Transcript - Global Reports

Sanjaya: Good afternoon, everybody.

We are trying to start on time. This morning's session was a bit late, so I want to recover the timing here, so let's start on time, even though some people are still obviously out having lunch.

So if I could please ask the presenters to come up here and accompany me, Axel, Elise, Arturo, Adiel, Einar, Fujisaki-san.

We're going to follow the agenda on the website, so can I please be given the web.

The first report will be the NRO EC report, presented by Axel.

Axel Pawlik: All right. I'm here.

I hope you can forgive me from time to time to turn around, because the screen doesn't work, apparently.

So, yes, my name is Axel Pawlik, I'm a member of the Number Resource Organization Executive Council, among others.

I want to give you a short update on what the NRO has been doing over the last year and what we are about in general.

The NRO is the Number Resource Organization. Like I said, it's a vehicle that the RIRs have set up together gather relatively informally with an NRO to basically do some things together, with a little bit of formality.

We have formed the NRO for the purpose of protecting the pool of unallocated addresses in case something goes wrong with ICANN. This is a relatively old thing. At the time, it looks a little bit wobbly, it's not IANA, it's ICANN, I have to say buzz it's on the slide. That was one of the motivations. No offence.

Elise Gerich: None taken.

Axel Pawlik: But you always look like that.

The bottom-up industry, self-regulatory process of making policies and agreeing on them, so protecting them, promoting and talking about that.

What we do most of all over the last couple of years is the last point, acting as a focal point for Internet community input and for joint PR also from the RIR system.

We are also as the NRO, have an MOU signed with ICANN on the establishment and functioning as ICANN's Address Supporting Organization. I'll talk a bit more about that.

There are others who will talk about what those people did.

So last year -- this is 2012, obviously. Change the names but not the numbers.

The Chairman this year is John Curran from ARIN ? and John says hello from his sail boat somewhere in the sun, so that's somewhere up here, I have to talk to him about that.

Secretary is Paul Wilson and treasurer is Adiel Akplogan and second year and we rotate those offices, basically.

We have a number of coordination groups, among the people running the NRO, the most prominent ones are the engineer and coordination group and the communications coordination group, especially you hear a lot from the CCG, I think. The engineers, as engineers do, sit in the background somewhere in a cubicle and hack away and build systems that we build together or make sure that the systems that we don't build together but apart in the regional RIRs, that they work together properly.

We have established relatively newly the public affairs coordination group. Basically that's a bunch of specialists who look out into the policy or politics world, actually, and advise us on where we should put our attention and what we should be focusing on and obviously this year, we have heard that before from Paul Wilson, it's one of the bigger events.

Registration services managers also coordinate among themselves, not in any case about the forming of policy, that's none of our direct business, obviously, but more on the operational aspects of running the registration services groups.

We have like I said, the ASO, the Address Supporting Organization, and the prominent feature there is the address council, which is comprised of 15 people, five each from the regions.

It's an independent body, separate from the RIR management, that's the reason it's called the ASO. We help them to basically oversee the global number resource policy or the global resource development process. That's something that has been written down in the ASO MOU and appendix, how the global policy development policy works.

They also appoint two directors to the ICANN board and they serve on various ICANN bodies as is needed within the ican framework and if so asked, they also advise the ICANN board on numbering issues and we have occasional meetings with the ICANN board.

Those are the names of the people that sit on the address council. You see occasionally little asterisks there. Those are the people that are nominated by the RIR boards and the others are elected by the community and that changes over time.

Now, being part of ICANN brings some cost with it, doing things together, as the ASO within ICANN, but also contributing to the ICANN budget. Quite a long time ago, we came up with a formula that involves the turnover of the individual RIRs and the amount of resources they have in the registry they have allocated in a given year. That's mostly IPv4. We are currently revising the formula, discussing how that goes, bring IPv6 into play a bit more.

Those are the numbers. They vary over time a little bit, but not significantly.

The contribution to ICANN is still US$823,000. That has been stable I think actual since the beginning. We are and remain committed to ICANN. It's good to be part of that crowd and where they do work for us as certainly IANA is doing quite a lot, we are happy to contribute to that.

We usually go not all of us all the time, but some of us all of the time, to all the ICANN meetings. If you have a run down of what we are been doing there, most recent one I think was the Dakhar meeting. We had a workshop, the address council and the ASO, basically that's something that we decided I think two years ago to step up a little bit in terms of representation at the ICANN meetings, because the typical ICANN crowd was about to forget about us. It's just the numbers people. They don't have that much lawyers and it's all going so well that we don't care about them that much. They are still here. As we are running out of IPv4 addresses, maybe there are some things you should know about us and that has been met with some interest.

Of course, we also talk to the other stakeholders group that say the other committees within the ICANN board as well to the ICANN board itself and also relatively regularly to the governmental advisory committee.

IGF, we have just heard a lot about the IGF and quite a number of opinions. We think the IGF is a great thing. We have come to believe that there is a a lot of exchange and learning and one of the key features in our view is that it doesn't make any decisions, but people talk and they're in a relaxed viability to be able to do that.

The last meeting we went to Nairobi for last year. Again, a trip in the run up of things doing there, we have a small booth there, then we take part in the main events, we have started a couple of years ago to host workshops and put them together, basically talking about things that we are doing as the RIRs, how they fit in the great big world of Internet Governance.

