ICANN is located in US, this issue needs to be resolved at the time of SLA development process. >>Izumi Okutani: Your question is whether the jurisdiction mechanism will be under the US law or not? >>Shiva Upadhyay (NIXI): Yes. 29 >>Izumi Okutani: I think this will be still to be negotiated between RIRs and ICANN and my understanding is that all these people involved in including all RIRs and ICANN feels comfortable with a particular jurisdiction that is fair and reasonable to all who are involved. So I think that part will be expected to be ensured. I don't know if that answers your question and Craig, would you like to add anything more or are you happy with what's being explained? Okay. >>Shiva Upadhyay (NIXI): My suggestion is that we are moving to that thing for a multistakeholder community, so it should be fair, like other MOUs jurisdiction areas, so it should not lie with a single particular country. >>Craig Ng (APNIC): I'm the general counsel of APNIC. In relation to the question of jurisdiction, it's not something that has already been resolved, so as Izumi said, it is a point of discussion between the RIRs and at the position has not yet been agreed between the RIRs and ICANN yet, but it is important to realize that what we are proposing is a whole series of dispute resolution mechanisms that has to take place before any dispute goes to a court. The reason for that is to ensure that any dispute is resolved in a way which we are happy with and the idea would be that the dispute resolution 30 mechanism would take place by way of arbitration, so arbitration is like a private court, according to private rules. So for example, if we used the system of arbitration under the Hong Kong method, the Hong Kong Centre for Arbitration, then they already have an established set of rules. So what is important for us, to my mind, is actually to make sure that we have arbitration panel, which are really the judges comprising of members from around the five regions in the world, so what that means is that the judge, the private judge, not a country judge, the private judge is a panel of arbitrators from all across the world. So the idea is that any dispute is resolved through this system before it goes to a court. But ultimately, again, speaking from my experience and not speaking on behalf of any RIRs, the SLA is going to be an agreement where in this particular case, ICANN is required to perform a lot of services. There are not many obligations on the RIRs. So the services are to be provided by ICANN for the RIRs. So it is important that ultimately, the jurisdiction is court which can force ICANN to do something that it doesn't do. So from personally, I have no problem with a US court being the court that would actually carry out 31 the enforcement against ICANN. I hope that answers your question. Dmitry Burkov (RIPE NCC EC): Thank you that you describe the situation with arbitration, but I want details that it will not work in case -- you never will go to court against US Government. Please understand, in case of when the US Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control will issue some licensing or sanctions against any country and in case of US jurisdictions, no chances as just to apply for licence, no courts. Please, I simply want to ask for future work, to take intention this significant point. Thank you. >>Shiva Upadhyay (NIXI): There is one more question from my side. The final draft response states that the review community should be a team composed of a suitably qualified Internet community representative from each RIR region and selection of community members should be conducted in an open transparent bottom-up manner appropriate for each RIR region. There's my suggestion, there should be equal representation from each RIR region within the community, but there will need to involve different government representative to enhance the accountability. >>Izumi Okutani: Thank you for that input. I think that will be considered by RIRs in consultation with how the 32 rest of the community feels and thank you for that input. >>Maemura Akinori: Any other comment? If you have any concern, then it's really good to be share with us. >>Jordan Carter (InternetNZ): I just wanted to reiterate the comment I made on the list to congratulate the CRISP Team members for the work that they have done. I think this is a really good proposal. Thank you for the discussion about jurisdiction. I don't want to talk about that, I want to talk about the other key point that you mentioned, Izumi, on termination. I think it's really important that the numbers community does keep the ability if the IANA functions aren't being well operated by ICANN, to be able to select a different operator. I think that's a key accountability requirement that's in the CRISP proposal and I think it's fundamental to this community being able to manage the risks that would otherwise be created, because if you can't terminate, then what you're saying is that one organization ICANN forever and ever, will have to always operate this. There's no choice. It would be crazy for us to lock ourselves into