Annual Member Meeting, Friday 22 Aug, 1:00-4:00 pm PAUL WILSON: We actually have a result already for the Address Council election, a result of a kind and, in the circumstances, the EC has felt that it's best to announce and to deal with the election result now rather than leaving it till further on in the afternoon. So I'll ask Ray Plzak, who was coordinating the vote counting, to come and announce the result and the next steps. So, Ray. RAY PLZAK: Thank you, Paul. The good news is that this was not a board election, so we didn't have 30,000 ballots to count by hand. With a smaller number, we were able to do it quite rapidly. The bad news is that there were 47 ballots cast, one ballot was invalid because the person failed to mark a vote. The remaining number divided 23/23. There's a tie. We informed Paul of this. The EC gathered and had a very short discussion about this and have decided to resolve this by means of a coin toss. So when is this going to occur? PAUL WILSON: It's an unusual situation. There has been an exact tie so the recommendation has been that there be a tiebreaker through tossing a coin. This is partly because people who have voted have left and are unable to revote under the circumstances and, with an equal result, some agreed neutral means has been recommended. The group here is asked whether they have any objections. Is there any objection to this proposed resolution? Are both of the candidates in the room? Does anyone know where Mr Kwon is? Are there any comments or concerns? Would anyone like to make any remark at all about the ballot proposal? RAY PLZAK: While you're thinking about any thoughts you may have, this may point out one thing - one vote does count! PAUL WILSON: As has been announced by Ray, the vote is a tie, so there needs to be a tiebreaker which is proposed as the toss of a coin so, with the consent of the meeting and the consent of the candidates to this method of breaking the tie, would Ray do the honours? Do the candidates understand the proposal? It's OK? Yes. It's OK. Would someone like to volunteer a coin. Q. What kind of coin? RAY PLZAK: A $20 gold piece. PAUL WILSON: I'll say on behalf of the EC that this was considered very seriously and several alternative options were discussed and this was the recommendation that was agreed. RAY PLZAK: For the record, that's a 25 cent piece. That is heads. That is tails. So, do either of you have a preference who calls? Call it. (Coin rolls under stage) APPLAUSE RAY PLZAK: It says heads. You are the winner (Hyun-joon Kwon) APPLAUSE PAUL WILSON: Thank you very much, Ray. Thanks very much to the candidates. It's not exactly the planned outcome of the election. So I'm glad that this has been accepted by the consensus of the group. Thank you very much. Congratulations to the winner. The next order of business is to move on to the SIG reports in the agenda SIG and BOF reports. I think we will start with the SIGs first of course, with the address policy SIG with Arano-San. I should mention that one of the items of discussion at this meeting was the policy process. Of course, the SIGs are a very important component of the APNIC policy process. The discussions in the SIGs, the proposals in the SIGs and the discussions have resulted in a few cases in consensus agreement with the proposals. Apart from hearing an informative report about each of the SIGs, one of the functions of this meeting under the process is for the membership of APNIC to accept by consensus the recommendations of the special interest group meetings. So, as each of these reports are being presented, after the report has been presented, we will go through a process of revising or reviewing - reviewing, not revising - we will go through a process of reviewing the consensus recommendations from each of the SIGs and they will be presented to you for your agreement and there will be an opportunity for this meeting to agree actively with the recommendations or to reject the recommendations. So please be prepared to raise a hand to indicate your agreement at the appropriate time with each of the items, each of the consensus items which are discussed in each of the SIG reports. So, as I say, in this case, Arano-san will present his SIG report and we will then go back through the SIG report, through the consensus recommendations to review each one. TAKASHI ARANO: First of all, excuse me for dressing in uncoordinated way in this atmosphere. I have to go flight after this meeting. I am sorry. I am happy to chair this session again, the Address Policy SIG report. This time, I had two excellent co-chairs. There were 14 topics in three sessions. Attendance: first session - 81, second session - 59, final session - 88. Here is a list of consensus points which