Other international cooperation, obviously, the ITU is an important partner here. We used to go to their events where they are relevant to what we are doing. We always try to get them to come to ours, but they are very busy and rarely show up at these events.

The OECD, we started to work with a couple of years ago. Basically, trying to show them data that we are holding as the registries, that is important to the development of the Internet and as the international is important to -- so general economical development, our data may be relevant to bigger scale economic issues.

The OECD has taken that up and we are working quite well and quite closely together now.

What we are doing over the course of last year, most of this is still ongoing. Engineering coordination, like I said, systems need to work together properly and the main overarching theme here is the RPKI system, the certification systems that all the RIRs are developing.

So we are working there together. We have done also couple of workshops, some retreats ourselves as the NRO Executive Council, but also increasingly so and it says here those ISTAR chk meetings with our peers in the internet technical community ^, just to talk about our positioning with regard to IGFs and other events coming up. It's important that we do that from time to time.

I mentioned the public affairs coordination group. That's about already a year old again. RPKI plans, the certification plans, different regions have different speeds and different opinions also and we are discussing those.

Within the ICANN framework, all of the supporting organizations need to be reviewed from time to time by an independent group and as the people, the NRO sort of functioning as the ASO, we have commissioned an independent third party to do a review. That has been done and it's in the process of being channelled into the ICANN framework and it's about to be published.

Legacy space. Right, we are all of the good stewards of various amounts of legacy space in the region. We think that's important that we keep good track of and more or less do the same thing within the region.

Everything that we are doing is pretty transparent. We publish our statements, letters to various groups on the NRO website, nro.net.

That's it for now. I do apologise to those of you who know this by heart by now, but it's always good for those people who come from the region, don't go to all of the other RIR meetings, don't see this like 10 times a year, like some of us do, so apologies to those of you who have already seen that.

If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them. However you want to do the questions.

Sanjaya: Any questions?

Thanks, Axel.

I'll follow with my presentation on the NRO statistics.

All right. These are the some statistics on ASN IPv4 and IPv6 tracked by all the five Regional Internet Registries.

All of these figures are based on 30 December 2011, so it reflects the whole of 2011.

IPv4 address space. As you can see, IANA reserve is now 0, since the end of last year. There's 130 /8 given to the RIR and APNIC got 45, ARIN has 36, LACNIC 9 and RIPE NCC has 35.

This is how the RIRs are distributing the IPv4. As you can see, APNIC distributes most of the IPv4 compared to other RIRs and as you can also see, in 2011, we hit our last /8 address pool. So that's it from this year onward, we would probably not distribute -- we would probably disappear from the chart.

Remember, APNIC has 45, as you can see; APNIC has distributed 44.33, rIPE NCC, 31.97, AfriNIC 2.31, LACNIC 6.43 and ARIN is 27.82.

These are basically, you know, whatever remaining is in play until all the IPv4 stock at the RIR gets depleted.

ASN assignments are pretty much stable. RIPE still have most of the assignment of AS numbers, followed by ARIN, APNIC, LACNIC and AfriNIC.

These are all the ASNs that have been distributed by all the RIRs until end of 2011.

4 byte ASN assignments, we have -- Elise, remind me -- I think we have about 5,000 left of 2 byte ASNs.

Elise Gerich: Approximately.

Sanjaya: That's approximately. We also know that 2 byte AS numbers are running out, so we are now tracking the take-up of 4 byte AS numbers. It's looking promising, with RIPE NCC handing out quite a significant number of 4 byte ASs, followed by APNIC, LACNIC and then AfriNIC and ARIN.

We still can't explain why ARIN -- probably IANA can explain why -- hasn't been distributing a lot of 4 byte AS numbers.

IPv6. We still have each of the RIR receive a /12, none of the RIR requested for more IPv6 address space and there's still plenty of stock at the RIR level.

But as you can see, the allocations are picking up really, really fast. It's almost exponential growth here in the number of delegations made by all the RIRs. RIPE looking really aggressive there, followed by ARIN, APNIC and LACNIC not far behind, followed by AfriNIC.

So this is comparing two different measurements of IPv6. The left one is the number of delegations and the right one is the size of the address space that has been given out.

While the number of delegations done by RIPE NCC is a lot, but if looking at the space, APNIC seems to be handing more large chunks of IPv6.

We're also tracking how the IPv6 gets assigned to end users, which is not to the ISP. It looks like the same as with the ISP, the growth has been exponential. This is IPv6 assignments given directly to end users.

That's it. If you need more detail, please visit these websites. You can get raw data from our statistics files for each of the RIRs, so you can do your graphics and plotting yourself.

Thank you.

Any questions?

Tomohiro Fujisaki: My name is Tomohiro Fujisaki and I'm I'm a member of APNIC. This time my report is AC activity.

Actually, thank you for ... already mentioned by Axel, so what is ASO and concentrate on member work this year. Then I start about our activities.

So these are the meetings, and we have six meetings after APNIC 32. Every month. This is also mentioned by Axel, but we have activities in ICANN 42. I attend that meeting and I speak about APNIC region and its policy issues.

We also had a meeting with other ICANN supporting organizations, GNSO and CCNSO, to seek future cooperation.

Next topic is global policy management. This is one of our main jobs and at this point, we have two global policies for distribution of IPv4 address from IANA to the RIRs on the table. The first one, GPP-IPv4-2010, this global policy is abandoned, because this policy failed to reach consensus in the whole region. The second one, GPP-IPv4-2011, global policy for post-exhaustion, this policy reached consensus in all regions and now under the ASO review.

