______________________________________________________________________ DRAFT TRANSCRIPT Annual Member Meeting - part 3 Friday 25 February 2005 2.00pm ______________________________________________________________________ PAUL WILSON Before we start again, I'd like to give you about 30 seconds to submit any ballot papers before we close the ballot box here. If there are any more ballot papers, please post them right now. This afternoon, we'll be proceeding with the reports from the SIGs and the BoF sessions that have happened over the last few days here in Kyoto. And the agenda is on the screen here. We don't necessarily have to stick to exactly this order of reports, but unless anyone would like to move up or down the list, could the SIG chairs just please be ready to present in this order? And, if Kenny is here, why don't we set up for the first report and the ballot box will be closed in five seconds. Good luck. SPEAKER FROM THE FLOOR Network down! PAUL WILSON What was that interjection? SPEAKER FROM THE FLOOR Network down. PAUL WILSON My apologies. SPEAKER FROM THE FLOOR I want a refund. PAUL WILSON It's yours. OK, let's move on then with the 11th Policy SIG report from Kenny. And we have a microphone here if you want it. Thank you. And I'm sure someone will be looking at the network momentarily. KENNY HUANG OK, good afternoon, name is Kenny Huang. I'm the chair of the Policy SIG. So, as a history, now we run into the 11th SIG and that's happening in Kyoto. That's the agenda of Address Policy SIG (refers to slide) and the first agenda was review of open action. Second agenda was second phase of large space IPv4 trial usage program for future IPv6 deployment. That was the only policy proposal and the rest of them were informational presentations. The third agenda was expanded address allocation for private Internets and the fourth one is an update on "unique local IPv6 unicast addresses". The next was a status update on policy implementation and then IANA to RIR IPv6 regional policy update. Next one was IANA to RIR IPv6 policy document overview and update on IPv4 guidelines working group and also comes to ISP survey and the time one is a survey of ISPs in Taiwan for applying HD-Ratio to IPv4. And the final one is election of chair. So head count for each session - we had two sessions compared to the past. It used to be three sessions. The head count for session one was 74 and session two was 82. The content of the SIG we had one policy proposal so consensus is needed from the AMM. That will be done later and we had seven informational presentations. So the first policy proposal - the title is "The second phase of large space IPv4 trial usage program for future IPv6 deployment" proposed by Kosuke Ito-san. To summarise, the proposal includes three key issues. The first one is extend the program end to the end of the year 2008 from the current end of end of year 2005 and also come with some sort of conditions to the participants of this program - the need to show IPv6 service starting plan and the participants also need to make activity report periodically, as like now and also conclude the agreement describing the conditions set as like now. Also they plan to return 43/8 to APNIC at the end of the program. So the third point of the proposal - the IPv6 Promotion Council will continue the regular report on the activity as it is at the APNIC meetings. So the proposal reached consensus at the OPM so, at the Policy SIG, we reached consensus and this proposal also needs consensus here so I'll pass to Paul. PAUL WILSON I think in the policy SIG, there was only one policy proposal that needed to be put to a consensus decision and that is this particular decision, which was the consensus approval of the extension of the IPv6 large space trial. So I would like, as is traditional within our policy process, to ask this meeting to endorse the consensus of the policy SIG. Could I ask you, therefore, to raise your hand if you will agree with the consensus of the policy SIG for this proposal. (Pause) Please would you just keep your hand up? The hands are being counted at the moment by APNIC staff. Thank you. (Pause) OK and, on the other hand, is there anyone who is opposed to this particular extensive decision of the policy SIG? Raise your hand if you are opposed to this decision. (Pause) OK, thank you very much, that's a clear consensus to endorse the outcome of the Address Policy SIG on this matter. Thank you. KOSUKE ITO Thank you very much. KENNY HUANG OK, thank you. So I continue for the rest of the informational presentations and also come with expanded address allocation for private internets, presented by Tony Hain and also an update on 'unique local IPv6 unite cast addresses' presented by Geoff Huston and status on policy update presented by Son Tran of APNIC and IANA to RIR IPv6 regional policy update presented by Anne Lord and IANA to RIR IPv6 policy document overview, presented by Ray from ARIN. Basically its allocation size was /12 and comes with 18 months time frame. Also update on the IPv4 guidelines, presented by Yi Lee and Mars Wei. The action - APNIC Secretariat to update IPv4 guideline document. The next informational presentation is ISP survey project update presented by Anne Lord and also a survey of ISPs in Taiwan for applying HD-Ratio to IPv4 