______________________________________________________________________ DRAFT TRANSCRIPT APNIC Member Meeting Session 2 Friday 3 September 2004 10.45am ______________________________________________________________________ PAUL WILSON: Welcome back, everybody. We'll move on into the agenda in a moment. I'd like to mention there's been quite a lot of interest in the stenocaptioning which, as you see is a very interesting process which a lot of people believe is so fast and amazing it must be done by a computer but it's not. There are two people in the front, Lorraine and Kathleen, who are here and have been for the last couple of days providing this service. It's very useful for those of us in the meeting to follow the conversation that's going on. It's also very useful for the jabber broadcast and of course it's on record for the meeting records. If anyone's interested in seeing how it works, Kathleen's kindly offered to explain the system to anyone who's interested so feel free to have a look during lunch time or the break this afternoon and you'll hear all about it. I'm sure the Australian Caption Centre would be very prepared to help out with any other applications that anyone can think of for this service, so just feel free. They're doing a great job, thanks. Moving on. The general manager at LACNIC has also had to depart early, he has got a long way home. Ray Plzak is reporting on behalf of his own organisation as well as LACNIC. RAY PLZAK: Bula! I'm Ray Plzak, I'm going to provide you with an update on recent ARIN activities, particularly those things that have occurred that we reported at the last meeting. I will be covering our organisation, membership, activities, what we're doing in regards to the emerging RIR support, recent policy activity and invite you to the ARIN XIII meeting, which is coming up shortly. First of all, a little bit about the organisation. The ARIN members elect two bodies - a board of trustees which consists of 7 members and also an advisory council which consists of 15 members. The purpose of the advisory council is to provide advice to the board of trustees The board of trustees and the advisory council both work with the president who also is a member of the board of trustees. Direction from the board to the staff flows through the president and secretariat assistance for the advisory council as well as for the board flows back through the president. ARIN consists of five departments and two executives reporting directly to me. This is a recent change. It used to have just a director of operations, however the opportunity did present itself earlier this year to allow me to split this function. Richard Jimmerson who many of you know has assumed the roles of the director of external relations and we have hired a new person to - his name is Nate Davis who at one time worked for ARIN as the director of engineering several years ago, as the director of operations. The focus of the director of operations is internal. More of a focus on the internal activities, the director of external relations' focus is external, includes a lot of travel to meetings that we have not been able to go to do reach other constituencies in the ARIN region and also to pay closer attention to activities in various fora such as the IPv6 fora. Director of external relations is working closely with the member of services where the secretariat activities for the policy development process exists. One other thing - the director of external relations also has the onerous task of being my special assistant for special projects. So if something comes up that's really a shitty job and I don't want to do it, guess who gets to do it? This has been in effect now for several months. It is already bearing fruit. I did mention to several other people that those five people in the bottom row there, that I now have someone to focus entirely on what's going on internally, someone to focus entirely on what's going on externally so I don't have to do anything but sit back and think to which several people commented - that's dangerous! Membership growth since June of 1999 when ARIN was conceived has been steady, even through the - as is APNIC, through the dot-com bust. As of the 23rd August of this year we have 2,147 members. The distribution is as shown on this chart. The members outside the ARIN region represent the fact that you don't A. Have to be resident inside the ARIN region to be a member of ARIN, which means you don't have to receive resources. So we've got people from Australia, Guam, Japan and Indonesia that are members of ARIN. By and large as you would expect most do come from the United States. Instead of showing you bar graphs and charts on registration activity I decided to encapsulate it into an average monthly activity. This is what it looks like for 2004 to date. As you can see, we do about 40,000 reassignment requests every month. That is by far the largest piece of the workload. In addition there's 200 IPv4 requests for new space on average, ten for IPv6. Modifications of records - that's changing servers, points of contact so forth is averaging about 650. We receive about 14 transfer requests per month. We receive the requests, it doesn't mean we have 14 transfers. That's a lot of activity here. I'd like to point out that that activity is being performed by 7 people. So a lot of work by a very small body of people. We have several special projects, one of the things that having a full-time executive pointed directly at the internal activities has allowed me to do something which I've wanted to do for a long time - begin the development of a three-year activity road map. This allows us to do long-term budget planning and forecasting, so that the three years in the decision process are the current year, the next year and the year beyond that. This allows us and helps us to do workload forecasting. Unfortunately it doesn't help us with spelling "forecasting", though! It also helps us to do risk management which is a critical thing, if you think of all the things that occur during the course of the year, special things pop up, all of a sudden something new pops up, by having this longer focus on activities we're able to look at where things could be moved around to accommodate a special requirement that may pop up. Another thing that we're doing is we are taking all of the policies which are basically published as separate items and putting them into what we call the ARIN Internet Number Resource policy manual. The goal is for this to be published at our upcoming meeting. What it's doing is establishing a common index system for all the policies. So you will be able to tell by looking at a policy number where it fits into the scheme, what type of policy it is. It also provides us with the ability to be more effective in change management, so that a policy gets proposed and in some cases it may cause a duplication of an existing policy, part of an existing policy or may cause something in an existing policy to change. This allows us to track that better. Provides historical tracking. Anyone will be able to pick under the latest version of this manual and not only see which policies are current but will also be able to see the entire history of the policy process that ARIN has had since its inception. It provides a cross reference system. In conjunction with that then, is the development of a glossary. As you all well know there are special terms that apply only into our business and so we are providing a glossary of those terms as well. We are very actively working in the AfriNIC transition. In all areas, business and accounting, we will be receiving at ARIN in conjunction with our meeting, the newly appointed business manager for AfriNIC, also the business manager from the RIPE NCC will be there. We'll have a joint conference and discuss transition activities. By and large this is probably the most significant transition activity that has to be done. It's also the one that has to be managed the most carefully, because this is the activity where if one gets into a legal situation where you can't track legally the - an IP address from the time it was assigned by the registry to its current user. Registration services. That's pretty much what you would expect it to do - move things around. Handle requests and so forth. The co-evaluation process, which I'll talk about a little while later has already started. Member services - notifying the members in the ARIN region that are in Africa of what is going on and helping them transition into the new AfriNIC organisation. Then