Next topic is ICANN board selection. This year we have the ICANN board selection and this slide shows the time schedule of the selection and the nomination phase is over and we have four candidates. Just now, we are in the comment and interview phase, so if you are interested in these elections, please visit the site at the bottom right and to make a comment for each candidate.

Next topic is ICANN NomCom. LACNIC NomCom AC this year. That topic is future meetings, we will make a presentation at workshop in next ICANN meeting and from APNIC region join the meeting and present our policy APNIC policy issues.

Also, we will have make presentations speaking in April, just after ARIN meeting. The main topic at that meeting will be the board selection.

This is the end of the slides, and other activities of us can be found at this website, including the meeting minutes and many documents. Please go to this website. Thank you so much.

Any questions?

Sanjaya: Any questions to Fujisaki-san? If not, Elise.

Tomohiro Fujisaki: Thank you.

Elise Gerich: Hi. Can you hear me or do I have to move the microphone better?

Sanjaya: I think it's good.

Elise Gerich: All right. Good. So my name is Elise ger issue and I'm here from ICANN to talk about the IANA department.

I guess you probably figure I only need this one slide, because I don't have any IPv4 to give away any more, so what do I have to talk about? But we thought we'd like to let you know some of the other things that we work on. So here I am.

So what I'm going to talk about are there are three different types ofk ativities that the IANA department has been involved in, other than giving away IP addresses. That includes continuous improvement of the department itself and our processes, some other services that we've taken on and finally some statistics and other stuff that we're posting.

As for continuous improvement, in the last three years, we've been involved in what's called EFQM, the European Foundation Quality Management program and every year, we've done a self-assessment, so we just concluded our third self-assessment in January and it was quite successful for us. It was a really good step, some good steps and improvements over the previous year by about 50 per cent in our EFQM score. So this is an activity that we've focused a lot of energy on and I'll be showing you some of the other significant results.

Some of the things we're having standard process models and standard documentation. ICANN has been running the IANA department for quite a long time and we have a lot of documentation that's been gathered over the years and maintained and the processes that we follow.

In the last year, what we did is we did decide on a standard process flow model and we took all the documentation and the intellectual information in everybody's heads and we collected that and we now have it well documented, and so, as we bring new people on to work in the IANA department, they have a consistent and common view of what we do in the processes and how we do things and how we serve you all as the community.

Another thing, one of the parts of the EFQM self-assessment is how well do you serve your community itself? One of the things we have never done is have a survey of customer survey. So that's under development right now and the RIRs obviously are very important customer of the IANA services and so we will be sending out that customer survey probably within the next three to four months.

Some other things in our request process and the process improvement area was especially in the applications for IPv4 and IPv6, of course we don't do much IPv4 any more, but now that you have a new global policy, we might, was to separate the form for applying for an IP address. It used to be a single form for an IPv4 or IPv6 address and the questions were more generic. Now it's more specific and focused on the type of address requirements you need as well as multicast forms and things of that nature.

Security and continuity is a very important part of our charter and our mission.

So we have in the last two years, had one continuity exercise where we switched over our services from the west coast to the east coast and this last year, ICANN runs the L route and we also had a continuity exercise for the L route. This coming year, we're planning a second IANA services continuity exercise, where we exercise our failure capabilities in case of failure of servers or other things.

As you all know, DNSSEC rolled out, I guess it was about a year and a half ago now, and so we have ceremonies, key signing ceremonies. Many representatives who come to participate in these key signing ceremonies for the domain names security come from Europe region and they're volunteers that come and participate in this activity. So we've had two successful ceremonies, number 7 and number 8, and more are planned, obviously, because we don't want those keys to expire.

Part of having the domain name security responsibilities for the root means to have a certification and an audit that we're secure and that the processes and the way we manage the ceremonies are done in a way that's sustainable and maintain the security and stability.

So we have received our second SysTrust ^ certification. It was renewed and that's a very big step. We were the first to get one, then VeriSign got a SysTrust certification and now we've got our renewal of our SysTrust certificatefication.

What else does ICANN and the IANA department do? So ICANN was invited by the IETF to takeover responsibility for the time zone database. Those of you that may have followed this on the web and in the papers know that the long time volunteers who run the time zone database in some time I think in the late 1980s, were retiring and as part of their retirement, they came to the IETF and they did ask that the IETF would now take this on as one of its responsibilities for protocol registry work.

ICANN has a memorandum of understanding with the IETF about maintaining their registries, their protocol registries. They asked us to take on this responsibility. So ICANN is now maintaining the time zone mailing list as well as the time zone website.

Another area that we've been quite involved in in the last six months is the IDN variant issues project. In fact, Dr Galvin from India was a leader of one of the six teams ^ for the Venagrichk -- I don't know if I pronounced that right -- script.

These teams for IDN variant issues, internationalized domain names -- I was told not to use too many acronyms -- have posted their final report and they are now up for public comment and will be discussed in the upcoming ICANN meeting in Costa Rica.

If you would like to read more about the various internationalized domain name reports that have to do with variants and how to potentially deal with them, we put up the web links for you.

Finally, statistics. I mentioned earlier that we're responsible for domain name security of the root and that includes encouraging people to sign their top level domains. This is a map that shows which of the ccTLDs have signed their domains as of January 2012.