presented by David Chen. And the final item of the SIG was election of chair and so far we have one nomination, that's Kenny Huang, myself, to be elected chair. The action is that the Secretariat will call for a co-chair. So that will be done in the next APNIC. OK, that's the end of my presentation. Thank you and any questions? PAUL WILSON Thank you very much indeed, Kenny. KENNY HUANG Thank you. PAUL WILSON Before you step down, we'd just like to - there's just a small difficulty for you Kenny to help you determine if there's a wireless network around you at the moment, like, for instance, right now. There's one other related matter, which is the fact that Arano-san, who has been the chair of this policy SIG for as long as I can remember, from the very start, - Arano-san has resigned from that position after many years of faithful service and hard work and I would like to say thank you to Arano-san in particular for this very hard work. APPLAUSE TAKASHI ARANO Thank you for your gift. I appreciate all of you for my support and actually, without your help, I could not do these kind of things. And actually, I learn a lot from this community and this position and this is actually one of the reasons I stepped down. I believe I have to pass this opportunity to the younger generation - how to say? - so I will not leave this community either. I will want to actually continue to support this community from another angle, actually, as a business sector. So I hope that this community will grow forever. Thank you very much. PAUL WILSON OK, thank you. Thank you very much. APPLAUSE PAUL WILSON OK, let's move to the next report from the IPv6 SIG. Fujisaki-san. I'd like to ask Li Xing to be ready to take over the next report after this one. Thank you. TOMOHIRO FUJISAKI I am Tomohiro Fujisaki, the co-chair of the IPv6 Technical SIG. I will report on the SIG. The IPv6 Technical SIG was on Wednesday morning. We used this room and we had a lot of participants from this group. We had no action items for this SIG and this time with we had four informational presentations. OK, the first presentation was from Arifumi Matsumoto from NTT and his presentation is about the selection issues in multiprefix IPv6 network. And he pointed out the problem and he showed the solution. Our next presentation was the IPv6 allocation status report and this was a report from APNIC. And, in this presentation, some statistics, such as RIR allocations, DB registration and routing table status were shown. This time, there is a large space allocation in the space, like this (refers to slide) And, in this presentation, APNIC report the implementation report of Telstra. And third presentation is ASIX6 status report. And, in this presentation, the status of ASNet and ASIX6 and recent IPv6 network status in Taiwan. And last presentation is the large space IPv6 trial report from Kosuke-san and Gaku Hashimoto from IPv6 Promotion Council of Japan. And in this report, there was a summary of the trial, including IPv6-related activities of participants. That's all. Any questions? PAUL WILSON OK, thank you very much for that SIG report. TOMOHIRO FUJISAKI Thank you. APPLAUSE PAUL WILSON Ah, Li Xing? Rather than having a pregnant pause between each of these, I'll assume that anyone with questions will approach the microphone and make themselves known at the right time. And we will have another open microphone session after the SIG reports. XING LI OK, good afternoon. I'm Xing Li and I'm the current chair of Database SIG. And, in this meeting actually we have six presentations and I reviewed the action items left from previous APNIC meeting. And there is one policy proposal by JPNIC. And the rest proposals - I mean presentations - are informative. So, the remaining action items - Database 18-001 - "Proposal for establishment of an IPv6 Internet routing registry to be referred to the mailing list for detailed discussion of the framework and implementation" and the status is open. However, there is a presentation in this meeting and the good news is, by end of April 2005, should be able to deliver IPv6 IRR. And I encourage you to go to the meeting website to look at the presentation. It is available. And the section action item remaining action item db-17-002 - "Proposal for IRR mirroring policy to be returned to the Database mailing list for further discussion". That is open action item. However, no activity was seen on the mailing list. The proponent suggested that there should be some activity related to proposal soon. By next APNIC meeting, if there is no progress, the action item will be closed. So I suggest please go to the mailing list and have some discussion. And db-17-001 - "Pending approval at each remaining stage of the policy proposal process, APNIC Secretariat to implement the proposal to protect historical records with an APNIC maintainer". And the status of this action item is done. And it has been implemented on 14 December last year. And the presentation material's available. And db-16-002 - "Secretariat to implement proposal 'privacy of customer assignment records' in three months" and the status - done. Implemented on fifth October last year. And also, you can see the detail of the presentations. The only policy proposal is presented by JPNIC - Toshiyuki Hosaka - and the title is "APNIC to publish