a situation like that. So I think the proposal is very wise to protect that right and I hope the community 33 strongly supports that staying the case. I particularity welcomed your comments along the lines that if there are people who have problems with that in other communities, I would encourage them to say so publicly and loudly, so we can have the discussion we need to have about that. Thank you. >>Izumi Okutani: Thank you, Jordan, for this explicit support for the direction. >>Maemura Akinori: Any particular concern, no particular concern may be good sign from the community. >>Izumi Okutani: To understand, so this is a sign there are concerns expressed, so the RIRs will be moving forward based on this way forward suggested. Thank you. >>Maemura Akinori: That's my point. All right. Thank you very much, Izumi. APPLAUSE >>Izumi Okutani: Thank you, everyone, for your time. >>Maemura Akinori: The next report is from APIX. Usually the Chair, Katsuyasu Toyama, will present, but this time he has already left and not available here, so Ajai is presenting this. Thank you very much. >>Ajai Kumar (NIXI): Thank you, Maemura-san. My name is Ajai Kumar. I am representing the APIX. In the capacity of secretary, I'm going to update our meeting which was held on the 1st. 34 APIX association, Association of Internet Exchange Providers in the Asia Pacific region, it is equivalent to Euro IX, which is in the European region. The objective of this Association is to share information about technical, operational and business issues and solutions regarding the Internet exchanges. We have 16 members from Bangladesh, BDIX; from Hong Kong, HKIX; from Japan, BBIX, DIXIE, JPIX, JPNAP; from Korea, KINX; from Indonesia, IIX; from India, NIXI; from Malaysia, MYIX, from Nepal, NPIX; from New Zealand, NZIX; from Singapore, two organizations are our members, SGIX and SOX; from Vietnam, VNIX; from AP, Equinix. So this time we have three potential members: BKNIX PHOpenIX and AMS-IX Hong Kong. The steering committee, as of this meeting we have five members. Katsuyasu Toyama, Che-Hoo Cheng, Raphael Ho, Gaurab Upadhaya and Brian Kim. We have the meeting history here. We started in 2010. You can see we have started with seven Internet exchange point members and now we are 14. You can see the participation list, from 15 to 61, so our Association is growing. Still we are not charging anything. So thanks to APNIC for providing the venue. From attendees, we have BBIX, Equinix, IIX, JPNAP, 35 MYIX, NPIX, SGIX, DIXIE, HKIX, JPIX, KINX, NIXI, NZIX, VNIX and three new potential members representing this meeting. So on this meeting, we have the other IX from the other regions. AMSIX, DIXI, ECIX, FLIX, LONAP, Netnod, NLIX, PTT.br and we have the presentation from the IX associations as well. So IX represent AFIX, Euro IX, LACNIC and potential patrons, APNIC, we have invited ISOC and JPNIC. So in the last meeting, we have the agenda update from other regions' IX, so Euro IX, LACNIC, AFRINIC, IX Federation, they have given the update and newcomers BKNIX and PH Open IX, they have given the update. Our existing members, MYIX, NIXI and KINX and we have other topic related to Internet, which has been discussed: map of the Internet exchange points, RPKI trial project, recommendation of 100 gig interface, ISOC program to support start-up IXP. During this agenda discussion, our exchange point NIXI invited ISOC for giving one presentation to our ISPs there. For administrative session, we have discussed and decided that bank account for APIX Association will be with APIA and got the consensus for signing the agreement and we have taken the decision that from next 36 meeting, will be starting the membership fee, so we will be deciding what will the membership fee from next meeting. We have election of steering committee members, three of five positions expired, term of office. So in APIX, we have the concept of one member, one vote. Three positions were vacant, somehow the applications have not been received more than three. Two existing office bearers, so we have amended our bylaws. So we got three members new. Katsuyama Toyama, the term was expiring, he has re-elected, Che-Hoo Cheng and Ajai Kumar, myself, has been appointed as steering committee member. So you can see the photograph of our current steering committee members here. So our next meeting will be in conjunction with APNIC 40 in Jakarta, Indonesia, on 6 September 2015. Looking forward to meet there. Thank you. APPLAUSE >>Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much. Any questions, comments? Okay. I think this is really good progress on APIX. Congratulations on that. APPLAUSE 37 I'm not really sure which should be the next. This concludes all reports there this week. Thank you very much for your participation and actually we have really good discussion throughout the week. One thing about the future for APNIC 40. I would like to invite Mr Sapto Anggoro for introducing the APNIC 40 in fantastic country, Indonesia, at Jakarta. >>Sapto Anggoro: Hello. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Sapto Anggoro, general secretary of NSI ISP association, we call APJII. The collaboration with APJII and APNIC has been in place quite long. APJII was the host of APRICOT in 2007, also we have IGF meeting in 2013, when APNIC significant support for the host. Now APJII became co-host for the APNIC 40, not in Bali, but we move to Jakarta. APNIC 40 will be held in Jakarta in September 3 to 10 this year. Jakarta is very nice city, easy to reach. It will be very convenient place for the meeting and also lot of attractions waiting for you. It is very easy to reach. Many airlines have direct flight to Jakarta from totally different cities. You can easily have a nice stopover in several major hubs in the region, from some of the countries like Bali. They have also direct flight from several different cities, 38 for example, from Australia. Getting a visa is easy. There is visa policy for citizens of countries of South East Asia and country who have same policy to Indonesian citizens. Another maybe 62 countries, you can easily enter Indonesia with visa on arrival. It can be obtained in 11 major airports after you land in Indonesia, it cost maybe US$25 and you have to show return ticket. That's the venue. The Conference itself will be conducted in Ritz-Carlton Mega Kuningan, five-star hotel, central Jakarta. Be careful, we have two Ritz-Carlton in Jakarta, one is at Mega Kuningan and one is at CBD. Maybe for the attendees to Jakarta, I think Ritz-Carlton Mega Kuningan is the place, the true place. This is transport from airport, maybe quite enough for your budget, but the driver just one, not the other one. We have the five hotels near Ritz-Carlton. There is five-star Manhattan Hotel, JW Marriott, Ritz-Carlton, Gran Melia Hotel, Puri Denpasar, Patra Jasa Hotel and Oakwood Premier. Also, shopping is near hotel, Plaza Senayan, the big one near the place is Kuningan City. There is the other attractions, you can book the Bogor, Pulau Seribu, Dunia Fantasi, golf, Tanakita, Taman sari. You can 39 coordinating with other people from the front desk at the hotel. I think this is thank you, but I want to say thank you, special thanks to Blandine and Tony Smith have more assistance for preparing the event. Okay, we want to play the video. I want to say something. My IT people have thing about two traffic, one are traffic Internet and one more are traffic jam. (Video played) APPLAUSE Thank you. >>Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much. Next agenda is the EC election results. I know it is already available and would invite Hosoya-san again for the podium. >>Ryoichi Hosoya: I'm happy to say the result is here. I'm very happy to say that no disputes have been brought up. I would like to call on one of the scrutineers to make a comment on the vote count process before I announce the result. >>Vesna Manojlovic (RIPE NCC): Hi, I am representative of RIPE NCC, that's me and representative from ARIN were observing the vote counts and everything went smoothly and there are no objections. My name is Vesna from 40 RIPE NCC. >>Ryoichi Hosoya: Thank you. The envelope is sealed here and I will open it. The total paper ballots counted is 127. Total ballot paper valid is same, 127. Total invalid paper ballot is 0. I'm going to announce the total votes received for each nominee. Jessica Shen 1,503. Gaurab Raj Upadhaya 1,391. Kenny Huang 1,082. James Spenceley 1,014. Jonathan Gleeson 167. Sarah-Jane Peterschlingmann 109. So the nominees who was successfully elected into APNIC Executive Council are Jessica Shen, Gaurab Upadhaya, Kenny Huang, James Spenceley. APPLAUSE Congratulations to the successful candidates. I would now hand the result to the APNIC Executive Council Chair, Akinori Maemura. To all the nominees, thank you very much for your running the election. >>Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much. APPLAUSE Thank you very much, Hosoya-san for the very 41 important role. Ajai, you have something. >>Ajai Kumar (NIXI): Yes, congratulations to all the winners. I have a question. So as per the result, 127 was the valid paper, so I would like to know participants-wise, how much they have got online voting, how many votes per candidates, if it is available, on site and online. >>Maemura Akinori: How can we know that, George? I think, as the Executive Council member, not for the election, then I think it is fair enough for me to do this. This is the total vote number on the online voting. I need to do the addition here. In the spreadsheet, we have the numbers of the online votes and the on-site votes. Now George Kuo, one of the election officers, is calculating the addition. >>Ajai Kumar (NIXI): Thank you. >>Maemura Akinori: Maybe Indian people can do that immediately! But I'm not able. While we are waiting for this, Jessica, come on. Come to the microphone and say something. APPLAUSE You are newly elected member for the Executive Council. 