lastly, database activity such as transferring the registration data and Whois data. Not up there, but coincident with that engineering-type activity would also be DNS activity as far as moving the administration of the reverse mapping DNS files. Lastly, ARIN is a registry that does not conduct comprehensive surveys. We have never conducted one and we never intend to conduct a comprehensive survey. But what we've done now is that we've taken the approach we're going to do targeted surveys. By having the director of external relations, which allows me to send him to new constituency meeting that we have not been able to get to in the past, be able to take along with them besides general information literature a targeted survey to ask and develop information about the group that we're reaching out to. There are a large number of people in the region who are directly affected by the activities of the policy process that are blissfully unaware of it and they need to become aware. Some of them, their futures are at stake if they don't pay attention to what's going on. This has happened in the past with policies being developed without all of the constituents that are stakeholders being involved. So this is part of allowing us to get out there. Also, we'll be targeting attendees at our meetings and at North American Network Operators Group meetings and other venues, people that are used to us and getting more information about specific service areas. This will then feed back into the member services' long-term planning activities that are part of the three-year activity road map. I'm not going to go through all these, I'm just going to present to you several slides here which show you the types of activities that are going on. Native v6 is happening at ARIN. We have it at the Chantilly location, our co-location over in the Reston area is not quite up yet. We will eventually have all services there. Bill Manning earlier this week gave a talk about some aspects of the v6 services. We continue activity in hijacking, stronger authentication. We're part of the CRISP working group, Paul talked about doing that. We're moving ahead. And on and on and on. If you note the legend shows you which department is involved. "L" means that they are the project lead, that is the person the director of operations will attend to directly in terms of getting a status of a particular project. "X" is representing people that have an interest or are co-ordinating participants in the process. That's - only two slides, OK, good. This is statistics from last year and on-demand training. As some of you are aware ARIN does not conduct training sessions on the road. We do not send training teams out. We conduct tutorials at our meetings in the beginning of them but we generally will not send someone out to conduct training classes at various locations throughout the region. The approach we have taken instead is to develop on-demand training, doing it through CBT - computer based training - and also through flow charts. Through the year 2003 if you look at the hits on the web site, for example the biggest one is the one on Whois, how to use the Whois Directory service at ARIN. During 2003 it had over 25,000 hits. Of those 25,000 hits there were 12, 448 unique users. If you take that one way to look at it is what would it have cost the ARIN membership to put training teams on the road to reach over 12,000 people to present some training material to them? Some of whom would've come to that class and said " This isn't really for me" and it would've been a wasted trip, wasted money for them. On the web site they can say " I don't need this" and they're done. Those that obviously needed it and so forth. It's a way of reaching a lot more people. The database, this is how to use the ARIN registry database. The interactive flow charts for the ISPs and for end users is - if you follow through the flow chart you will be completing a template as you go and in the end you will have completed a request. We did not collect data last year on unique users, we are doing this this year and hopefully next year. Hopefully next year we'll be able to report to you on that. The same thing is true with the autonomous system numbers. We have found this to be very effective and have had some favourable comments sent to our web master. Speaking of the web pages, for 2003, some very large numbers there. Talking billions. Monthly average of hits on the ARIN web page is over 27 billion. And of those only 8 million are non-Whois related which means that most of them by and far the large majority of them, are people doing Whois queries. If you look at the daily average, that is about 2:1 of the people going to the web page are doing Whois hits on a daily basis. As you would expect probably a good chunk of these people are database planners. Downloads. Here's the download activity. Here again, is another indication of the database monitoring activity in that the non-Whois data download and the non-Whois consumption of bandwidth is about half of the total. So there's a lot of activity that is just Whois. We have several elections under way right now. Nominations are still open. Will be closing shortly. Elections will be conducted around the time of the ARIN meeting. We have one seat open for the ASO address council, two seats open for the board of trustees and five seats open for the advisory council. There has been a large number of candidates for all positions so it looks like we'll have a good slate for the members to choose from this year. Policy activity at the ARIN XIII meeting in Vancouver and afterwards - there were five policy proposals that as a result of mail list activity and activity at the meeting were abandoned. I won't read them to you. Just let you look at them. This information also will be available afterwards on the APNIC web site. There was one that was deferred. It will be discussed again - it is on the mailing list for discussion now and will be discussed again at the ARIN XIV meeting. There were two quite old ones, one going back as far as 2002 that have completed through the policy process and the ARIN board has verified this has occurred and has ratified these policies. Internet coordination activities. I'm not going to go into a lot of detail about this because I understand Paul will be talking about it later. We are active participants in the NRO. We have members on the executive council - that's me - and communications coordination group and the engineering coordination Group. Both groups are active. We have been an active participant in working on the ASO MoU and have participated in the joint IR board's calls regarding that. And like APNIC, and RIPE NCC and LACNIC we anxiously await ICANN so that we can sign this. Lastly, I believe Paul you are going to talk a little bit about WSIS too? PAUL WILSON: Yes. RAY PLZAK: I won't say anything other than the fact that Paul and I will be in Geneva in September as part of our ongoing participation in the WSIS process. AfriNIC activities. We have been active participants in document reviews, the latest documents we helped review were the application for recognition. And also we did a detailed scrub of the business plan. For those not familiar with policy 2003-15, this was the policy that set up a special minimum allocation size for the Africa portion of the ARIN region to take into account the different economic situation that's there. ARIN was the first region to do that and since then other regions have done so as well. The co-evaluation activity was mentioned by Adiel in his presentation on Wednesday, that began on 1 September. On 1 September we received our first request through this process. So it's up and running. ARIN provides support for the AfriNIC board. The board has a monthly meeting. They do it by teleconference. ARIN provides the bridge service for that and dials out so that the members of the AfriNIC board do not have to pay international tolls to conduct their meeting. Then lastly, like the RIPE NCC, and I expect Axel to discuss this as well, we conducted a subregion meeting in Africa. Ours was done in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, on June 23. We had members of the ARIN board and advisory council there to fully participate. We gave a detailed discussion of ARIN's services and policies, we introduced our communications in the ARIN region and we obviously demonstrated more of our support for AfriNIC and in general showed the types of things we were doing. One of the things that came out of this as a result was the fact that we now