can proceed to AMM and mailing list for final call, OK. First of all, draft charter. I will read this. "The charter of the policy SIG is to develop policies and procedures which relate to the management and the use of Internet address resources by APNIC, NIRs, and ISPs within the Asia Pacific region." Actually, this draft charter got consensus and is to be circulated and discussed on the mailing list for eight weeks. The second topic was a process policy modification. This is a modified version. The proposal was - first of all, a proposal must submit text proposal to SIG mailing list one month before the meeting. That's mandatory and you cannot miss that. And a comment period is needed on the SIG mailing list after meeting. That's a standard comment period of eight weeks. And, finally, that final endorsement can be done by EC, because this is between meetings. And we discussed this proposal and finally, consensus reached. Next, the APNIC document editorial policy. The proposal was that we need a simple process to implement consensus decisions. And the contents are - Secretariat to release a draft reflecting SIG/AMM decision, then call for public review - that was intended to ensure the draft properly represents decision and we need one month for editorial comments. And also, the community can request additional reviews on basis that the draft does not properly reflect consensus from the relevant meeting. OK? And, also, proposal will be implemented as soon as we get consensus. OK. This proposal got consensus in the SIG also. Next - IANA IPv4 resource request procedures. Proposed IPv4 allocation policy from IANA to RIRs got consensus. The contents was 18 months necessary space, etc, etc. I'm not going into details. And this was actually global policy, it's not APNIC policy. So the next step is to go to the other regions’ open policy meetings and the global policy must go through ASO. OK. The next - IPv6 address space management. Actually, it's called sparse allocation. This idea got consensus. However, the concrete allocation of size from IANA to RIRs needs more discussions. The question is that a /8 to a /12. We will discuss maybe more. So the general feeling among the attendance is more support can be found on /8 than on /12. This means it was agreed that it should be far shorter than the current size /23 for maximising aggregation. This is also a kind of global policy and should be coordinated with other regions. OK. IXP assignments. The proposal was to modify the current policy for IXP assignments. That proposal contains a lot of points and some are agreed, some are narrowly agreed. The agreed portions can go through the standard eight weeks mailing list discussion. The definition got consensus and the routing restriction get consensus. However, the remaining parts, I would suggest a proposal to revise and resubmit the remaining portions. That was fee portion - the feature was withdrawn during discussion by the proposer itself. And the characteristics - that was found a little bit ambiguous, because fee portion was withdrawn. Actually, we had no discussion with some controversial points, such as combined IPv4/IPv6 assignment. So just these two agreed points will be discussed here. OK? The next - supporting historical resource transfer. The proposal was to allow transfer of historical resources to APNIC members with no technical review or approval, and the historical resource-holder must be verified. Under the proposal - the recipient of transfer under this mechanism must be an APNIC member. And the discussion happened around this topic and this sentence will be added actually - this is an amendment. The existing historical resource holders can update their information as previously. This kind of sentence should be added to clarify the meaning. This proposal got consensus. OK. The other things are just informational. There is a summary of the current issues on IPv6 policy. That would be an input to the editorial policy and the global mailing list. And the IPv6 guidelines document. This was not a policy proposal but needs some action. Next, HD ratio for IPv4. Actually, this proposal did not get deadline of one month, so this is informational, but this is kind of related to a proposal itself. So the chair asked for the general feeling, whether you were in favour or not. And the result was people in the room was generally in favour for this proposal and probably the proposal will proceed and may take this to the other regions, probably. And the distribution mechanism for unique local address IPv6 unicast address was another topic, and also the large IPv4 address space usage trial for future IPv6 applications and services and IPv4 address lifetime expectancy revisited. That was a very