42 >>Jessica Shen: First, I'm very happy and thank you very much for all of your support. I will comply with my commitment and try my best to cooperate with you and let's better serve APNIC community and build more vibrant community. Thank you very much. APPLAUSE >>Maemura Akinori: Of course, if you really want, all successful candidates can say something here. >>Gaurab Upadhaya: Thank you very much for the continued support from the membership, both present here and those who voted online, despite having to change three browsers. I hope I can meet the expectations from the community, continued basis for the next two years and serve the community well in the future. Obviously, feel free to talk to us, talk to me, talk to any one of us, plus Jessica, for anything you want to talk to us. Thank you very much. APPLAUSE >>Kenny Huang: Arigato. Thank you for putting me into this position, so allow me to provide another two years services in APNIC Executive Council member. Also, I would like to thank you, especially the Internet community in Japan, we have very wonderful week here. Finally, I would like to thank Wendy Zhao, who 43 provide four years service and step down for the EC. Thank you. APPLAUSE >>Maemura Akinori: Then as you notice, that Wendy Zhao is now one of the outgoing -- not one, the only outgoing EC member, so Wendy, do you want to have something to say? >>Wei Zhao: Okay. I have a really long thank you list, but I'm not going to start with my parents and friends. I can do that on my own time. But I do want to take a moment to thank my co-workers on the Executive Council, on the team, and I would like to thank all the APNIC staff and the community members especially who constantly come to APNIC meetings to give me the support and the experience, the friends and the time I spent is an asset on my lifetime. Thank you very much. I wish you all the best. APPLAUSE >>Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much. It is our pleasure to work with you. We have the numbers. The total online vote count is 1,574, where the total on-site vote count was 3,692. It was double-checked. That's correct. >>Ajai Kumar (NIXI): Thank you. Can we get the candidate-wise, who have -- 44 >>Maemura Akinori: I will do that. >>Ajai Kumar (NIXI): Thank you. >>Maemura Akinori: We have one more item, that is comms director Tony Smith will share some online Conference stats briefly. >>Tony Smith: Very briefly. The Secretariat is always trying to improve the online Conference experience for everyone who attends and the people who can't attend and they need to participate remotely. At APNIC 38 in Brisbane, we began using YouTube as well as Adobe Connect to provide more webcast options and we continued that here and we also trialed a delegate networking site and a mobile app here at APRICOT. We have tried to provide more content on social media as well, as you have seen. Here are some of the stats from this Conference. In terms of remote participants, up until this session, we had 563 remote participants over the five days of the Conference using Adobe Connect and YouTube. The meeting networking site and mobile app, we had 569 delegates who signed in to use the app, which is great, and 439 meeting requests were sent using the networking site. The APRICOT 2015 hashtag, we had 1,365 tweets using the hashtag, so you were all very active on Twitter, 365 users. The total reach of those tweets was 1.7 million 45 unique users. So it's been a very active online experience. We appreciate there were a few teething problems with the app, but we really value your feedback and input on this and we have actually added some questions to the survey, to the post-Conference survey, to get your views. So please do provide us your thoughts on that, because we do want to try and improve that experience. The link to that survey is on the APRICOT 2015 website, on the homepage. That feedback is great. It really helps the APRICOT management committee, the program committee and the Secretariat to make a good Conference for you. Thank you very much. APPLAUSE >>Maemura Akinori: Thank you, Tony. We are almost done. We are now entering into the most happy part of the meeting, which is the vote of thanks. No, before that, open mic. It is still the most happy thing. If you have anything you want to talk, then it's happy to have it, mic is yours. >>Aftab Siddiqui (Cyber Internet Services): First of all, I would like to congratulate the new member of our EC family, that is Jessica, and I would like to thank Wendy 46 as well for her great job in last four years. So congratulations to you for your new career switch. I have a small observation I would like to share with the EC. For last three elections, I have been hearing the same request from the community, that candidate-wise, votes should be listed. So why can't we have that? It is just an observation. Because, if you can recall, somebody somewhere always raising this question, so let's address it. Thank you. >>Maemura Akinori: Actually, Aftab, let me clarify. Actually, the vote counts are all said candidate by candidate. What are you talking about? >>Aftab Siddiqui (Cyber Internet Services): No, I'm just saying that which candidate got how many votes from online and on-site. That's what they were asking, if I'm not wrong. >>Maemura Akinori: So that's the same as Ajai requested? >>Aftab Siddiqui (Cyber Internet Services): Yes, that's