have - of those candidates for the ARIN advisory council I had talked about earlier, there are three of them are from Africa. This is very significant that we are now getting that participation of people running for an ARIN position, advisory council position from Africa. Lastly, we all know there's no place like home and in October it's going to be in Reston. It will be ARIN XIV. It's a joint meeting with NANOG back-to-back at the Hyatt regency in Reston, Virginia. Go to our web site or the ARIN web site or the NANOG web site and I guarantee if you come you will get one of these cool shirts. (Laughter) RAY PLZAK: Lastly, I know that we all left people behind in the various places that we came from and they all said you're going to Fiji, that's great. I'm sure in their mind's eye this is exactly what we're doing but we know differently. Correct! So vinaka! I'll answer your questions. (APPLAUSE) Any questions or comments? PAUL WILSON: Thanks very much, Ray. RAY PLZAK: I am presenting this report from LACNIC on behalf of Raul Echeberria. You can see their income has been exceeding their expenses. LACNIC, like the rest of the RIRs is a not for profit organisation. Here is the kinds of things that have to happen. They have approximately US$400,000. A couple of things are coming up to cause money to disappear. One is, if you recall, at the inception of LACNIC both NIC Mexico and NIC Brasil contributed what amounted to two years of operations money and support to LACNIC. That was in October of 2002 - and October 2004 is just around the corner. So that source of revenue and support is no longer there by the end of this year. So in realistic terms, LACNIC has got to be absolutely self-supporting for 1 January 2005. The other thing is that the finance review committee of LACNIC has recommended that a reserve fund be set up. Two things about the reserve fund and the finance review committee. Firstly, the reserve fund, part of the LACNIC transition activities, we provided LACNIC with a copy of the reserve fund investment plan that ARIN uses to maintain the reserves in a viable place and manner. The finance review committee is a very interesting thing that I hadn't realised before Raul talked to me about it. The finance committee is composed of not board members, not staff members, but only members from the LACNIC region and they are elected to this position and they have two-year terms. It's their job to review audits and so forth. They are also the ones that make recommendations about what to do. So this is a valuable way to get independent member input into how funds were being used. Here's membership growth from January 1 through October 312004, including the addition of membership from Mexico. NIC Mexico and NIC Brasil are similar to the NIR structure in the APNIC region. What's happening is that the members of those two national type registries are being assumed into the LACNIC general membership and so you can see the effect that that's starting to have. So you expect to see larger growth there as things move forward. This is the current distribution of membership by size. On a 6-month basis these are the total IPv4 allocations. The blue represents activity that was performed by ARIN prior to the independence of LACNIC and the yellow or gold - yellow on the slide up there - is the activities since LACNIC became fully operational in 2002. This is by the same time period the number of /24s in those allocations. You can see there's been some very significant ones. Once again, they're working through economic hard times as well as the rest of us. So there's continued growth of the Internet in the Latin American region. Registration services - requests received in the half year since LACNIC became fully operational are shown here by the colour bars. ASN numbers, IPv4, IPv6 and transfer requests. These are the numbers that have been approved over the same period of time. Here are some training activities. In 2003 they had training activities in Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Colombia, Venezuela, Cuba. And in 2004, Haiti, Ecuador and Peru. Planned training - Panama, the Dominican Republic and Costa Rica. At the moment - meaning as of this presentation or this time - the LACNIC has reached 77 per cent of their membership in the countries that contained 77 per cent of the membership. Very active. Reports of LACNIC VI held in Montevideo. Very successful. One hundred and twenty-two people from 23 countries attended - 17 of the countries were from the region. LACNIC also hosted meetings of other organisations - LACTLD, CLARA, ECOM-LAC. And there were joint activities. There was a workshop on strategic outlooks in number resources and a panel about how things look in the future 20 years from now. There was a forum on IPv6. And the annual general members' meeting was conducted with elections. They did the same as we all do - conducted an open policy forum. Lastly there was a round table on Internet governance that was conducted and had panel members from various governments, including the United States. It was a very interesting session. Some of the results from LACNIC VI, there has been a Latin American IPv6 task force created. The information is at that web site. They adopted their new policy development process. This is after a few years of operations with the policy development process that they put in place at the start of activities. They have learned from experience and made some adjustments. There is the new policy against lame delegations. And they signed an agreement with ISC for the deployment of 7 anycast copies of F-Root server in the LACNIC region. Policy matters that will be discussed at LACNIC VII in Costa Rica - IPv4 minimum allocation size. Currently it does not run an Internet routing registry like the other registries do. They're getting ready to start one up. There'll be a discussion of that. They'll also discuss the "feared" IPv6 policy of giving addresses from IANA to the IRRs - I'm being a little tongue in cheek there. FREDA is a joint initiative of LACNIC, the Institute for the Connectivity in the Americas and the International Development Research Centre in Canada. It's a small research project that received US$480,000. In 2004 they received 122 requests. They've approved 12 projects which have already received funds. Some other important issues that Raul would like you to know about. They have developed new procedures for return resources. They had 316 holders of AS numbers that LACNIC didn't have good contacts for. So they outsourced an agency to go and conduct the contacts and go find these people or find the organisations. They had some very good results. They have, because of that, increased their membership activity, because these people are now informed about the elections in the LACNIC area region and have been given some fresh information about the upcoming LACNIC VII meeting. They've been encouraged to update the information in their database and have been encouraged to subscribe to the LACNIC announcer and LACNIC policy lists. They've also been doing a survey with these people to find out what they think about the services that are available to LACNIC. Lastly, Raul invites you to come to Costa Rica. Here are some pictures from various parts of Costa Rica. The meeting will be the week after the ARIN meeting in Reston - you do like several of us do, go to the Reston meeting then get in a plane - a 4-hour plane ride from Washington DC to Costa Rica and attend the APNIC meeting. Features will be tutorials on IPv6 and network security, the IPv6 LAC task, and a round table on spam. On behalf of Raul Echebarria, I would like to thank you. PAUL WILSON: While Ray is on the podium any questions regarding the ARIN or LACNIC reports? Let's say thanks to Ray. PAUL WILSON: I'd like to introduce Axel Pawlik, the general manager of RIPE NCC, who will give us a report on the latest developments of RIPE NCC. AXEL PAWLIK: Good morning. I am Axel Pawlik, general manager of the RIPE NCC, situated in Amsterdam. Policy-wise, an update from the last meeting, which was quite some time ago, in May. We are in the more or less continuing process of updating our policy development process documents. It's been going for quite some time. We strive to get a little more structure in place than we currently have to make it a little easier to follow up the status of various policies. We started earlier this year - at the beginning of this year - to implement the /21 minimum allocation and for the first half of the year have already allocated 54 of those to our