informative presentation, I believe. And the open action items following. I will circulate this document in the mailing list or ask Secretariat to put this on the website so please read this after the meeting. Just, I will show you the new action items. Thank you for your cooperation. Now is the time for endorsement please. PAUL WILSON: Thank you for presenting the report of the SIG. Having heard the report of the address policy SIG, it's now time to review the individual consensus items and pass it through this meeting for approval and acceptance. So the first being the draft charter of the SIG. So could I ask for support for the draft charter of the SIG please? Please raise your hand. OK and anyone who is not in favour of accepting this draft charter please. OK, well, I think that's quite clear. It shouldn't be a terribly major issue. Let's consider the charter of the SIG to be now accepted. We'll move on to the next consensus item. That's on the policy process modification. So the slide here summarises the consensus of the meeting. Again, I'd like to ask you to please indicate your agreement with the revised policy process as approved in the SIG please. Please raise your hands if you agree with this - if you will accept this consensus decision. Are there any objections? OK. Thank you. The APNIC document editorial policy was also presented and we had a consensus in the SIG on implementation as soon as possible. So could we please - could you please indicate your agreement with this consensus? Raise hands please. And anyone who does not agree with this consensus? OK, thank you. OK, would you summarise the consensus here please, Arano-san. TAKASHI ARANO: Actually, this proposal was for IPv4 allocations from IANA to RIR. PAUL WILSON: So the policy was supported by consensus but it was noted that it's a global policy so it can't be implemented by APNIC or in the APNIC region until it's been through an ASO process. The SIG gave support for the proposal. TAKASHI ARANO: We have to make our own decision. PAUL WILSON: OK, so we need to make a decision on this prior to it going through the global policy process. So would you please indicate if you will accept the consensus support for the new IANA IPv4 request procedures. And anyone not agreeing with this consensus decision of the SIG? Thank you. OK, so the IPv6 address space management - it was agreed that the allocations from the IANA should be much shorter than the current size of /23 and that it should be coordinated by the regions. Can I ask you to indicate if you agree with this policy? TAKASHI ARANO: The agreed part of IPv6 allocation and the proposal accepts the size. Size will be discussed but, as a first, get consensus in the SIG. PAUL WILSON: OK, my apologies could you indicate your agreement to the consensus outcome of the SIG? Any disagreement please. The next was the IXP assignments, accepting the definition and the lifting of the routing restriction on the IPv6 assignments. Can you indicate agreement? Any disagreement? Thank you. Supporting historical resource transfers. The proposal is accepted with some discussion of the issue of APNIC members and the clarification that existing resource holders can update their information exactly as they currently do without being restricted by the policy. So the policy was supported by consensus. Could you please indicate your agreement with that consensus. Is there any disagreement with this? Thank you. And there you are - that's the end of the consensus outcomes of the address policy SIG. There are only - the rest of the SIG was dedicated to information so we don't have to consider those here. So thank you very much. The next SIG report is from the routing SIG. Philip Smith was one of the co-chairs. Philip, are you ready? As Arano-san is leaving. I'd like to present a gift to him. Thank you. APPLAUSE PHILIP SMITH: I'm Philip Smith. The routing SIG examines important issues of Internet routing and policy in the Asia Pacific region. One of the things we discussed was to confirm that this is the charter. It that was the first action item. The second action item that we covered was the confirmation that Randy Bush was elected as co-chair. So there's two chairs listed on the screen. SIG was held yesterday, 4:00 to 5:30. It was quite an interesting meeting. Quite a quiet meeting. We had 45 attendees and our two stenographers. Two presentations from Geoff Huston we had, the first one on hunting bogons and the second one on the IPv6 version of the CIDR Report. Then we finished off a presentation from Randy Bush on the chattiness of BGP. Very few questions from that. And it really surprised me. I guess we were sitting in this big room with 45 attendees which feels quite spacious. And finally I want to