assignment statistics". Because of the protection and those kind of things, so statistics is not available. And the suggested form is like this but it's open to the registries to select the format. And so we need to do - agree consensus on this. The thing is action db-19-001 - "Following approval at each remaining step of the policy development process, the APNIC Secretariat will implement proposal 026 version 001, APNIC to publish address assignment statistics". PAUL WILSON OK, well, this is the second of the policy proposals that's come through the SIGs and they've reached a consensus within the database SIG and so, once again, I would like to ask you to raise your hand if you will support the consensus of the database SIG on this proposal. (Pause) SANJAYA 30. PAUL WILSON Thank you. If you're not in favour of or oppose this consensus decision of the SIG, raise your hand please. OK, that's a clear consensus. Thank you very much for your support. XING LI Thank you. And there is another information presentation - RPSLng and the CRISP Whois database and they are action activities in IETF and I encourage you to take a look at this proposal. Probably this will be the future of APNIC database format. Thank you very much. Any questions? (Pause) Thank you. PAUL WILSON Thank you, Xing. Thank you very much. APPLAUSE PAUL WILSON And the next report is Joao Damas, the DNS SIG. JOAO DAMAS So my name is Joao Damas and I'm standing in for Joe Abley, the chair of the SIG. He couldn't be here this time. He sent his thanks to the APNIC staff, though, for all the help in preparation. This was the agenda - review of action points. Open action items coming into this meeting was only one regarding the lame delegations. And the status of this action item was done and was implemented by the APNIC staff on 30 September last year. There was a presentation about this. All the presentations that were delivered in DNS SIG were informational. None of them were policy. Geoff Huston gave a presentation on deprecating ip6.int. There is a draft out there proposed by Geoff to make ip6.int not a part of the IPv6 standard by 1 June 2005. This means that a standards-compliant process would not need to support ip6.int from that date on. But this is still open to the date. We expect to hear from him in the near future. A presentation from JPRS in how to improve the performance of DNS lookups in the reverse stream. There was quite an extensive and thorough analysis of the impact of glueless delegations in the performance of DNS resolution. And BIND 8 previous to 8.2.7 generates a big amount of queries and even times out, interrupting the resolution process. This happens when it encounters glueless delegations and the cache can't provide the address of the name servers. The suggestion that came out of this study was to include glue in the in-addr.arpa tree. But there were some RFC issues. There was also a suggestion to keep the name servers using glueless delegations in the same part of the tree as the label being queried. Following this presentation by Terry Manderson from APNIC about the lame delegation status and the policy is implemented now. Noting that the policy has been generally well received by members, who actually are thankful to receive notification that their names are lame. The other outstanding result of this process is there is a measurable decline in the number of lame delegations observed, even in the presence of an increasing number of total domains. OK, two presentations from the RIPE NCC, the first one on nameserver monitoring. This is a new service that the RIPE NCC is running. You can subscribe, if you want to have your service monitored by it. The information will be available to everyone. It uses a worldwide distributed net of probes to measure, so it is quite good - different points of the network can see their results. The results can be presented as results for specific servers, for a total of the servers in a particular TLD or from the measurement points. RIPE NCC is the co-chair of the DNSSEC working group. He gave a brief status report on that. The main point is that DNSSEC is standard now. The only thing remaining being publication as an RFC. The whole process is finally concluded and it should be out really soon. I would try and encourage everyone to actually use these right a way as the standards are not finalised. The code is available. There are tutorials on how to use it and future additions will be backwards compatible. Try it now so you can plan your rollout. George Michaelson from APNIC presented a status report on ERX activities. This is the historical delegation assignments were moved from various RIRs. It was a two-year process that has now reached its end. APNIC is taking over responsibility for over two /8s for additional address space. Some data includes the movement of more than 2,000 networks moved between APNIC and other RIRs. There was a note on the extremely hard work of getting the swamp space - 192/8 sorted out. But that's also done now, so that is good. A note for the future in that the space that has been now is of course now subject to APNIC policies. And that final note of thanks to Cathy Murphy from ARIN for the extensive work done. Myself gave a small presentation on the current status of BIND/F-Root. Just a note that there currently