members. We have seen quite a lot of discussion over the last few meetings of a potential special assignment policy for domain DNS operators that has found no consensus. Also, similar to what ARIN has done, we have succeeded in getting a /22 minimum allocation policy in place for our members that are situated in Africa and that is part of the support process for the upcoming emerging AfriNIC - or one has to say the previously emerging AfriNIC. Registration services has quite significantly benefited from the introduction of our LIR portal that is also continually updated - features are put on continually at the requests of our members. Training - we are forecasting about 65 courses over the course of this year and no, we're not getting less enthusiastic about this over the course of the year. We do 80, then 75, now we have 65. That takes into account we had to cancel some courses where the potential attendance would have been really low. We are investigating new methods and that is an activity we are doing together with APNIC in looking at new methods, computer-based training and similar things. Also we are seeing that we are having the same or similar issues as APNIC, being stretched over a large land mass, so our members are relatively far out and would like to benefit from our training and general outreach so we are sitting together with APNIC and building this. Membership liaison. What Ray has said earlier, we have been doing, based on feedback that we received from earlier membership service, we've started to do regional meetings, RIPE NCC regional meetings. It's a RIPE NCC event that is targeted towards our members in these slightly more outlying regions. We've done three such meetings that lasted for two to three days, basically talking to our local members and bringing some information, of course, from Amsterdam, but also wanting to hear from them and hear their local issues and where possible getting in contact with their governments, their administrators, This year we've done two - one in Moscow and one in Nairobi. The Nairobi one was in support of the upcoming AfriNIC there. So we changed our program a little bit - while still bringing out information from the RIPE NCC we also let them have a lot of space for AfriNIC discussions and presentations. Previously - last year in December there was a meeting in the Middle East in Dubai. We found them to be overall very, very helpful. We received very positive feedback from the attendees. So we will continue these things in 2005. Likely again in the greater Russian area and also somewhere in the Middle East - but then we think Africa will be properly served by AfriNIC. Of course we support it and we are likely to turn up somewhere there as well. Somewhat about corporate governance. The RIPE NCC is a not-for-profit membership organisation. We changed this year to having two general meetings, one in spring that brings on new board members where needed, and that ratifies the financial results and the reporting of the company. Towards the end of the year, we look ahead into the next year and talk to our members and community about the activities that we have planned for the next year, the budget and the like. This year, for the first time, we see that our members only decide on the charging scheme for next year. Previously they decided formally on the activity plan and the budget. Now our activities and the budget are very, very closely linked to the charging scheme, so in approving a charging scheme implicitly our members also approve the activities and budget for next year. We have recently published three documents - an activity planning support document, a draft budget for next year and a charging scheme proposal our members will have to vote on. Some background to that - the expected membership growth, we think we'll see a growth of about 11 per cent - plus or minus. We have asked our members in the course of the year where they would see that growth happening within their countries and they have been moderately optimistic, depending of course which regions they were responding out of. We see, though, that their numbers, the target numbers for this year, already have been reached in growth this year, so we adjusted it a little bit. Our fees that the members would have to pay for our services we're happy to say would quite likely be reduced by 10 per cent. I cannot say that, because those fees still have to be approved. But I'm positive they will be. RIR coordination - I won't say too much about that because my colleagues have already done that. And then in the end - yes, we've given up. If you see this - I mean, outside it's nice and warm and sunny, and if you see where Raul is inviting us to in Costa Rica. We just gave up and said let's go to England, to Manchester. This looks vaguely like an empty parking lot in the rain - but it will be nice. Manchester, I have been told, is just 204 miles from London. I asked whether that was positive or negative - I was told positive, of course. So Manchester is a nice place. Maybe the highlight there will be the RIPE NCC dinner, as usual. Sometimes they have sun, despite being in England. This is a nice view of Old Trafford, the Manchester United stadium. We have our social there. It doesn't mean they let us play on the holy grounds - it's just a room somewhere inside. We can look at the museum there. So should you be around you're heartily invited to come and attend the next RIPE meeting. No. 49, so nearly big celebration. That will be reserved for spring next year. That's from me. If you have any questions, I'm happy to entertain them. If that should not be the case, I thank you very much. PAUL WILSON: OK, questions? Feel free to ask about anything that just happened or that happened previously in the day or that might be going to happen later on - or anything else. We do have one question, I'm told, which came in on the jabber. (JABBER COMMENT READ OUT) NURANI NIMPUNO: There's a comment from Franck Martin, the vice chair of the Pacific ISOC. He says: "I want small Pacific islands to be able to have a small IP range allocated to them. They need independent IP numbers so they can easily switch upstream ISPs. The situation in IPv4 is now good. We moved from /18 to a /24 in Kiribati. I've heard APNIC is now allocating /21. However the IPv6 does not consider small countries as far as I know. The minimum allocation is way too big for countries with 10,000 people like Tuvalu and Nuie and many others. I think there should be a smaller allocation for countries with less than 5,000 people. " PAUL WILSON: As I'm here I'm happy to respond to that. It's good to see that the policy changes are recognised and the reason for the policy changes are recognised such as the reduction from /20 to /21, which was precisely done to allow allow access to address space more easily. The other thing which is relevant here is the development which was undertaken with regard to AfriNIC address space. AfriNIC, in forming its draft policies, adopted a minimum allocation of /22. In response to that, and in order to facilitate the transition, both RIPE NCC and ARIN approved an equivalent minimum allocation size for members in the AfriNIC region and that was done through the RIPE NCC and ARIN open policy process. If I'm correct in that regard, yes. In response to that also, the APNIC EC approved for the very small number of members and economies in the APNIC region which will be transferred to AfriNIC a similar policy change for AfriNIC - for those members. And the EC felt it was not necessary or timely to take that through the APNIC open policy process. Because of the very small number of ISPs and economies involved, the likelihood there would actually be no requests that would require that new policy between now and the establishment of AfriNIC, et cetera. That policy, however, was implemented likewise in recognition of the circumstances in Africa and the consistency with policies in the AfriNIC region. I think it may already have been discussed on that jabber feed that this this kind of request would be a request in the open process. Anyone who would like to enter into that process is welcome to do so, whether they are APNIC members or not. That's what this meeting is all about. All of that is in regard to the IPv4 process. With regard to the IPv6 process, I agree with the person who's asked the question that the minimum allocation of IPv6 space is far too large for a small country. A /32 is a very large allocation of IPv6 address in actual fact. However, it's still relatively, I would argue, extremely easy