thank Sam Dickinson. That was it. No policy and no consensus. No actions. Nothing. Very quiet meeting. PAUL WILSON: Philip Smith is down as the IX SIG chair as well. PHILIP SMITH: Again, a reminder of the charter. It provides a forum for sharing information about the status and activities of Internet Exchange points in the Asia Pacific region. No comments received. This is our charter. Then there was the confirmation of Che-Hoo Cheng confirmed as a co-chair. The SIG met on Wednesday morning, 11:00 to 12:30. We had what I thought at the start of this meeting was a very light agenda or could be quiet. We normally have about 8 to 10 IXs reporting. Despite my best efforts, only four people stepped up to volunteer. Gaurab Upadhaya spoke about IXs in South Asia, covering the whole South Asia region, basically what's happening in every country in that region. Then we had a report from JPNAP, from Toshinori Ishii. He actually reported on the activities of the Indonesian exchange from Ahmad Alkazimy. Akira Kato reported on DIX-IE. To fill in the final 20 minutes or so of the SIG, Bill Woodcock volunteered to really go over what he was going to present at the address policy SIG on the IX policy revisions to give the SIG an indication of what he was talking about. We only had 30 attendees, fairly typical for an IX SIG meeting. But it was fairly lively. I was surprised given quite a light agenda. Good audience participation, several questions, a lot of discussion. I'd like to thank Gerard Ross for minuting the meeting. We got an action item that APNIC should clarify the guidelines for the ASN policy in relation to multihoming. Those were in Gerard’s words from the minutes. Basically, this came out of confusion APJII felt was present in the existing APNIC documentation as to qualification to receive an ASN for the purposes of multihoming. They felt that the participants of IX won't qualify for an AS number according to APNIC policy. Of course, someone who is multihoming by definition is connected to two networks. We don't care what media they use. Therefore, IX qualifies as well as any other technology, any other system. So that was the one action item that came out of the IX SIG, the action item on the APNIC Secretariat. And that was the SIG. Any questions about this? OK. Thank you very much. PAUL WILSON: Thanks very much Phil for your hard work chairing the SIGs and your work earlier in the week in tutorials and I think your work on the security of the network during this week has also been invaluable. Thanks again for all your help and there's a gift for each SIG there. You might like to share it one of the other co-chairs. Thanks very much. Thanks. APPLAUSE Maemura Akinori will report on the NIR SIG. MAEMURA AKINORI: Here I am reporting about NIR SIG chaired by myself and another. This was the 7th meeting to discuss NIR issues and the fifth open meeting. I mean that it was open, not limited to the NIR people to discuss the NIR issues. And this is the first time to have it as NIR SIG. NIR mailing list is on the screen. And this is now closed. Please subscribe to the list on the screen now to discuss NIR issues. In this SIG, we have these agendas. First of all, we circulated the draft charter. This draft charter is, "The charter of the NIR SIG is to share information relating to the operations, policies and procedures of National Internet Registries with the aim of promoting close cooperation both between the NIRs and with the APNIC Secretariat." This draft charter was presented and accepted by the participants and it will take another eight weeks to be circulated, not on the web, sorry, but on the mailing list. Oh, chairman is there. OK. We have two reports about NIR policy meeting from the JPNIC by Yuka Suzuki, JPNIC. And from APJII by Ahmad Alkazimy. These reported about their own open policy meetings. The NIR is just a similar organisation with the APNIC so NIR itself has this kind of open policy for them to discuss. So we could exchange information about these open policy meetings at the time. And the other three are all the reports about the systems from KRNIC, Jim-man Kim reported their Whois update. And from TWNIC, Sheng-Wei Kuo presented their RMS. And from JPNIC, Taiji Kimura reported about NIR systems meeting. NIR systems meeting is just an optional meeting that is a way the NIR systems people get together to discuss about their systems. That is very technical discussion to share the issues and the problems and the cases of their systems. OK, in summary, in this time, no proposal was raised on the NIR SIG except the charter. And we had a report and comments so there were the very active exchange of the information which each NIR has. So I think that was a successful to, you know, to exchanging