is a BIND that I encourage everyone to be using if possible, which is BIND 9.3. It has better memory control and DNSSEC bis is fully implemented and there is now more operational control over IPv6 service than previous BIND services. It now has better control, we're much before with v4 than v6 and this is no longer the case. We're now on a par with v4. Finally, an update on root server running stably and part of the anycast deployment, we have recently deployed a node here in Japan, very close to here in Osaka sponsored by NTT communications. And this is the end of my report if anyone has any questions. PAUL WILSON Thank you, Joao. Izumi Okutani? IZUMI OKUTANI I am Izumi Okitani and I will be giving a report on NIR SIG. In NIR SIG, if you're interested, it's open to everybody. The mailing list is open to everybody. This time, we had a 1.5-hour session on Wednesday and, although we had no proposals, we had five mentions and we had very active discussions on issues relating to ERX project and reviewing the current NIR fee structure. And we also had a change of chair. This is a list of presentations we had (refers to slide) And we had updates of most of NIR's activities and the two other issues that I've mentioned. And let me just explain a little bit about what we discussed about two of the issues that we had quite active discussions. One of them is related to historical resources. This was a presentation made by KRNIC and they introduced the issues they are facing with the ERX process and the objects they are handling. One of the issues they pointed out is that they are receiving complaints from both the ERX resource-holders and the current PA holders. From the perspective of the ERX resource-holders, they feel that they have always managed these resources without paying and with proper management so they are really not happy with the changes. And also for the PA-holders, they are not really happy that they have to cover the cost for doing this project. And another issue is that there's a controversy that people have to pay to update the information because that would lose initiative for people to update information. Was pointed out that it must be partly to do with the communication and doing more promotions and making people understand the idea of how to manage historical resources. And another thing is this was one of the topics in the SIG. We've been discussing about reviewing the NIR fee structure since our last SIG and we have an issue with what's called 'per address fee' that's being charged to allocations made to NIRs based on the address size. And this is especially causing a big problem in large IPv6 allocations, because LIRs are directly under APNIC's management don't need to pay a huge amount whereas, for example, in the case of JPNIC, LIRs are requesting a /21 allocation - v6 allocation, must pay about US $67 to receive this allocation. So this is, you know, creating inconsistency between LIRs in this region. So one of the ideas introduced - this was not a proposal, it was just introduced - was to abolish per address fee. But, at the same time it was pointed out by the APNIC Secretariat that we should carefully review the impact on the APNIC budget and continue discussions on our key working group mailing list. And our goal is to make a draft by next APNIC meeting - APNIC 20 - and make a proposal. So that's all for the discussions and I would like to announce that there has been a change of chair. I am going to replace Akinori Maemura, who had been chairing NIR SIG for about five years. It started as a BoF and we would really like to thank Maemura-san for all the contributions he's made for this SIG. That's all from me. PAUL WILSON Thank you Akinori Maemura. APPLAUSE AKINORI MAEMURA Thank you. It's been very, very long to - for me to sitting as the chair position. But I found it is much, much better to be chaired by Izumi at this meeting. So, yes, it is, it is - almost all my world is just the same as Arano-san. -- all my words is just the same as Arano-san. I don't have any better vocabulary than Arano-san. But I recall that for the very, very first time to chair the NIR meeting, I was quite nervous. That is very bad. But I Think it is much, much better than I was five years ago. So it is a very good experience for me and, of course, I am still involved in APNIC activities in various areas so I'd like to contribute again - no, contribute from other areas. Thank you very. Thank you. PAUL WILSON Thank you. APPLAUSE PAUL WILSON (Makes a presentation to Izumi Okutani) and congratulations on your new position. I do think the role and the work of Maemura-san and the participants in the NIR SIG has been a very strong factor in the success and the ongoing development of the NIR structure at APNIC. So thanks again and let's keep up the good work. TOSHIYUKI HOSAKA I would like to thank Izumi for covering a lot of my presentation. I have a lot more to explain for the background. Actually JPNIC has located /21, this is not IPv4 but IPv6 to a member last year. We had 3,000 new starters. JPNIC made a proposal to change this structure at the last APNIC meeting. The consensus on this proposal has not been reached, but consensus was that to discuss and review and NIR fee scheme. We made some discussion on the mailing list. NIRs and APNIC. APNIC recognised