The link at the bottom of the page is a new link that we have created that's now tracking not just the top level domains, but the secondary domains to some of the top level domains to show what the progression is. I'm sure those of you that are aware of DNS security realise that it's really a chain of trust and it's only as trustworthy as the whole chain being signed.

Finally, everybody has been talking about IPv6 and the deployment and instead of showing you how many IPv6 addresses are if the IANA pool versus allocated, we decided to show you how the IANA site is accessed by IPv6 versus IPv4 queries.

This is our web pages. As you notice, just around the time, June, when there was World IPv6 Day, all of a sudden we had less IPv6 traffic. I don't really get it. So I have asked our folks to look into this to see why it dropped. It's not very significant in the sense of the highest our traffic ever was was 97 per cent, but now it's less than 99 per cent and it's holding steady. So we're not exactly sure why this is the case.

Our earlier speakers today mentioned that there's not enough content out there that's IPv6 reachable. Just want to let you know, you can get to all the ICANN sites using IPv6 as well as the IANA websites.

So then we have been doing lots more with statistics and sharing information. The URLs that we have up here on the screen behind me are some of the sites that show some of the data on EGP and IPv6 queries and TLD information. So please feel free to browse and browse using IPv6, so I can get that number up.

Thank you very much.

Sanjaya: Thanks, Elise. Any questions to IANA?

Going once, twice.

Thank you.

Elise Gerich: OK. Thank you.

Sanjaya: Now, with apologies to Adiel, the technical team is still copying your material to the presentation PC, so I'll have to move you to last, Einar will be the next one.

Einar Bohlin: My name is Einar Bohlin, I'm the policy analyst at ARIN and this is the ARIN update.

2012 focus is before depletion and v6 update, just like last year and implementation of new policies and services, continue to work on our on-line system for our customers and playing a role in RPKI and of course we plan to continue participating in Internet Governance. That's our focus for the year.

On our main page, we show how much IPv4 space we still have left. Yes, ARIN does have v4 space. I did this slide on Friday. I checked this morning and now we're down to 5.06 /8s. So we issued a quarter of a /8 between Friday and this morning or this afternoon.

This includes all of the space that we can potentially issue, except for seven /16s worth of space that we hold for a three month period because it allows them to clear filters and things like that. That's returned space.

This is total number of IPv4 space that we issued last year. We did have a policy that was triggered by the IANA depletion in February, where we did change our allocation policy from issuing a 12 month supply to a three month supply. That did seem to have an effect on consumption. It wasn't supposed to, because it was anticipated that ISPs would just come four times as often, but the result is that, for example, in 2010, we issued approximately three /8s and last year we issued one and a half.

This is IPv6 allocations and requests. We also saw, as a result of that depletion, a spike in v6 requests, which kind of tapered off.

These are all of our IPv4 subscriber members and this knows which ones also have v6 space and the v6 section, 36 per cent continues to increase. I think the last time we showed this, it was 34 per cent and a couple of years ago, its was maybe 20. So this is actually good progress, in that many of our ISPs have old space ^.

We implemented new policies since the last APNIC meeting. We implemented a policy called "Better IPv6 Allocations for ISPs". This really enables ISPs to plan a v6 network and ask for the amount of v6 space that they need for the foreseeable future. We issue on are from /36 to /16 in IPv6 address space.

In addition to initial allocations, this policy also allows subsequent allocations when ISPs grow.

The next three polls there all have to do with transfers. The overall result is that when someone comes and wants to do a transfer within the ARIN region, we will evaluate the receiving organization's request, based on their 24 months need. Used to be three months for some organizations.

We have current proposals under discussion. We have the ARIN interRIR transfers which is the actual transfers between RIRs. We have an interesting proposal called compliance requirement, which is going to try to compel ISPs to register their customer reassignment information. If they don't, this policy would have ARIN revoke -- not revoke, remove their reverse DNS services to try to get them into compliance.

We have some more -- there's a proposal to add some criteria to transfers, for example, one of the criteria in 2011-12 is that if an organization transfers address space to someone else, they can't come to ARIN for address space for 12 months; they have to wait a year before they can come to us for more space.

There's a slight tweak to subsequent allocation policy, for v6, Tomohiro-san recommended the first global policy.

The first one is a policy about adding a /10 worth of IPv4 space to essentially the RFC 1918 private address space. So when our community committed a proposal and said ARIN should carve out a /10 and it gave the reason to be for ISPs to share or as an example for NAT44 for this transition period between v4 and v6. It went all the way through the ARIN policy development process, got to the ARIN board and the ARIN board said this looks like something that the IETF should consider.

So the board task ARIN staff to coordinate and talk with the IETF and as a matter of fact, last week on the IETF list, a gentleman posted -- can't remember his name right now -- but he posted and said rough consensus was found for the equivalent of an IETF draft that reserves a /10. So we anticipate this actually coming to fruition.

We have six new proposals that came in essentially within the last month. These are, for the most part, too new to go to our Vancouver meeting, but a couple of them might. All the text to these proposals are available at that URL.

This is an engineering slide. We continue to work on our system for our customers. We are trying to integrate billing. We have a specified transfer listing service where organizations that have excess address space can say they have such a thing and people that need address space can say they have such a thing. The community wanted us to set this up well in advance of depletion, so that folks would know how it would work and ARIN could have a functioning system and it's actually been a surprise that it's being used quite a bit today when ARIN still has address space.