what I'm saying. I have been hearing this thing for last three elections. I think this issue should be addressed. >>Maemura Akinori: Okay. >>Craig Ng (APNIC): I don't believe there's any issue in terms of announcing total number of votes online and total number of votes on-site. There is an issue about 47 preserving the anonymity of voters, of members, if we separate for each candidate, how many of the votes come from online and how many come from proxy and how many come from on-site. But that's not what you're requesting, you're just requesting the raw numbers, aggregate of online and aggregate of on-site and for each candidate, we give an aggregate number of votes. No problem with that. I think we will have a discussion and implement that for future meetings. >>Aftab Siddiqui (Cyber Internet Services): Just for the sake of the transcript, yes, that's what I was saying, like do not disclose the anonymity, there is no way, I don't want that as well. This shouldn't be done. The second, the later part of your statement, that's what I'm requesting for. Thank you. >>Craig Ng (APNIC): Thank you. >>Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much. >>Ajai Kumar (NIXI): We are talking about the transparency and you had the details, but you are postponing to next meeting. I'm not sure what is going on. You have the details. So why we have postponing to next meeting? What is problem on saying on this meeting? Thank you. >>Craig Ng (APNIC): I think this is precisely the issue I was talking about, which I sought clarification from Aftab. There is no issue in terms of us announcing the 48 total number of online votes and the total number of on-site votes. The number has already been announced. We will do that in the future as a matter of course. But what we are talking about is for each candidate, the difficulty in terms of announcing for each candidate, the number of on-site and online votes is that it could potentially disclose who voted for what, because you can tell who attended the Conference. In terms of -- so there's a balance between anonymity and transparency. I think that goes to the point that I sought clarification from Aftab. >>Ajai Kumar (NIXI): I'm not sure what you are talking about. You are saying that you are going to say next meeting and now you are saying that you cannot share. So I'm not sure what you are talking about. >>Craig Ng (APNIC): No, no -- >>Ajai Kumar (NIXI): Aftab has already clarified, I have already clarified what is our requirement as a community. So what is the problem on sharing the numbers? We are not asking the proxy, how many proxies they have received, only the request is that -- >>Maemura Akinori: Ajai, Craig explained that -- I think Craig explained that anonymity and transparency, the balance is needed. Next year, meaning the next EC election. Are you convinced? 49 >>Paul Wilson: I just would like to ask Craig to clarify, because I have a question which might be occurring to others. It seems to me that the concern that you have that you have relayed there is really only a concern if there are sufficiently small numbers of votes or if there are obvious numbers of votes, such as 64 or 32 as the final count for any candidate. >>Craig Ng (APNIC): That's correct. >>Paul Wilson: I'm not sure that we have that situation. We seem to have quite a substantial number of votes for each of the candidates and not exactly round numbers or revealing numbers. So am I missing something there? You are talking about a potential for something that maybe we can tell actually doesn't occur in this case. >>Craig Ng (APNIC): I think the issue is that I think as APNIC, as a membership, we have a large number of members. The number of members that actually attend a meeting is actually relatively small. So the issue I have is about the possibility of disclosing through the number of vote counts on-site and online to actually work out who voted for who. You're right. It is an issue if the number of voters on site is sufficiently small. I believe the numbers are sufficiently small relative to our membership, but it is something that -- well, it is a balance. If we believe that the numbers 50 are big enough, then there is no issue. >>Che-Hoo Cheng: In fact, I fully understand what Craig said, because I mention it I think within EC meeting about the possibility of disclosing who is voting for whom. So I think we need very careful consideration among EC, because this will set a precedent and then later on, if there is problem, we may face big issue. So I think we need to take back. But in terms of what has been disclosed, I think it's all right. >>Aftab Siddiqui (Cyber Internet Services): Before Masato takes the mic, I just need to clarify. Whatever Craig said, that there is no issue, he answered my question. So just to make my position clear, whatever I was requesting to, he already said that is possible. That's it. No further question from my side at least. Thank you. >>Masato Yamanishi (SoftBank): I have a question to Ajai. Can you explain why you need those numbers? As a member, I also have a concern about opening that number. Especially in case that one candidate can get very small number in such case, we may have big concern. We may have a possibility that who vote to that candidate would be open. So I think just asking those numbers from just accountability perspective is not enough to justify opening those numbers. 