the issue of per address free, several concrete ideas were presented from both NIR and APNIC. NIR agreed to support our idea, but we have not agreed with APNIC as yet, so we need further discussion in future. Working group will continue the discussion on this issue on the mailing list in detail. We will make formal proposal by next APNIC 20 meeting to NRC. Thank you. PAUL WILSON Thank you very much. Thank you for your presentation. I should mention that this issue of the NR fee structure is something I think most members are well aware of. There's an important issue for the future sustainability of APNIC, also the ongoing fairness of the APNIC fee structure and the fair distribution of responsibility for the cost of running the APNIC operation. I would hope that not just NIRs, but regular members of APNIC would take a strong interest and participate in this discussion. Of course, the NIRs are well motivated, understandably so to provide some alternatives and some suggestions but whatever suggestion or alternative is finally proposed will go to the members of APNIC for a vote as a whole and it would certainly help the smoothness of this process and it would help to reach an ultimate solution to have active participation by all classes of members throughout this discussion, not just when a proposal may be presented to a future meeting. With that I'd like to hand over to Che Hoo Cheng from the IX SIG. CHE HOO CHENG I am Co-chair of IX SIG. I'm going to give you a brief report about our meeting. The chair of this SIG is Philip Smith and because he has too many presentations to do, so I will be happy to give one on this. I am the Co-chair, you can use this mailing list to reach us and please if you want to join this SIG you can subscribe to our mailing list, but right now the discussions are not that much. I hope you have more active - to have more active discussion. Regarding the meeting this time, we held a meeting in room G, which is not a big room. It was held yesterday because we have 12 informational representations - presentations, informational presentations, so we have to split into two sessions. One at 2pm one at 4pm am we had a very good number of attendees, more than 55, I think. We have a very active discussion at the meeting and we hope - actually we have requested to have a bigger room next time. There's no action items. Here are the presentations at the first session. As you can see these are all from our region. The first two are from developing countries, Bangladesh, we're glad to have someone from Bangladesh to present their IX for us. Also we have a presentation from Vietnam and they started the IX. Their IXes not so long ago. We're glad to see they are developing very fast now. Next we have 3 presentations from Japan, they are very well developed so we can see their IXes are having very much traffic volume and also they are distributed having multiple sites interconnect together by multiple - very advanced. The 6th presentation is from Taiwan, which is actually a report of a survey done by TWNIC. In Taiwan there were four IXes, but all of them are run by commercial companies and the outcome is that they still have extra Taiwan traffic going through overseas, so they want to know whether the industry have a border for this kind of interconnection. This industry do hope to have government support and more volume to run the IX in Taiwan. The next presentation from Matsushima-san is about the MPLS-IX service in Japan which is a very interesting model for more advanced countries. This model you don't need to have people to collocate in the same sites and you use MPLS network to do the interconnection. You can also use this to interconnect IXes together which is interesting. Because this session, all the presentations were very short, so we have time left for Serge to run a funny video. He showed a movie where he crossed the road, crossed railway, crossed a highway with very much traffic in KL. That was very interesting. The second session, as you can see from here, all are from presenters outside of this region. The first one is from US, MAE-EXT, I don't know how to pronounce it, presented by Tom from NCI. I think it's somewhat similar to the MPLS-IX in Japan, allow people to do interconnection of a wide area connection. The next presentation was from Sweden, and LACNIC. They use caves to house their exchanges, very interesting. The one is euro IX, euro IX is not an IX - industry association for IX operators in Europe but they also work with members from the region. They have one member from Japan. Then a presentation from Amsterdam, Henk, about the situation in Holland. And the last one is a very interesting one, that is from Bill talking about IXes all over the world. I'm very glad to hear that the largest IX in this region include the ones in Japan, Korea and one in Hong Kong, I'm very proud of it. All the presentations are online and if you are interested in this please refer to the web site. And that's it. PAUL WILSON Thanks. APPLAUSE Next is Philip with a couple of reports from the routing SIG and the APOPS SIG BOF session. I should say to those who were at the IX SIG, thank you all for your forbearance in a venue that was too small. We'll try and avoid that problem in future. It's very good to see that the IX SIG has gained such a