We also worked on our routing registry. We enhanced the security.

We're working on RPKI. We ran into a problem with our hardware signing module, but we plan to do hosted first and then delegated this year. We have a fully functioning DNSSEC system.

We continue to do outreach, focusing not so much on v4 depletion, because that's gotten a lot of press, but we are talking about v6 adoption when going to these shows. We are also participating in Internet Governance that was talked about at panel this morning and the president and CEO of ARIN, John Curran and our government affairs officer, Cathy Hanley, do most of that work for us.

We have to number? meetings coming up this year. There was a question about the ASN. Sanjaya, we simply issue our ASNs from smallest number to largest. So we have --

Sanjaya: That explains it.

Einar Bohlin: We still have some 2 byte. When those are gone, that will appear on that chart.

Sanjaya: OK.

Einar Bohlin: That's it. Thank you.

Sanjaya: Thanks. Any questions to Einar?

Thank you.

APPLAUSE

Sanjaya: Next up would be LACNIC, Arturo.

Arturo Servin: Hello. I'm Arturo Servin, I'm from LACNIC, I'm technical manager in LACNIC.

The first one of the news is that we have a new logo, so we are going to celebrate our 10th anniversary in October of this year. So we change the logo, we are going to change the logo.

APPLAUSE

Thank you. We are going to change the logo again in the end of the year, in October, so this is like a transitional logo. So that's the first news. I think that in RIRs years, we are probably in also maturing in some of our matters as an RIR. This is the first news.

The other good news is that we reach the boundary of the 2,000 members in October last year, right now we are 2,185 members. The distributions looks very similar as other RIRs.

This is our report of the IPv4 address space. We still have around 63 million addresses. That was a few days ago. Also, we have to reduce from that the reserve that we have to have for the exhaustion policy. So in the end, it's going to be like 59 million addresses that we still have, forecasting is that we may run out of addresses from the pool for free allocation around June/July 2014, if everything it seems is going right now.

So this is in that link, you can check the statistics. They are updated daily, so every time we do an allegation, it is reflected in this graph, so it's almost if realtime.

This is the rate of allocation on IPv4, IPv6. It has been kind of a stable between the percentage of IPv4 and IPv6 that we have been allocated. But IPv6 has shown in the last two years an exponential growth compared with the same allocations of IPv6 in the past. So IPv6 is growing in allocations in Latin America. Unfortunately, it is not growing in deployment because we can see that at least in the routing table, that we don't see the same growing in allocations. We don't see that in the routing tables.

So we hope that the ISPs in Latin America start growing IPv6 soon.

This is ASNs, 4 bytes and 2 bytes. As you can see, we allocate a lot of 4 bytes ASNs. There are some -- peel tend to come back, so they ask specifically 2 byte ASN, because they their infrastructure doesn't support it or pause their ISP doesn't support it.

But mainly we allocate 4 byte ASN without any problem and people started using it without any problem.

This is RPKI. We start running our hosted RPKI system on January 2011. In May, we had a lot of growth. It was with the event of LACNIC in Mexico that we start also encouraging people to sign their space. Right now, we have almost 200 prefixes signed. It doesn't look like a lot of prefixes, but it is almost 6 per cent of the space that we have in LACNIC. We have more space that has been not issued. Also, there is a space from NIC Mexico and NIC Brazil that they don't have RPKI yet.

In June, take that into account, that the space that we have any issue and the space that is in N ^. Almost the space that LACNIC can sign today is almost 20 per cent of that space is already signed, so within that, we are doing a good job in RPKI.

About the meetings. The last meeting was in Bueons Aries in Argentina. We have almost 400 participants and the community presented six policies, three reached consensus.

From those three, the first two, they have to do -- well, they deal with allocation of IPv4. They form part of our group of three policies that basically these three policies said that you want IPv4 for initial allocation, you want more IPv6, sorry, more IPv4, or you want IPv4 after the exhaustion stage of LACNIC. You also have to request IPv6.

So right now, every member of LACNIC they need more IPv4, they also have to request IPv6. If they don't have it or if they want IPv4, they are newcomers, they have also to request IPv6, so these policies, some people like them, some people don't like them the policies because they say that they don't want an RIR to tell how to run their networks, but the community, they vote in favour of asking everybody to have IPv6 in order to get more IPv4.

The last one is allocation for a smooth finish of IPv4. So when we reach the last /12, we will set off a pool for allocating just a small part to ISPs. I think the maximum allocation is a /22 and they cannot request another allocation up to six months, so they have to wait for six months to request another /22. So those were the three policies that were approved in Buenos Aires.

Our next meetings, well, the next meeting is in Quito in Ecuador. We are going to have some other forums. We are LACSIC, it is about security, flip 6 is about IPv6 and about Internet exchanges. They are also in the same week as the policy forum. It's going to be on 6 May it start.

Then is going to be the big party for LACNIC, LACNIC 18, the end of October, October 29. We are going to celebrate in Montevideo, LACNIC, the offices, we are based there, so in that meeting, we are going to celebrate our 10th anniversary, so you are welcome to go. We expect to have a very good meeting, a lot of celebration, so you are invited.

I think that's all. Thank you very much.

Sanjaya: Thank you, Arturo.

Any questions?