to receive that size of allocation such that today's policies, I believe, are likely to be revised at some time in the future. That's a personal opinion. So I would suggest that anyone from any country who is interested in IPv6 base shouldn't look so much at minimum allocation size but looking at the criteria for receiving that allocation which are not too difficult to satisfy. That, I feel, on the other hand is a conscious measure on the part of the community to encourage the adoption of IPv6. So it may be justifiable on that basis. But that would be my response. If anyone else has anything to add, please do. I'd say that the question is really for the community, not for me or necessarily for the APNIC secretariat or staff. RAM NARULA: I'm wondering when the online voting procedure will be in effect according to the planning. PAUL WILSON: Maemura San - the EC report referred to the adoption of online voting. Are you able to answer the question? MAEMURA AKINORI: Could I have the question again, sorry. PAUL WILSON: The question was when would the online voting be available? Is that correct? MAEMURA AKINORI: It's a not so simple and not so easy program often, the online voting. We have some implications which should be included in the consideration. In terms of vote, we will have the next APNIC member meeting in February 2005. We will definitely have to vote about the EC election. So that is a very good chance to begin the online voting. We need to verify that all implications are considered, that it is safe to represent member opinion or not. Other than such a formal voting, we'd like to start to have some questionnaire kind of voting. This is an example - can you raise in a meeting, for example, who is your favourite hostmaster, or who is your favourite EC member or something - that is just an example. But it is a very good start to have - online voting is quite effective in working for our needs. In Kyoto we may be ready to begin that voting. But we think it is very hard to use online voting. It is not so easy. Am I answering your question? RAM NARULA: Do you have a rough date? MAEMURA AKINORI: Our target is the next APNIC member meeting. PAUL WILSON: Just to clarify on that particular issue, the online voting system which is under development is for formal member votes, so it will allow members through MyAPNIC to cast their votes in accordance with the membership tier, different number of votes for different membership tiers. It has not been used for policy consensus. We don't really refer to those as voting matters - they're matters for consensus discussion. Although the consensus is established in the meeting, that process involves online discussions through mailing lists before and after the meetings. I suggest the consensus process for policies already includes online input mechanisms that are measured by the EC in their final decision about adoption of any policy that's been approved by consensus at the meeting and those online inputs are also taken into account at this point in the meeting if there have been discussions. As you've seen, they are always reported by the secretariat and generally by the proponents of the proposals. There is also a remote voting facility available for members who do not attend the meetings - remote voting of a sort, which is through the proxy system. NURANI NIMPUNO: I just got a message from Frank saying he was happy his message was read out and he will pass it on to members on his mailing list and hopefully take it from there. PAUL WILSON: He was very welcome. Are there any other questions? If not, we've got 10 minutes until lunch. I'd like to bring the address council report forward before lunch. If any are still here and ready then feel free. KENNY HUANG: Thank you and good morning. The ASO Address Council - AC - does not represent the RIRs directly, which has been mentioned before. There are three representatives from each RIR region. Once elected as an Address Council member you don't have to be an IR member. All may participate in the meeting. So here is the list of our Address Council members. From the APNIC region - Takashi Arano, Kenny S. Huan, Hyun-Joon Kwon. From RIPE - Hans Petter Holen, Sabine Jaume and Wilfried Woeber. Three representatives from LACNIC - Hartmut Glaser is currently co-chair. And Raimundo Beca resigned. And Julian Dunayevich is also from LACNIC. Three representatives from ARIN - Eric Decker, Louis Lee and another. ASOAC administration - secretariat to 2004 is supported by RIPE NCC and rotated between the RIRs. The new members for 2004 of AC include - Hyun-Joon Kwon replacing See Yung Min Lee and Louie Lee replacing Kim Hubbard. Raimundo Beca has resigned waiting to be reelected and another. We have Mouhamet Diop from Africa and Raimundo Beca one of the Address Council members from LACNIC. His term ends in 2007, in May. The ASO general assembly happens once a year. This year it was in Amsterdam in May. You can see the ASO web site for details. After the general assembly during the AC meeting we had the election of one ICANN board director, who was Raimundo Beca from LAPNIC and an election for AC non-com representative - it was Hartmut Glasser. So ASO Address Council also continued to observe progress in the establishment of AfriNIC, the new emerging RIR. AfriNIC representatives have active participated in all current ASO activities. Regarding other activities - established standard BoD selection process. We tried to establish a process that can be more transparent to see how we can elect someone from ICANN. Also a road map for work in 2004. Also discussion ongoing to review RFC 2050 and its current relation to active policy. This work has been wrapped up. We have a meeting and we discuss the similar issue. NCs working with RIRs on completing ICANN reform process discussions - trying to increase awareness on NRO and ICANN-RIR relationships, awaiting news on the RIR/ICANN MoU. Very important to the Address Council. It is difficult to make progress until it is complete. The role of the AC will be changing with the new MoU between ICANN and RIRs. Eventually we also have policy endorsement - that just happened yesterday in an AC teleconference meeting. We endorsed a process used to develop policy for IANA-RIR IPv4 allocation. This endorsement already passed through AC teleconference meetings. That's about my report. Thank you very much. Any questions? PAUL WILSON: There being no questions or discussions, I would propose to go straight into some of the reports which were planned for this afternoon. Rather than disrupting the schedule of SIG and BOF reports it may be more appropriate for me to follow up now with the reports on the ICANN/NRO and WSIS. It follows nicely from Kenny's presentation and it should fit well into the time available. Unless there are any counter-proposals? PAUL WILSON: The slides I'm presenting were presented in the meeting earlier in the week, a discussion was had about some of the issues becoming potentially quite important - critical to APNIC so I apologise to those who were at the meeting for the repetition. I feel this is of interest to this meeting and I hope there might be some discussion and questions afterwards. OK. The number resource organisation - the NRO as we know - logo here designed by Champika at APNIC, in fact. The five - the five dots represent five RIRs. We were anticipating AfriNIC would join and just recently Vint Cerf demonstrated his powers of observation and asked if there were a sixth RIR in future we would add more dots. I said yes, of course we would. I guess in that respect that logo is a little like the American flag, it might change as things go on. Certainly there's nothing that rules out the possibility of new RIRs in the future coming through the ICANN process and that's something we could anticipate. What is the NRO? The number resource organisation is a coalition, let's say, of all of the RIRs. It is intended for carriage, for carrying out joint RIR activities. These activity concretely include technical coordination of the type that's been under way among the RIRs for a long time. The RIRs have cooperated - as you know as we've been reporting for some years - on a wide variety of activities. But there are some activities which are coming about and being planned which are actually unified global activities and particularly global services for which there needs to be a vehicle. It's difficult, in fact, to provide a service that a global community may begin to rely on without having a formal global vehicle for that, for legal and administrative cost