loyal following. Thanks to everyone. PHILIP SMITH OK, good afternoon, everyone. This is the report from the routing SIG. Routing SIG took place on Wednesday 23rd. Again as with IX SIG this was the first time that we extended the program to cover two sessions. It was in this room and at a guess I think we had around about 90 participants. The room occupancy was similar to what it is now, which was great to see especially considering that we're competing with some very interesting sessions at APRICOT as well. Randy Bush and I are the chairs for the SIG. You can reach us at the SIG routing chair at APNIC.net address. If you're not already on the mailing list and you are interested in routing issues facing the Asia Pacific region subscribe to the mailing list at the URL shown on the screen. The session was split into two pieces, the first session we've just had 3 presences. The first one was a presentation by Boeing, Brian Skeen, which showed how the connection from the Boeing service actually worked. I think partly to appeal to the techiness of most people how they can use this service on some of the airlines in this part of the world but also looking at how the servers worked at a technical level and having a brief look at the impact or not on the global routing table. The second and third presentations were covering really what's been a hot topic for the last several months, if not longer, that was BGP security. Russ Housley gave an overview on some of the BGP security issues. That was followed by a presentation from Steve Kent that had a good look at that itself. The next session, we go into some operational features of the provider networks and Internet in this region. We had a very interesting presentation, really covering the history of operational routing experience at OCN/NTT by Tomoya Yoshida which was greatly appreciated. If there are other service providers in this part of the world who want to contribute similar presentations Randy and I would be most interested to hear from you. Following that we had a very interesting update from Joel Jaeggli on the routeviews project followed by an update by Geoff Huston on the state of the Internet routing table. He showed the BGP movie again for those who haven't already seen it. Then we finished off the SIG with two presentations from Randy, first one having a look at some very early results of anycast stability experiment that was recently carried out. The second presentation having a look at happy packets I suppose is the simplest summary, the second experiment that Randy's co-workers have carried out. I suppose we ran over time in this SIG. The first session went exactly to the 90 minutes, the second one we overran by a good 15 minutes which rather just shows the nature - we had a lot of interest in the presentations and a lot of presentations in themselves. So hopefully we can carry this on at the next routing SIG meeting. Again, thank you to all the presenters for this and my appeal for more presentations of this sort of nature goes out to you all. Thank you. This is just a quick summary of APOPS, that was an evening BOF on the Tuesday evening just before the APRICOT opening social. There is a web site, we have a mailing list. Again, if you're not on the mailing list and you wish to subscribe you can do so at the URL on the screen. It goes through APNIC's mail service. We are grateful to APNIC for agreeing to host this for us. It was a very disappointing agenda this time partly due to me not spending too much time chasing people for presentations. What we did was we merged this with the PGP key signing, I'm not sure if George is going to talk about that or not but we had that as the first agenda item of APOPS, so at least some of the people could see how a PGP key signing activity took place, which I think was quite interesting for everybody. Of the presenters who indicated they would be able to talk about something only Sumon from Bangladesh was able to give us a talk. He gave us a summary of what went on at SANOG 5 a couple of weeks ago in Bangladesh, which was a highly successful operations conference in spite of the local circumstances that we had to endure. SANOG itself is, I suppose similar to APRICOT in nature but still in the early phases of development. Probably a little bit like APRICOT was when it started ten years ago. It's highly successful in the South Asia region. If you are interested in that I would encourage you to participate. The next SANOG of course, is in Bhutan in July. If you're interested in coming along please check out the SANOG web site. That was really the nature of Sumon's talk. He gave a brief update on BDIX that he repeated at the IX SIG. We had no other business so the meeting was over in about 30 minutes. We had about 20 participants, which was disappointing, but we'll have a look at what we can try and do to improve the participation in the future. That was that report. Thank you. PAUL WILSON Thank you, Philip. A small token of our appreciation and for two SIGs there are two network wireless cards, you may share one with the Co-chair if you would like. APPLAUSE And last, if George is in the room. And if George has a presentation? GEORGE MICHAELSON No, just the mike. Hi. I've got a very quick verbal presentation on the CRISP EPP BOF. We had a meeting for one hour with 