Thank you. So Axel, you are up next.

Axel Pawlik: All right. It's me again. RIPE NCC. I want to basically continue the stories that I started last time with sort of about corporate governance and what's going on in the RIPE region. Starting with that, what's going on in the RIPE region.

It was cold, it was really cold. It happens every, I don't know, 10 years or so, but the canals in the city of Amsterdam freeze over. I think I have never seen that before. It was interesting. Really, really nice. So you missed it. Try again next time. Follow us on Facebook and you'll see it.

Apart from that, what I said last time is that we have addresses, IPv4 addresses and everything is going sort of OK. We see membership growth and all that.

Now I will look at the graph, the next one is sort of same scale. We have less IPv4 addresses. What a surprise. We still have some left, was going relatively well, it's like I said it's all calm, prepared, we are finalising the processes for the last days before allocations, looking OK.

We think we have a couple of months left in v4 life in our region, but of course we don't know how long that will last. Some big requests and we are out.

Membership growth is actually still happening quite a lot. We have seen the largest membership growth over the course of last year since 2008. Now we are at 7,885 members or public 7,897 by now.

What I also mentioned last time is that around certification services, RPKI and stuff like that, we finally have seen substantial discussion. We always wanted to have discussion, now we got it. There you go.

Basically, it focuses a little bit around are we not giving away too much power to the RIRs or are we not maybe or RIPE NCC in this case, are we maybe not building something that resembles a red button that will cause several parties to go and use it and switch off the Internet or parts of it.

We said, well, we'll discuss some more in between of the meetings and at the meeting. So what we have seen is there's a clear indication of no clear consensus among members and community. We did at the last RIPE meeting in Vienna, a very nice I thought panel discussion and also of course involved the audience. There was quite a bit of discussion going on basically about risks and how to contain those risks and how to build tools that make it easier for the end user or the operators to be fully in charge of what they are doing.

So to be very, very clear that we had a mandate to do whatever we were supposed to do then, we for the first time, I believe, had a resolution, a formal resolution at the general meeting that gave our members the opportunity to clearly say what they wanted this specific activity to do.

So options were stop, don't do it or continue developing and do certificates, but don't do things like ROAs that really in the end might enable the red button story. Or we don't like those two options, continue as before.

What happened at the general meeting is there was a lot of discussion, like we had early in the meeting, and basically the result was that they wanted us, with the broad majority, to continue with certification, but there was quite, nearly 50:50 division between people that said don't do ROAs right now, just continue on with the implementation of certification, but don't do the red button thing, it's way too weird, until we have further tools and the like.

But it was nearly 50:50, but not quite, so basically what we do now is very carefully and very deliberately, we continue as we were doing before, so we are issuing certificates and also our members can produce ROAs.

Implementation: Like I say, the validated tool that we have implemented gives all sorts of options to ignore, to basically be very much in control of what you are doing as an operator.

Another interesting thing that happened last year is that we were thinking about the future, we do that all the time. We have a charging scheme that basically allows us to charge our members according to some weird algorithm that is really old and quite arcane, but functions quite well. Some even claim it's well understood.

We thought we need to do something, we need to talk about the principles for membership fees in the light of running out of v4 addresses and what do we do? What we did is we engaged our members and we asked them. We had a couple of high-level principles that we put out for discussion and we received quite a lively bunch of members and comments back from them, so we thought that was a nice idea, so we prepared our input to the general meeting or proposal for charging scheme for 2012 according to that and, guess what, the members didn't like it.

I understand why some of them didn't like it, the fees for some of them would go up significantly. Some say by maybe 100 per cent; others say it's another 1,000 or 2,000 euros, it is not bad; but others say you can't do this to us this late in the year, sort of Octoberish, because our budgets for next year have been done and we have anticipated what the fees would be and this is just way beyond. Don't do this.

So they voted on this and didn't -- I'm here, actually. And said, no, we don't want this new charging scheme. It's not a big problem, because then we fall back to what we had before. So basically we are running now on the 2011 charging scheme, which worked before, which still works and actually gives us a little bit more revenue than we had catered for in the new charging scheme, the proposal. But, that's what it is. Failed at the general meeting, that's something that never happened before. That was interesting.

What do we do now? We have a long tradition in the RIPE region to put up our hands in the air and go we need community input more and we need a task force and then we set up a taskforce, a charging scheme taskforce, they have met physically for the first time last week and basically, the idea is to generate some high-level principles that the new charging scheme should adhere to and then leave the details to us and in the concrete proposal all membership categories from very large to very small are represented, nicely spread around our service region as well and a couple of members from the board and also ...

We'll see what comes out of that and the findings will be presented prior to the next general meeting, so, you know, two months, roughly. That's the plan.

OK, we did a membership survey again, like I said last time we would, it was the fifth -- not the fifth survey in last year, it's the fifth since we started that service in 2002. We got 825 good responses, as in more than just one question answered. The good thing is is no drastic surprises. People generally like what the agency is is doing. Overall satisfaction rate doesn't look so bad. It is even higher for registration services.

However, the executive summary, the whole thing, of course, is publicly available on the website, says the common thread that emerged through the survey is that the RIPE NCC should find ways to involve the members and other stakeholders who currently do not participate in community discussions or activities, whether through lack of interest, awareness or not.

Yes, that is what we want to do. That's something that we felt we wanted to widen the RIPE community, have more people some in, have new people come in and we think we have made some leeway there, but obviously we need to do some more.