the information and to share the cases that each NIR has. That is from our side as the NIR SIG report. Thank you very much. OK, I request member meeting for the endorsement of the charter acceptance. PAUL WILSON: OK, traditionally we do pass charter at this meeting for endorsements. Could I ask for a show of support for the proposed charter for this special interest group please. Raise your hands if that's fine with you. And is there any objection to this charter by any chance? OK. Thank you very much and thanks very much to Akinori for this very interesting report. ANNE LORD: Just one thing, there should be an action on the Secretariat to implement that as well, to update the website and so forth. PAUL WILSON: OK. And in recognition of your contribution to the NIR SIG chair, just our appreciation. Thank you. APPLAUSE This will be a report on the Database SIG. XING LI: OK, the open action items left from previous database SIG. Three proposals, policy proposals and one informational proposal. The charter of database SIG is this, "The charter of the database SIG is to examine developments in the operation of the APNIC Whois database and to discuss related issues affecting registration practices, database security, specification of objects and database features." And the draft charter was adopted by consensus in the SIG. There are three remaining open action items from previous meetings. The first one, "Secretariat to create sample hierarchical inetnum objects with associated maintainer objects in the APNIC Whois database, results to be presented at this meeting." And the update is completed. And the second remaining previous action item is "Further discussion on requirements to host a whole Whois." This one was put to the SIG database mailing list. However, during the time before this meeting, there is no discussions. So the SIG decide to close this action item. And this can be re-opened if new proposal come. And the third one, "Secretariat to clean up the database, deleting unreferenced objects and modifying RPSL non-compliant objects." And the update is completed. So all the remaining open action items are closed, or completed. So there are three policy proposals. The first proposal was by JPNIC - policy for mirroring Internet Routing Registry. The idea is this presentation proposed that there be restrictions be imposed on the mirroring of Internet Routing Registries. There was some discussions. The major question is - if the mirroring is necessary, it's probably improving the Whois database user interface. Anyway, the discussion is not active. So the action item this time is go to database mailing list for further discussion. And the second policy proposal by Paul Wilson from APNIC - privacy of customer records. And the idea is look at issues related to customer assignments being publicly available in the Whois database. Issues include privacy and inaccurate records. It was proposed that a new attribute called 'hidden' be added to records so that they would not be publicly available. However, assignments would still be required to be registered in the database. Also, allocations would continue to be registered. The presentation also looked at the impact … the policy would have. And this was accepted and make a consensus in the meeting. By the way, there are 75 attendees in the database SIG and 10 agreed with this and 0 against this. So the action item is, “Secretariat to implement the proposal to prevent customer records in the APNIC database being publicly available.” And the third policy proposal - protecting resource records in the APNIC Whois database by Sanjaya from APNIC. And this is OK. The action item is to maintainer of objects protected by MAINT-NULL with the maintainer of the parent object to be implemented by Secretariat. And, for this one, the SIG meeting made the consensus and 20 agreed and 0 against this out of 75. And the last proposal is informative, which is also by Sanjaya from APNIC. This proposal reported on the implementation of a proposal given by APNIC as I mentioned earlier, the action db-15-001 and no questions and that's all. PAUL WILSON: OK, thank you very much Xing Li. There are a small number of items to review here. Firstly the SIG charter. Can we take a look at that again. This was adopted by consensus by the SIG. Can I ask you to indicate your agreement to the adoption of this charter by raising your hand please? OK, thank you very much. Is there anyone who disagrees with the document charter? Thank you. OK, so the charter is adopted. Thank you. The next one. The presentation for privacy of customer records. This was adopted by consensus and the Secretariat asked to implement the proposal. Could I ask you to indicate your agreement with this consensus