reasons and so forth. So the NRO is designed as an ongoing permanent structure within the RIR community for the formal carriage of those activities. We also, for some time have needed a common point of contact in representation for the RIRs. There's been a great deal of correspondence over the years which may have been directed to one RIR or the other or to all of the RIRs which is really concerning the total RIR community, the global policies, the coordination processes, and so forth. So the NRO serves that purpose as well. There's an NRO web site which I'll explain in a second which provides that public point of contact and representation. A global policy coordination is also a function of the NRO. The RIRs themselves have coordinated policies among themselves by way of exchange and so forth, for many years. So global policy coordination is one of those joint activities. But let me say a bit more about that in a moment. Also, negotiation liaison with other bodies through a single representative or point of contact and those bodies could include anyone, of course, ICANN, IETF, any of those multilateral intergovernmental bodies - UN, ITU, WSIS, et cetera. We are attending some meeting in the name of the NRO. We have embarked on liaison with the IETF and. IAB in the name of the NRO. That's a way of performing that single point of contact for all of us together which doesn't rely on contacting everyone or selecting one particular RIR. The NRO is independent of ICANN. There's no reference to ICANN structurally within the NRO. It's able to operate with or without ICANN. It's certainly intended as a permanent fixture which will continue with the establishment of the new ASO. I'll describe that in a moment. There has been some speculation that somehow the NRO is only temporary, which is not true. All of its responsibilities are ongoing. The NRO is intended to support and work with ICANN. I'll describe how that works also. We have conducted some meetings with ICANN in the name of the NRO and we're certainly working with and as I say supporting ICANN. The NRO was established by a memorandum of understanding. There's a photograph here of the four RIR heads signing the NRO MoU at the ARIN meeting in October 2003. There was a fair period of consultation by the RIR boards prior to this signing so that the structure was and the intent was announced well in advance. There were statements which foreshadowed this development. There were specific NRO proposals which were circulated. There was a final comment period as well. The NRO is not yet incorporated. Incorporation is quite necessary for that legal purpose that I mentioned before and that's actually being actively investigated now so I'd say it's likely if not certain in future. By incorporation I mean, of course, forming of a legal structure, whether it be a non- profit company or a formal association. It will become a legal entity. The NRO has some global policy coordination - some formal policy coordination functions defined within the NRO MoU. There's a defined policy development process which details how policies would be developed within the NRO structure, if that became necessary. It's to do with receiving global policy proposals, monitoring the RIR policy processes, endorsing policy outcomes and so forth. These are the roles of the numbers council of the NRO in this global policy coordination process. It's defined as having three members from each RIR region, two elected by open process in RIR policy meetings, one member appointed directly by each RIR, specifically it's assumed that would happen - that would be done by the RIR boards. It's important that this structure is not currently active. The numbers council and the policy development process of the NRO - they're sort of placeholders for any possible future use. They are formally suspended right now, but it's important that they be there both to signal how the NRO would work if it had undertaken this process independently, and also because the NRO is intended to exist and to continue existing in the case of any failure of ICANN or the ASO. That was an explicit goal in establishing the NRO. If you remember back a couple of years, ICANN embarked on a reform process at a time when many people seemed to think that it was close to failing. If ICANN had failed at that time we actually had no structure in place at that time, if ICANN had failed, if IANA at the same time had gone away, IANA being component of ICANN, there was no structure in place at the time to continue the address allocation function. That would've been an absolutely open situation where a number of parties would certainly have come in and tried to lay some claim to that role and the RIRs didn't have a single global structure at that time, a single representative comprehensive structure which could've stepped in and I think the RIR boards all felt it was absolutely their duty as custodians in their position of responsibility for the organisations to make sure that if this situation would ever arise again there would be an RIR-led structure which was available and would certainly move to step in and take responsibility if necessary in future. I stress again that these are placeholders for this future scenario, which is not expected to happen, but like any situation where there's a risk there's also an insurance policy that's necessary to be put in place. That's how I would describe it, I suppose. So the NRO structure, just to show how it works - it's fairly simple. The NRO being the umbrella or coalition of the RIRs. I have included AfriNIC as the fifth dot in the NRO logo, and each of the RIRs, as members of the NRO, they have the ability to place one member of their choosing on to what's called the NROEC, or executive committee, which is the body which carries out the responsibilities of the NRO. So I think Ray mentioned before that the NROEC is formed now and it comprises the four RIR CEOs, including myself acting as the inaugural chair of the NRO. That was a sort of a lottery, I suppose, and I drew the lucky straw, but it's a rotating position which will go to the next RIR in line next year. AfriNIC of course when established would appoint one member but Adiel Akplogan is sitting on the EC as an observer at the moment. Under the provision for the policy development process and the numbers council, the numbers council would be established as well with three members from each RIR region. As I've mentioned, that is suspended and not active. The status of the NRO as I mentioned, the EC is appointed. It's active, having regular meetings in venues like this or by telephone where needed. The office holders are listed here including Axel as the secretary, Raul as the treasurer. The coordination groups have been formed in the areas which particularly need some RIR coordination, engineering for those technical services and activities. Communications for the outreach for the point of contact, publication, information exchange-sort of activities and regular meetings of those groups are also under way because they have quite a few tasks ahead of them. The secretariat is established at RIPE NCC. That will also be a rotating position. You can email the secretariat wherever it is as NRO at nro. Net. The web site is established - thanks very much to the RIPE NCC coms group for setting this up. They had the privilege and duty as secretariat for this task. There's plenty of information on this web site www.nro.net. That's the NRO. I'd like to move on to talk about the ASO. The ASO is a component of the overall ICANN structure. It has been since ICANN was first formed and so the ASO has been a part of the ICANN structure and was established in 1999. It was one of three ICANN supporting organisations, originally they were the ASO, DNSO and PSOs. Under the new ICANN there are still three supporting organisations, the PSO has gone away, the DSO has split into the generic DNSO and the ccNSO, country code name supporting organisation. The responsibility of the ASO is to oversee and coordinate the development of global Internet addressing policies. It's not to directly develop policies, but to oversee the process to endorse the outcomes, and under the ICANN by-laws its duty is to refer global addressing policies up to the ICANN board when asked to do so. It has other responsibilities - originally to appoint three members of the ICANN board, that's now two members under the new structures, to appoint a member to the ICANN nominating committee and a few other miscellaneous responsibilities that the ASO has as a supporting organisation. The