So basically, what will we do? You can read it on the website if you want to. Basically, we have quite a number of services apart from registration and people sort of know them, but they don't always find them, and then what are they all doing? It's not very clearly structured. Basically, what we'll do over the course of this year and next year is basically try to get some order into this and make it easier to understand what our offerings really are.

The last sentence says measurements and statistics are receiving relatively low scores. However, that is because there is not enough of them, mostly, and they're not well enough presented.

So that's a big change for us to go ahead and do things with.

Next slide, meeting with the in Ljubljana in Slovenia. Of course as usual, you are all invited to come. There are rumours that we will have dinner in a cave or something. I don't know. Probably will be nice.

If you have any questions, I'm here until Saturday morning.

Sanjaya: Thank, Axel.

Questions? No?

OK. Now the tech team just needs a few seconds to copy the AfriNIC presentation and while waiting for that, I would probably ask -- I would like to ask IANA, this community APNIC is very curious about the interRIR transfer policy that you're cooking, so would you elaborate on the latest status on that one.

Einar Bohlin: Sure. Sanjaya, question for you, why are you serious about that policy?

Sanjaya: Yes. Why?

Einar Bohlin: Could it be that you have --

Sanjaya: I have something to offer to you.

Einar Bohlin: All right. I know that APNIC has adopted a policy about interRIR transfers. ARIN had a proposal last year about interRIR transfers and it went through the ARIN policy process, discussed in the list, presented it at a meeting, last call and it was recommended by the ARIN advisory council to the ARIN board for adoption.

The board looked at it and they looked at some discussion that took place during last call and they also considered the fact that our staff assessment said we needed a minimum of six months to implement this.

So they said it won't do any harm to give this a little more discussion, discuss it on the list and take it to Vancouver, our next public policy meeting, as long as we direct staff to begin implementation.

The board took it under advisory directed staff to begin implementation as if it had been adopted and that's going to be discussed one more time at our upcoming meeting.

Sanjaya: All right. Good. So we'll hopefully hear some positive news after Vancouver.

Einar Bohlin: There will be decisions, that's for sure.

Sanjaya: OK. Thank you.

Adiel Akplogan: Thank you. So I will take you quickly through AfriNIC activity update.

So one major thing that happened last year to AfriNIC is our organization structure is what we now call AfriNIC 2.0.

This structure review goes from the top of the organization, meaning the membership structure, down to the operational structure. So at the membership level, we have been talking for a while about the institutional membership for AfriNIC. That means members who do not hold resources, but can be actively involved in what we do and have some responsibility and right as well.

After several discussions, we notice that this requires us to change our bylaw and add some more things, so this has been finally approved by the board, we'll have a complete revamping of our membership structure after that.

At the board level as well, the review of the structure has impacted the board. In our region, we have a regional board, representation in the board. Each region elects two people, one primary and one alternate. We are getting rid of the election of the alternate at the board level and replacing the alternates -- not all of them -- with two independent seats. That means there will be elections for two people that has no regional label. They will be elected right based on their skill, their capacity and their ability to contribute to the organization.

This will be a challenge which has also to be integrated into the bylaws.

The organizational structure itself has also evolved. There is now a COO position that has been formally been approved by the board.

We have raised the profile of the HR function within the organization as well.

More importantly, consolidated our member services.

So this has led to this structure and as you can see, the CEO now will take control of or be in charge of the key operational function of the organization, community, member services and IT and engineering.

Member services will be a new service for us and will be made of different functions from other areas. So it is a completely new department that we have created with the objective to focus more the organization on how we serve our members and improve their value.

So based on that whole structure, we have recently adopted our 2012 budget. There again, we have completely reviewed our budgeting process last year. We start partly implementation this year, but we will see a more detailed implementation of the budget process this year, where we are going again by way we are increasing our member value, involving more our member into our budget process, which means we will start very early in the year.

So our budget this year is around $3.1 million, which is an increase of about 18 per cent from 2011 budget.

One big question that was asked during our last meeting when we were presenting the first draft of this budget, is the increase in our HR cost. From 2011 to 2012, we have about 50 per cent increase, 54 per cent ^ increase in HR cost. This is explained by the fact that we have planned our recruitment in 2011 which we have not done which decrease the HR cost last year and we are implementing them this year long before the other change ^.

A snapshot of our operations in 2012. We have 28 full-time staff working at AfriNIC today, 10 of them joining the organization during the last eight months.

As I mentioned before, we are trying to focus our activities in 2012 on improving increasing member value in what we do. So first action was to consolidate the member service. We are going to run for the first time a company wide member survey. We used to have survey, but they are more function-wise survey, very specific one, meeting, training, registration, service, but now we are going to wrap all of this into a more global member survey.

This will be also part of our new strategic planning process.

We are also working on reviewing engineering and optimizing our registration service processes. Because we would like to serve our members faster and more efficiently and make their registration process as easy and straightforward as possible. So we are working on that.

We have launched a few weeks ago our second consistency project, which also will take us three to four months to complete.

IPv6 is still one activity we are putting a lot of energy on in 2012. We trying to move more from our raising awareness our own IPv6 to supporting people in their transition to IPv6, so we are going to launch different activities in that sense, oriented in supporting members.

The professionization of our training as well, putting more resource in training, diversifying the type of training we are doing and also diversify the language of our training.