recommendation please? Raise your hand if you agree please. Does anyone disagree with this proposal? Thank you very much. And the final one is the SIG adopted or agreed by consensus with the proposal regarding resource records in Whois database and asked the Secretariat to carry out this proposal. Could you please indicate whether you agree with that consensus decision. Please raise your hands if you agree with the decision of the SIG. Thank you very much. Does anyone disagree? OK. Thank you. That is the end of that report and the acceptance of those recommendations. Thank you very much. Thanks Xing Li. And, in appreciation of your work as the chair, a small gift. Thank you. APPLAUSE We have a report now from Kazu Yamamoto on the IPv6 technical SIG. KAZU YAMAMOTO: Hello, everyone. My name is Kazu Yamamoto. I'm in charge of IPv6 SIG. The day before yesterday, we have IPv6 technical SIG in the morning. And we have five informational presentations, no proposals in presentation at all. I will explain informational presentations. Well, the first presentation is IPv6 allocation status report by Mr Pan from APNIC. And this kind of presentation is presented in every IPv6 SIG so very thank you to APNIC. And the information here is that the number of US ISPs obtaining sTLA is increasing rapidly, probably because the DOD support IPv6, so that's why there is very good information I guess. And second presentation is the deprecation of site local address presented by Mr Fujisaki of NTT. The IETF, it is decided that, you know, site-local address is remaining defined but now deprecated. So he explained the reason why, you know, site-local address is deprecated. And alternatively, for the site which is not connected to the Internet, unique local IPv6 … address is proposed. So this, you know, registry guide should have look at this proposal carefully because this kind of unicast address will be assigned by registry. So please look at this. Please watch this activity in IETF. Then, last three presentations are about IPv6 application. The third presentation is IPv6 show case N+I 2003 in Tokyo presented by me. N+I is the largest network show in Japan and, of course, IPv6 showcase is dedicated today to IPv6 and 22 companies joined this year. And good IPv6 application is HDD recorder, air conditioner or digital camera. So we demonstrate that you can control hard disc recorder in your home network by cell phone. So this kind of application would be good application for IPv6 deployment. And it seems to me that real IPv6 deployment will begin in, you know, home network area but current weakest link to the deployment of IPv6 is ADSL carriers. So, you know, broadband access server does not IPv6 yet. So the next presentation, entitled by Feel6 by Alex, FreeBit, described how to, you know, get over the weakest link. So, FreeBit is now proposing the automatic configured tunnel mechanism to connect home networks that currently the big … and he explained what's going on in the Feel6 project. The last presentation is Japan Telecom IPv6 application trial, presented by Nag Nagashima of Japan Telecom. This is a kind of SMS messenger so you can enjoy chatting or something and such and such. This is also good IPv6 application to demonstrate the peer-to-peer environment. OK. That's all. PAUL WILSON: Thanks for that report from the IPv6 SIG. And a small tokenof thanks for your work as the chair. Thanks. APPLAUSE And we have one final scheduled report. George Michaelson is going to speak for Joe Abley on the DNS Operations SIG. GEORGE MICHAELSON: Hello everyone. I'm giving this report for Joe Abley from ISC. The reason Joe isn't able to give the report directly is that he is currently over at the KRNIC office, completing an installation. He has sent email recently showing that he's already succeeded in getting transit into KRNIC's network and that this service is up and running in a very limited way in initial tests. This is a 2-day installation that has almost gone live while we are holding the meeting here. The DNS Ops SIG meeting was held on Wednesday. It had 70 people in attendance and three presentations by myself, Randy Bush and Geoff Huston. The charter was discussed in the meeting and one attendee proposed to replace the word “bind” with “DNS software”. A revised version of the charter is being put forward and it requires endorsement from attendees today. …This is the revised charter. “The charter of the DNS Ops SIG is to examine developments in policies and procedures for reverse DNS operations in the Asia Pacific region. It will include topics such as reverse delegations for IPv6 networks, security DNS, current DNS software versions and legacy transfers from other databases.” We will be asking for approval endorsement