ASO is to be reformed under this ICANN reform process which many regard as complete. I think it is complete in terms of the process that was commenced, with the exception of the ASO. We have not yet concluded the negotiations for reforming the ASO under the - as is necessitated almost by ICANN reform. Structural changes required under the new ICANN by-laws. ASO MoU needs to be redrawn for that purpose, specifically to nominate two instead of three ICANN board members. New liaison responsibilities are being added to the ASO. The RIRs had some concerns about ASO Mark I. The first ASO in terms of its effectiveness, whether it was working as well as it could. I think it's only reasonable to think that after a couple of years of operation that the ASO would need some finetuning so there have been some changes introduced and proposed in the new ASO MoU. RIRs had concern over security of ICANN and the unallocated resource pool which is why the new ASO is now proposed as an agreement between the NRO and ICANN rather than as individual for the - with the RIRs. How does the proposed MoU work? It's established by the NRO and ICANN. It provides that policy coordination structure which the first MoU does as well. There are a few changes specifically with the defined policy development process, having been refined and that's a 15-step process, 15 steps at the maximum, that 15 steps is assuming the ICANN board might send a policy back for further consideration and there are a few provisions for these sorts of additional steps within that process. 15 steps is the maximum and hopefully generally it will take much fewer than that under the process which is defined. That process is an annex to the proposed ASO MoU as I've just described. Noting once again the NRO has its numbers council and policy development process suspended while this ASO MoU is in place with ICANN. OK. How does the ASO work? As that diagram I showed you before showing the NRO composed of the RIRs, the NRO agrees with ICANN to create this ASO structure which I've illustrated here as being part of the overall ICANN structure. The ASO continues to have an address council. We just heard Kenny's report from the address council and this structure will continue with some minor changes, so as we proposed for the numbers council, the ASO address council will have three members from each region, two elected, one appointed by the RIRs. The reason for doing this was a feeling - the reason for changing that structure in that way - that is instead of having three members openly elected, two are openly elected, one is appointed by the RIR, the reason being that the RIRs felt this it was difficult to ensure there was sufficient direct representation of RIR concern on the address council and so the proposal, the MoU stipulates that one is selected by the RIR, specifically by the RIR boards in their capacities as representatives of their members and wider communities. So it's not by RIR staff or by some strictly closed process. It's by the RIR boards in their capacities. The status of the MoU, I've been describing it as the proposed MoU, which is out of habit. It's a little bit more than that because we have a letter of intent signed about ICANN which states the intention of both parties to sign the ASO MoU so it has actually been approved to some extent already. Subject to the comment periods which were undertaken, the NRO and ICANN had agreed to sign the MoU at the next opportunity. So that was our position entering into the KL ICANN meeting, but we found at that meeting the ICANN board decided not to or simply didn't have this issue on their formal board agenda, so the ASO MoU is not signed. We understand, as was briefly discussed during our opening plenary here on Wednesday, as was discussed there we understand the GAC, government advisory committee, some members had some concerns which were notified to the ICANN board and the ICANN board felt it was appropriate to address at least those concerns, if not others. We don't know, but appropriate to address whatever concerns existed, they had apparently been informed of before signing the MoU with the NRO. The difficult position that the RIR boards are left in is that there has been no formal communications of the specific concerns. There's some understanding particularly from some GAC members, some ICANN staff of what some of the concerns are. What we hear is that in most cases they appear not to be major issues but it's difficult after going through an open publication drafting comment period to then have changes notified which have not been made public. We have asked for them, for the changes, any changes requested and the concerns behind those changes to be made public. And we hope they will be soon. The RIRs as you probably know, have been continuing to pay funds to ICANN in spite of not having the new ASO MoU, in spite of not having a service contract with ICANN which are also expected to be developed. We are receiving service from ICANN and constructively working with ICANN on service and allocation, IANA-related issues and also we hope on the signing of the ASO MoU agreement. The RIR have collectively paid around about 50% of all the fees due under the informal agreement we have with ICANN. In the case of APNIC it's approximately $283,000 which has been paid to ICANN up until the middle of 2004. That's 50% of the fees due, so what has been proposed is informally at least, is that we make a further payment to illustrate good faith on signing of the ASO MoU possibly 25% of the total or 50% of the remaining payment and the balance to be paid on establishing service contracts with ICANN. That's the general intent of the NRO today. There's quite a lot of money involved - 283,000 in APNIC's case, which is due eventually due for the period up until now. As you may know, the ICANN budget approved for 2004/05 is a period that's already started, actually asks the RIRs for about a doubling of their total contribution. So in APNIC's case for this year it would be around about $500,000, that's for a year that's already started and that's an amount that hasn't been budgeted so there is some issues there to do with management of those payments and timing of those payments. That's it from me for the summary of the NRO and ASO. I'll ask my RIR counterparts to make any comment or addition they might like to make but I think I'll just run through this summary of the WSIS process first then we'll take some further comments and questions. WSIS is something many people have heard about, it stands for the world summit on information society. It's an intergovernmental UN summit which is very broad. It concerns all aspects of ICTs, information and communication technologies, to do with social and economic development. It's a very broad set of aims to do with the United Nations millennium development goals which themselves are very broad aims for global development and it's all about maximising the benefits and minimising the adverse impacts of ICTs, of information and communications technologies in general on the world. It's got a particular focus on the developing world, of course, as is the general focus of these UN summits. I think the first UN summit like this to be conducted in two phases, it is. The first phase was held in 2002/03. It finished last year with the summit in Geneva, the second phase is under way now. With each of these phases there are numerous meetings, there are things called prepcoms, regional preparatory meetings and there are innumerable smaller meetings which contribute to the overall, end result. How do you participate in WSIS? It's an intergovernmental meeting. What that means strictly is that only official delegations, official country delegations participate freely. It's the type of meeting where you have a big plenary where the country delegations have their yellow signs where at any time they want to they can hold up their sign and be put on the speakers' list and make their comments. So that's how the intergovernmental meeting works. Others can be accredited to attend. Including bodies like international bodies, United Nations bodies, ECOSOC-accredited bodies, ITU sector members, other business entities and NGOs can be accredited to attend, you have to request accreditation to attend. You can't just walk in there and expect to even enter the meeting room let alone enter the plenary meeting room. Even if you're accredited to attend you don't necessarily get to attend the smaller meetings, the drafting groups and other special interest group meetings which are