16 attendees. We discussed the implications of the adoption of a routing registry profile by the CRISP working group and the possibility of extensions to the EPP protocol to allow it to be used for provisioning of number resources. It was a very fruitful BOF, very useful meeting, face-to-face of people with an interest in the area and I suspect we will continue to meet at IETF in small corridor meetings outside of the CRISP working group in the working group and hopefully at these meetings again. PAUL WILSON Thank you. Thank you, George. We have come to the end of the SIG reports. There's a chance, as we sometimes do, that some meeting or working group, SIG or BOF was missed in this list. If anyone has a report of any kind from another meeting that happened any time over the last few days, please speak now, there's an opportunity to provide it. Likewise, if there are any questions regarding any of the reports we've heard. If not then we do have a little bit of time free. So I think Kenny Huang is available to give the next report scheduled for after the coffee break which is an update from the address council, so we'll move ahead with that and we'll be breaking at 3.30 for coffee. Thanks. KENNY HUANG An ASO update. You can visit the web site too for detail of the ASO and information. ASO address council. The MoU was signed between the NRO and ICANN. Probably Paul will give some more detailed information. Also IPv6 global policy submitted through RIRs to address council to ICANN is awaiting action by the ICANN board. And transition to new address council member and shift to new secretariat. Address council, in brief is AC. Does not represent the RIRs directly. Three representatives from each RIR region, and not necessarily RIR members, all interested parties may participate. Effect of NRO on AC - the impact of NRO on the AC is the address council is now the NRO number council. The number council is similar to the AC, two points - RIR board of director elects one council member and the community elects two council members. The transition is currently under way. So far that's the list of address council members from APNIC we have Takashi Arano and he is also currently the co-chair of the address council, myself, Hun Joon Kwon. From RIPE region is Hans Petter Holen currently the chair, Sabine Jaume, Wilfried Woeber. >From LACNIC, Hartmut Glaser is a co-chair of address council, Sebastian Bellagamba and Julian. From ARIN, Loui Lee, Lee Howard and Stanford George. Regarding to ASO, AC administration. Secretariat for 2005 is supported by LACNIC. That's rotated between different RIRs. The chair is Hans Petter Holen for 2005, co-chairs are Hartmut Glaser and Takashi Arano-san. Address council members also elect the ICANN board. Currently we have two board members, one is Mouhamet Diop from Africa region and Raimunda Beca from LACNIC region, the term ended in May 2007. ASO general assembly normally runs once a year. This year we haven't decided yet so we are going to discuss the location and when to have a general assembly. You can also visit the web site for detailed information. Address council also continued to observe progress in the establishment of AfriNIC's new RIR. AfriNIC have representatives actively participated in all current. Other activities - established standard BoD selection process. We complete the road map for work in 2005. Now working on transition activities to NRO number council. OK, that's the end of my presentation. Thank you. PAUL WILSON Thank you very much. You might have noticed just now that APNIC staff are handing around some forms which are evaluation forms from this meeting. I would ask you - and I'd appreciate it very much if you would take a little time to fill out the form and provide us with some feedback on the meeting. It will help to improve meetings in future. If you can give us your honest and constructive feedback. I think although the name and email address are optional on those forms if we can collect forms from you at the end of the break we'll do some kind of lucky draw and provide a prize to the person whose form is pulled randomly out of the hat, so to speak. So please fill those in, hand them in at the end of the coffee break and you might win something! On the matter of prizes and to demonstrate that we do follow through with our commitments we do have a prize to present to the lucky winner who filled in the IP address policy quiz. So this name has been drawn out of a hat from all of those who completed that quiz. Thanks very much to all of you, but the lucky winner is Sugeng Rohmadhi. Thank you very much for your effort in filling out the quiz. You're the lucky winner. That's your prize. Thank you. You can see these prizes do happen and please fill in your meeting evaluation survey, you might get something like or unlike that one. We'll break for coffee now. For the next half an hour. We'll come back with the rest of the member meeting this afternoon. That will included the report on NRO, ICANN, WSIS-related matters. The results of the EC election, of course, providing that our hard working scrutineers can finish counting on time, and also the announcement of the next meeting and a presentation regarding that. So thanks very much. Please enjoy the coffee break and we'll meet back here in half an hour. COFFEE BREAK