of this proposal at the end of this presentation. The open action items from last year's meeting - sorry, from this year's earlier meeting were discussed. Action DNS-15-001. The lame delegation clean-up has been done. I presented a modified proposal and there has been a suggestion for APNIC to run a trial based on this proposal. So it reached a consensus in the SIG. It also needs endorsement from attendees at this meeting today and would be circulated on the mailing list for eight weeks. Randy Bush presented informational presentation on 2.0.0.2.ip6.arpa. Geoff Huston made an informational presentation of a strawman proposal for managing 2.0.0.2.ip6.arpa delegations. Joe has noted there were some reservations as to whether there was enough demand in the 2002 delegations to even merit an automated solution. The meeting closed with no further issues raised from the floor. We have two action items which are to be put to this meeting for endorsement. PAUL WILSON: The proposed charter of the SIG was moved through by consensus. I'd like to ask this meeting to accept that consensus decision. Could you indicate your agreement? Your agreement to accept the consensus with the raised charter of the SIG. Does anyone disagree with this? OK, thank you. And the second more substantial consensus from the SIG was that if the secretary should go away for lame DNS procedures proposal. Could I ask you to indicate your agreement with that consensus decision in the SIG please? Just to tidy it up. OK. Does anyone disagree with this proposal? Thank you very much. And George, since you're heading to see Joe, please pass that on. Thanks. (APPLAUSE ) As I mentioned, George is on his way to Beijing now to display the next route installation. If it goes as well as Korea installation right now, then we'll have made quite a lot of progress this week on that particular front. Now, I would like to ask are there any other reports from any sessions that may have been held this week, we don't seem to have any BOF reports. OK. Thanks. We only had one BOF session this week, which was the APOPS session. They're open to anyone to propose a BOF about any particular topic. It stands for birds of a feather. They're meant to be informal sessions to discuss any particular working topic which might attract some interested people and discussions and so forth in these meetings. Please do bear in mind we had four BOF spots available this week and only one was filled. If you'd like to ask for a BOF about any topic, either a technical topic or even a sub-regional sort of topic, a group of people of a part of a region. PHILIP SMITH: Thanks, Paul. I'll put up the slide I am going to use. APOPS is a forum for Asia Pacific region. It was intended for set-up as an Asia Pacific region in NANOG. The mailing list was put together and really I think the motivation of the people who started the mailing list was ISPs in the region would contribute and participate as they do all the time on the NANOG mailing list. It hasn't really seen a great deal of activity. The AfNOG mailing list has been formed for the operators community for African continent. One of the things we tried to do was set up more than just a mailing list. Having a 6-monthly meeting. And during APRICOT. So, the meeting that we had here during the APNIC 16, we had a report from networking in South Asia. It was a conference in the South Asia part of our region and the report was mostly from SANOG. It was a joint meeting between SANOG and the South Asia Network Operators Group. And as Paul as mentioned earlier today, APNIC were a major participant in that event too. We … from Bill Woodcock. It's a way of connecting all the network operation centres of the ISPs together, using a telephone system that runs over the Internet, rather than using the conventional telephone system. Gaurab came back. We're watching developments in Afghanistan. And to fill up the one hour session. I gave a brief summary of how I managed to work out the laptops in the conference network that were affected. Lots and lots of questions from people saying, "How did you do that?" I gave a 5-minute summary. The slides will be on the APNIC site when I get time to do them. I've also listed here previous APOPS meetings. That was all we had to report. We were in this room headed by 10 to 15 people. It felt quite empty. But it was a good meeting apart from that. That was it. Thank you. PAUL WILSON: OK. Thanks. APOPS is intended to be a regular thing of this meeting. I think Philip is finding - he's working hard on it. Finding it hard to find suitable contents. If anyone is able to volunteer some suitable content for this part of the APNIC meeting they would be very welcome. SANJAYA: We had one BOF on the NIR systems. We