At the engineering side, doing a lot of things. We have started working on our Whois server, as well as RPKI infrastructure in general, DNSSEC also we have completed the test phase of our DN service, in fact, it has been launched for lest within my AfriNIC for the past four months, so the prototype is completely validated and is moving into formal service in the coming weeks.

We have also developed our own DNS anycast service, which is a service we are using for our own DNS, but we are also planning to offer this service to ccTLD in our region. We have received a lot of requests from ccTLD to host their DNS service, to be their secondary, so we are going to offer them this platform and we are deploying DNS now, with few exchange points starting with Kenya, the next will be Egypt and Cote d'Ivore.

We are working also with South Africa as well on a new version of my AfriNIC. The functionality will remain the same, but we are going to extend my AfriNIC to new members, I mean to potential members, because right now, you cannot access my AfriNIC if you are not a member. While our payments, our credit card payments system, for instance, is embedded in new AfriNIC, so new members cannot benefit that when they are in the process.

But we request -- we have received many requests to allow that, so we are going to develop first a first step of my AfriNIC ^, where new members can also have a graphical interface that they can use to follow their process and even make the payment and then move into the management of service itself.

We have been also active in advocacy and cooperation in the region. Last year, we have signed an MOU with the Commonwealth telecommunication organization on capacity building in the region, so we start working on that. The African union as well, we have strengthened our relationship with them, where we have been involved and been involved in of their activities related to Internet in the region, 6deploy, IDCPL launches on ground project now with the support of chk slides ... also part of this.

We continue to provide after NOG, after certificate, AF6TF which initiative that AfriNIC support in the region.

Some key numbers in terms of number resource. Globally, the IPv4 allocation has followed the same trend as 2010. We didn't have huge allocation last year. However, in IPv6, we have seen that we have more than double the number of allocations that we made in 2011 compared to 2006. We have done some comparison to see in the impact of IPv4 exhaustion has been any impact in our allocation in general. We haven't seen any very particular impact on the allocation, both IPv4 and IPv6.

So if you compare the trend for the past year 2011, you see the same trend in term of request and allocation.

We are serving today our own 1,000 members and we have also around 300 legacy members, who are not really part of what we -- inventory of member per se, because they don't pay, but we still have their resources in our Whois Database.

We also publish and keep an eye on inventory of IPv4, so today we still have in our pool around 4.3 /8 consolidated and part of it being part of our soft landing policy, one /8, the 10 2/8 is entirely governed by the soft landing policy.

So until we reach that, we will continue to allocate based on our current IPv4 allocation.

This gives a brief regional distribution of our resources and our membership. Interesting to see and see how the trend is moving as well. Is that when we compare the share of membership in some country and their IP resource usage, we can see some difference. I took the example of Kenya, for instance. They represent 5 per cent of our membership and in IPv4, it's almost aligned because they have 4 4.7 ? per cent, but when we go to IPv6, they have 13 per cent of IPv6 allocation today. While South Africa has 47 per cent of membership, 51 per cent of IPv4, they have only 28 per cent of IPv6 share.

So the trend is probably moving, but it's too early today to have a very confirmed trend in this regard.

AfriNIC 15, our last meeting was in Cameroon. We have an average of 122 attendees to the plenary session. 52 of them were first timers, so newcomers at AfriNIC at the first time AfriNIC meeting and they were coming from 37 different countries.

This meeting is AfriNIC's standalone meeting and we start our standalone meeting originally with only plenary session. We used to focus on policy discussion and member meeting. We start slowly adding tutorials, adding side events and the one this Cameroon I think was one of the more diverse standalone meetings that we had, we run in parallel about five or six different side events and tutorials.

We have introduced in Cameroon our new training for IPv6 managers. That was the first time we run that and it was well received and we are planning to continue that this year.

We reorganize kind of our government working group, they hold their fifth meeting in Cameroon as well. Now they have a Chair. It's not AfriNIC that will be driving the government working group per se any more. The Chair, the Co-chair will be leading the group and AfriNIC will provide the support.

So a Chair and Co-chair have been elected, appointed, in Cameroon.

Policy: Before the meeting or during the meeting, three policy proposals have been abandoned. In our new policy development process, we have catered for policy that do not have discussion or have not been updated for a certain period of time to be just dropped unless the person is interested and come back again.

Three policies died by themselves, but we think that they will come back soon in different format. So that's at least cut the debate at some point in time and reopen it in the person is interested.

We have in 2011, ratified three policies in total. The abuse contact policy we have ratified the global policy of IPv4 allocation from IANA to the RIR post-exhaustion policy, the global policy, and also the soft landing policy.

We are implemented the abuse contact. As I said before, we have reviewed, compleelgt I will reviewed our Whois code and the implementation of this policy has been taken into the new review of the code.

So in the coming, there will be an announcement on this as well.

To finish, we'll be happy to have you with us at our upcoming AfriNIC meeting, AfriNIC 16 in Serrekunda, Gambia. It will be a joint meeting with SANOG. It's from 12 to 18 May, but it's a very long event. It starts like 10 days before AfriNIC part of the event with AfriNOG, training, the tutorials and also you are welcome to join us in Gambia.

Thank you.

Sanjaya: Thank you, Adiel. Any questions?

If not, please join me in giving a big hands to all the presenters, thank you very much. That concludes our session.

Thank you.

APPLAUSE