51 >>Ajai Kumar (NIXI): I am not sure that everyone is saying that it is possible, but from next time. If it is possible, why not from this time or otherwise say that you are not going to provide this information any time? Every time we say that, next time, next time. I am also not convinced that any person can guess that who has voted the valid paper was outside, 127 ballot paper given, so from those numbers, I'm not personally sure that I can guess who has voted. The person has already won. The information sharing, I don't think there should be any problem, but if anyone want and think that is a problem, it is up to EC. That was my personal request. Thank you. >>Che-Hoo Cheng: It's just my personal opinion, but of course I think we need legal advice. I think we only committed to do it, we do the consideration. We haven't committed to really disclose it. That's what I understand. Is that correct? I think we need to think about it very carefully and I have seen, I did see some kind of cooperation among some of the members. It's not a big issue, but I think it's clear, it's very important that the voters are free to vote. That's very important. They shouldn't face pressure to vote and they can freely vote for anyone without disclosing whom he or she has voted for. 52 I think we have to maintain that and if any of our decision will hurt that, I think it's not what we are going to do. >>Sanjaya (APNIC): I'm just curious what happens in other regions, do they actually separate the online voting and the on-site voting by each candidate? I'm just curious. Thank you. Can the other regions share their information? >>Axel Pawlik (RIPE NCC): No, we don't. >>Einar Bohlin (ARIN): Our system is completely online, so we don't have anything to compare. >>Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much. To conclude this topic, I should say that it is in Ajai's way of explanation, it sounds like something we should do is somehow defer time to time and then never happened. Current consideration, current decision of the Executive Council is its own reason, then it is our position not to do that. So please understand that. Then, yes, I understand you have such a concern, so I think as Chair of the Executive Council, I need to have some more consideration if there be any possibility to meet your expectation or not. Thank you very much. Any other comment or question? For this happy timing? No? Okay. Let's go to the happiest thing, vote of 53 thanks. >>Paul Wilson: In closing the meeting or bringing the meeting to a close, there are quite a few things to say and people to thank as usual. The event only happens with contributions from many different people and I think in the context of this quite amazing combined meeting of APRICOT, APNIC and APAN together, we really need to thank all of the supporters and sponsors who made this event possible and I want to start just simply by acknowledging the organizer, the APRICOT-APAN 2015 Japan executive committee, which was chaired by Hosoya-san, so thank you so much for making this meeting such a great venue for APNIC to come and join and to bring so many people here and obviously enjoy themselves and get so much out of it. Thank you very much. APPLAUSE There are eight organizations behind this executive committee including JPNIC, including Kyushu University and many others, but really it wouldn't have been possible if not for your fantastic efforts in coming to the party for this meeting. But just since we're coming to the end here of what is actually APNIC 39 and we are just coming to the end of the AGM, I would just like to thank in particular the 54 sponsors of this meeting. As usual, it's fantastic to have support from these three organizations directly for this meeting, CNNIC, TWNIC and JPNIC, who have supported again, as they do almost every year, if not every year. So thanks very much to you for that support. APPLAUSE We have a dinner tonight, now a regular part of the event. Unfortunately, tickets have been limited, I'm not sure if there are still any seats left. It's fine. Okay. Good. So if you don't have your ticket, then please come along, but please also let's thank APJII, NIXI and PHCOLO, because they will be helping us to have a fantastic night tonight as well. So thank you. APPLAUSE More thanks. The Policy SIG this time around I think was a very active, a very vibrant meeting, it took a full four and a half hours, three sessions and I think probably the first time that any such long session at an APNIC meeting has been chaired by a single Chair, left very much to manage the job by themselves and so that of course is Yamanishi-san, Masato, thank you very much. APPLAUSE This man did a fantastic job, but he also needs help, so I hope we'll have some nominees next time 55 around. Thanks, Masato. The NIR SIG Chaired and Co-chaired by Toshio, Jessica and