attended by official delegations. The time allocated to other participants is fairly minor. For instance, there's one representative group for all of the business entities at the meeting and that group will get 15 minutes a day in total to make its statement. Likewise there's a non-government grouping which gets 15 minutes a day to make its statement on behalf of the hundreds of groups that are there. So in fact there are many, many meetings to even determine what is going to be said because 15 minutes is not enough time to say anything and there are many people keen to have their issue said at that time because they can't simply stand up and make their statements in line. The participation by non-government bodies, the business entities is called the CCBI, the civil society of non-governmental entity is coordinated through the CS bureau. The RIR has been accredited through the CCBI, APNIC has been accredited, also as an ITU sector member, so we have numerous ways of participating and we've been able to do so on that basis. What does it all look like? I mentioned that phase I is in 2002/03 and it finished with its Geneva summit. There were five major preparatory meetings leading up to Geneva. The output was two documents - declaration of principles and the plan of action. That was the formal result of the meeting with these two documents and it was those two documents and the exact wording of the documents that was the subject of most debate during the meetings. I guess we're all used to that kind of focus on detail, but you might be surprised at exactly how much detail these documents involve, how long they are and how much time it takes to debate the specific words. The plan of action called for amongst many things, 70 paragraphs - called for the formation of the working group on Internet governance - WGIG - a special group to serve under the auspices, under the authority of Kofi Annan, the secretary-general. Its role is to carry out a number of tasks and to report back into the phase II WSIS process, these tasks are - the working group is intended to define what Internet governance is. Just to step back a little bit - as I said, WSIS is all about ICTs in general. Much much broader than the internet. In spite of this Internet governance, as the preparatory meetings went on the issue of Internet governance raised up in the radar, I suppose, and gained more and more interest and more and more controversy and more heat as time went on. It became a very controversial difficult issue that WSIS was starting to actually enter into this realm, it was being proposed it should make very specific recommendations regarding Internet governance, including IP addresses, domain names and a whole lot of other issues; spam, security and so on. One widely understood intention of some of the WSIS participants was to hand much of this issue over into an intergovernmental body to take the responsibilities from where they sit today and hand them over to other bodies and so specifically - who exactly proposed and whether or not this will be supported in these words by anyone is another guess, but the way it's been expressed is that people have wanted to take the ICANN functions, hand them over entirely to the ITU. That's one way of paraphrasing the more extreme view of what some people would intend out of the WSIS. Because it's so controversial so many interest groups, the working group on Internet governance was charged with firstly defining Internet governance; secondly working out who are the stakeholders in that - which groups, government, non-government, across all of society are interested in Internet governance and how they're interested, who should take responsibility for these aspects, for the various parts of the Internet governance. It's a pretty big ask and a pretty hard task, but the working group nevertheless is intended to do this work and feed into the phase II of WSIS which is well under way right now. What happens after WSIS is another question. These UN summits, even if they're not held in multiple phases tend to have follow-up summits of plus-five years or plus-ten years, so a summit, a WSIS-plus-five could start in 2007 and so this could be a fairly regular ongoing thing. The thought of that frightens many of us, but there seems to be a common feeling that there won't be any particular final conclusions out of WSIS phase II in that those who want to create some change in this area will need to keep going on. There's another way to look at the WSIS plan. This comes from the ITU web site, it shows this is the plan for phase II. It involves prepcoms, other task forces, it involves relevant matter, subcommittees, working group on Internet governance, open-ended consultations, et cetera, et cetera. Three prepcoms, each of them major meetings. Prepcom 1 for phase II has already happened in Tunisia, some of us were there. There weren't any particular major outcomes of that. It was decided the documents that came out of phase I would not be revisited, that they would be accepted into phase II, which is a bit of a relief for some because there was some push to reopen those documents and start debating them again. Prepcom 2 is in Geneva in February. Focusing on funding of ICTs, not necessarily on Internet governance at all but facilitating, adoption of ICTs by industry in developing countries, for instance. Prepcom 3 in July in Tunisia next year. Inputs from the working group on Internet governance is supposed to be heard here, the summit at the end of next year. The latest developments - there was a preparatory meeting on Internet governance in New York at the beginning of the year, the WGIG secretariat has been established under a Swiss diplomat, Markus Kummer who has been travelling the world talking to people about the responsibility he has. Although he's responsible for establishing the group, the working group, this hasn't been completed yet. It's to be announced supposedly in October. It's then got between October and July next year to produce some substantial inputs into the next - that prepcom meeting in July. There's a meeting about its working methods, even though the committee is not established. There's a meeting in September. What has APNIC been doing - attended five meetings since the Asia Pacific prepcom in Tokyo. We've attended other meetings at both APRICOT and APNIC meetings and also meetings in other forums. We've recognised along with the other RIRs the potential impacts on Internet addressing, on our area of responsibility. The potential for impact on what I've referred to here very broadly as Internet stability which could relate to technical stability under some of the scenarios that are being mentioned but certainly in terms of the policy development process and the stability and ongoing operation of that process, there's certainly potential impacts. The responses we need to make are - attending the meetings and speaking to people, contributing to these statements that are made and so forth. We also need to engage at government level, governments being the sole, free full participants in this process, We need to respond I think in terms of ongoing evolution of the current model. By the current model I include ourselves, ICANN, anything else that's under scrutiny. I would not suggest for a moment that all of our models are perfect and there are some valid concerns being expressed by participants in these processes, and so I think we need to be seen to be and also be genuinely undertaking ongoing evolution to respond. And of course we're working closely with the other RIRs. Also with ICANN, ISOC, the umbrella groups for the various different sectors. And that's it for the WSIS. So if there are are any questions about any of those issues, the NRO, ASO, WSIS. Axel or Ray would you like to add anything to any of that? (Pause) Are there any jabber questions, webcast questions? Nothing? OK. Are we approaching lunch time or have I gone over? Let's take a break there then and have lunch until 2.pm. 90 minutes for lunch and we'll come back and the remaining business of the afternoon - it looks like we'll be finishing early, if we're all well behaved - is to hear the report-backs from the various sessions we've had during the week, the policy SIG, tending to be the main one. Also there were numerous SIGs and BOFs and we'll be hearing back from the chairs. The chairs of those SIGs and BOFs, please be prepared to come up and present your reports. Final call for any questions or suggestions or announcements? The lunch is in the Verandah Restaurant. Thank you. LUNCH BREAK