met for one hour. There were 22 of them. May I suggest that, for the next APNIC meeting this could be one of the BOFs. Is that OK? PAUL WILSON: That's great. We had an informal meeting in our proposal … to make it an informal BOF at the next APNIC open policy meeting. Are there any reports of formal or informal minutes that have taken place this week. OK. Well that brings us to the end of the SIG and BOF reports and, in fact, it does bring us to the end of the agenda for the entire day today. We did schedule the meeting until 5.00. We've even got some time between now and the scheduled afternoon coffee break at 3:30. Could I just declare the microphone open for any comments, any questions about the SIG reports, for instance, about the APNIC reports or anything else that we've discussed today. Please feel free to contribute in any way. While you're thinking about that, I'd like to say thanks again to TWNIC as the silver sponsor for today for the APNIC member meeting. All the sponsorships that have been received are very much appreciated and they help to spread the load of funding and supporting these meetings around the community. But, of course, the very serious contribution is from the individual organisations that decide to make the contributions. So thanks very much to TWNIC. APPLAUSE And, if there are no further questions or contributions, then that really brings us to the end of day four of the meeting. And, in fact, to the end of the APNIC 16, the 16th APNIC open policy meeting. So I'd like to say thanks once again to all of the sponsors of the meeting. I've thanked TWNIC as the sponsor for day four. Korea Telecom contributed in the largest category as the platinum sponsor for the meeting. On the website, we have thanks and details of all of the sponsors in all the categories. In the gold category, as you may have heard during the course of the meeting - France Telecom, Hanaro Telecom, SK Telecom, ETRI, TTA. In the silver category, JPNIC, TWNIC, KTF, Netpia, LG Hitachi and Cisco Systems. We have had supporting contributions from LG, again, KDC and NSC. As I said, these are essential contributions to making this meeting affordable and sustainable. Let's thank all the sponsors once again for those contributions. APPLAUSE Lastly, of course as well, the World Bank Information for Development program gave quite a substantial contribution to the fellowship fund and we should acknowledge their support. More thanks to the SIG chairs, who work very hard between meetings and at the meetings, to the guest trainers and the presenters, I'd like to say thanks especially to the stenocaptioners, Dean and Lorraine for a great job this week and also of course to the translators for sitting there and patiently translating, even when they couldn't hear what was being said. Thanks also to the APNIC staff and the EC members, too many to list here but everyone at APNIC has put an awful lot of work into this meeting as they always do for quite a period of time prior to this meeting, quite a few late hours as well. Thanks to everyone who attended and took the time and trouble to be here. Special thanks to KRNIC because, as hosts of the meeting, they contributed a huge amount of staff time. They made sure that this meeting was a success. I think this meeting was a success. Let's thank KRNIC very much. APPLAUSE Finally, the next meetings - we'll have the 17th APNIC open policy meeting with APRICOT 2004 as usual. It will be in Kuala Lumpur next year from 18 to 27 of February. Those are the dates of the entire week of course. The APNIC open policy meeting will be happening during the last several days of that period from I'd guess the 23rd to the 27th. The details of APRICOT 2004 are up on the website at the URL just there. Also at this time of year, it's time to start looking for the host and the location for the 18th open policy meeting, that's the meeting that will happen in about a year. So the documentation isn't quite available on the website yet but we'll be publishing the call for proposals on the APNIC website for a meeting to happen in August or September in a location to be decided. I would encourage and hope that we will have some is strong proposals for another good meeting at roughly the same time as this meeting next year. And there's a typo here which is, of course, the 18th meeting is August/September 2004. Finally for housekeeping, if you have wireless cards or interpretation sets, please do drop them back at the registration desk before you go. There will be coffee served, so please feel free to stay for the coffee break but let's call an end to the formal part of the meeting and everyone at APNIC, we at the Secretariat, we look forward to seeing you in Kuala Lumpur. Thanks very much. APPLAUSE