Ajai. Thank you very much. APPLAUSE The Cooperation SIG, the newest SIG in the APNIC meeting, chaired for the first time by Dr Govind and Co-chaired by Billy, so thanks to you for coming to the party on that one. APPLAUSE We have had many speakers and many moderators. Without the contributions of members of the community coming here and volunteering their time and sharing their thoughts and their expertise, it really wouldn't happen. So thanks to all involved. Again, our Election Chair, Ryoichi Hosoya, thank you very much for helping the election to be a success. APPLAUSE The program committee is something that's jointly exercised with APRICOT and APNIC meetings and we had Dean, Mark and Raphael as the Co-Chairs of the PC and helped by many other members. So I'm not sure who we have left in the room, but we should definitely thank the program committee. APPLAUSE My own special thanks to the APNIC EC for their 56 support to the APNIC staff who have as usual I think helped to make this event a success, contributed hugely across the board I think to APRICOT, not just to the APNIC business, but to the whole event. Everyone has worked very hard over the last week or two weeks in fact. So thanks to those APNIC insiders, let's say, but also, as listed here, many guests, we have our Numbers Council, Address Council, we have colleagues who have come from afar, from other RIRs and helped us out a lot too. So thanks to all of you. Of course, the miraculous stenocaptioning that happens all the time and people still mistake for a computerized process, so Nicky and Helen, thanks very much for your help yet again. APPLAUSE We have had some pretty good participation here this week. As you know, over a thousand registrations and nearly all of them actually walk through the door, but we also should remember the remote participants who in many cases I think are sitting through and watching from afar without the sort of interaction that helps us to sort of get through the day and focus and really it's everyone who comes, both in the room and who come remotely to attend and watch this meeting and to 57 participate as well. Without the participation, without the people here to actually make the meeting buzz and to make it all actually worthwhile, it wouldn't happen, so thank you again, we will go on doing this I think for as long as you keep coming. Thank you all. APPLAUSE We know now that the next meeting will be in Jakarta. We have heard all about it from Sapto, hosted by APJII, as you know. If you don't have the dates, please do put the dates in your diaries. The one thing to note is that the selection of dates and the schedule is a little different, it's a little compressed in terms of the Conference schedule. So have a look at it before you make your bookings, because you might find that you need to know when the meeting is starting and stopping and so forth. So please do that. We will see you there. Until we meet again, I wanted to point out that there are many, many ways in which APNIC can be reached, but also the community can communicate and many of these things through URLs here on social media, you can find all of this on the website of course, but this has become an important part. I appreciate the comments on 58 the blog. I think it's looking pretty good and again, really appreciate any contributions from anyone in the community who can help to make that really continue to work. So see you online and again, just to let you know when we'll be meeting into the further future, APNIC 40, you know about, 41, courtesy of InternetNZ at APRICOT 2016 in Auckland. APNIC 42 will be in Dhaka in Bangladesh, dates in September 2016. APNIC 43 is to be determined by the APRICOT committee. Of course, as usual, now APNIC and APRICOT meetings are rotating on a predictable basis, so you do at least know that in 2017, APRICOT will be in Southeast Asia. APNIC 44, we have decided where it will be. The EC decided during this week that, again in line with the rotation policy, we're going to be going back to Taiwan in late August or early September, city to be determined. So that's quite a long way out, 2017, but you'll be hearing more about that real soon now. So that's it and we will see you in Jakarta, we hope. Thanks again. Thank you. APPLAUSE >>Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much. We should give the 59 gifts to the sponsors, Gold Sponsors. The sponsors will be called to the stage. >>Paul Wilson: APJII, please. APPLAUSE CNNIC. APPLAUSE JPNIC. APPLAUSE NIXI. APPLAUSE PHCOLO is not here. And TWNIC. APPLAUSE >>Maemura Akinori: Thank you very much. Come to the end part of the APNIC Annual General Meeting and I want to echo Paul's words and additionally, I'm really happy to receive you here in Fukuoka. It's actually my hometown. With both hats of APNIC Executive Council and local host, thank you very much for coming and as I said in Closing Plenary, I should say to Fukuoka with your family and then take a good time and good food. Thank you very much. Thank you. APPLAUSE Then we will see you at the closing under and many Jakarta. Please do come. Meeting is adjourned. 60 APPLAUSE