Connect with RIPE 60 : Facebook Twitter RSS linkedin

These are unedited transcripts and may contain errors.

Notice: Use of undefined constant steno - assumed 'steno' in /var/www/html/ripe-60/steno-transcripts.php on line 24
The Cooperation Working Group session commenced as follows:

CHAIR: Good afternoon everyone. Some very important work to do. So, some administrative matters. Maria in Swedish Government xmy co?chair is very sad she could not be here but she sends her regards and she is definitely following what we are doing as I noticed when she felt that she had not really copied that, Paul, myself and Chris are had not really copied her enough on some e?mail exchanges, she told us. We are behaving much better now. We should have a scribe, Chris. We have someone that keeps track of the Jabber, do we have someone? Yes, thank you very much. When going to microphone, later on when we have discussions which I hope we will have, please state your name and affiliation and then try to speak clearly so everyone, both hears you and understands you. I didn't tell you who I am, Patrik Falstrom from Cisco, one of the two co?chairs.

The agenda for the meeting, we have a review outcome of the RIPE NCC round table meeting, Paul Rendek, myself who will present what the status is and the preparation of the IGP; Roland Perry will talk about the ITU IPv6 report. We also are working on this week as was presented on the plenary on Monday, working on a potential statement on IPv6, on this ITU IPv6 work that ITU is doing and the proposed text is that RIPE gives RIPE NCC a mandate and asks them to please be very active and work with ITU and then we have any other business and part of any other business we have one presentation from Constance regarding IPv6 deployment in Germany. So what is the agenda at the moment.

Any concerns, any issues or questions in there? Good. With that, Paul.

PAUL RENDEK: Good afternoon everyone. I am from RIPE NCC, welcome to the session. I am actually rejigged the slides a little bit and called this Internet governs update, I am going to talk about what came out of your round table meeting in February this year but I am going to touch on the IGF and kind of prep things for the larger picture for Patrik to take over.

So, our round table meeting for 2010, was held in Amsterdam 22nd of February, we had 38 participants there from 12 countries, it was slightly smaller than some of the others that we saw but we think it was because of scheduling and things are getty very busy even for the governments in governs circles so there is a lot of things that need to be attended. Some presentations, something different are what happened normally. When we start have had it was all about the RIPE NCC and some of our industry partners spilling as much as information as we could to the governs to try to bring them up to speak, this time around for the first time we actually had industry partners and governments come and present at the round table meeting. It was brilliant but some dialogue came out that have amongst the governments themselves and it was something interesting for to us take?home. This time around we had a presentation from the European Commission on some of the v6 activities, we had a presentation from the German government, also, about their v6 allocations and their experiences working with registry system, it was really great, they had a lot of things to say to their government colleagues at our meeting so that was quite nice. We had the international Chamber of Commerce, this was actually quite nice for us because we could see that we showed the governments some sol tar Dee between the business community and Internet technical community so a lot of our positions are much the same so it was nice to have the international Chamber of Commerce there to show what the business community is doing and of course we had the RIPE co?op Working Group chairs there and Patrik was at this meeting, Maria could not attend, but Patrik also presented at the round table.

So, a little change in the focus of this meeting. We actually did not have IPv6 as an agenda item per se at this meeting, and this was at the request of the governments because we have spent a lot of time updating them on v6 and this time they said we don't want to hear about it, we think you have told us enough about that for now, let's move on to some other issues so the change that we had, and I think the most interesting focus that we had on the meeting was instead of the RIPE NCC actually just speaking to the governments and saying here is information, they that we think you need to know, we actually came and asked the governments to support the RIR system for the first time, quite actively, because the governments had been saying to us well OK, this is all great RIPE NCC, it's good we have got all this information but what is it that you want from us, that you want to us do for you. So this time we did explain to them obviously the Internet technical community, as many of you can see, are spending quite a lot of resources in the area of Internet governance, we have been very active and feel we have been a good participant, I think also it's safe to say that the Internet technical community is very firmly planted in the Internet governance environment, and that is quite ?? taken quite a lot of effort from all the different industry partners that are there so we actually did call upon those governments and said, we have been a group that has given a lot of resources to this, we have done what we can in the area of cooperation with you, and we feel that we want the support from governments now, certainly in specific with the RIR system.

So the future of round table meetings. Yes, we will continue to have them in Amsterdam. We are enjoying the relationships that we have built with governments. We know they are coming, they are starting to ask us a lot more questions, we are starting to gain some regional popularity. The Middle East is a part of the RIPE meeting, we hold these round table meetings in Amsterdam. It's easy for people in Western Europe anyway to come into the city, come have a one?day meeting and then get home. I have been approached by quite a few middle eastern governments saying, well this is all very interesting but wouldn't it be nice to have something in our region. So, just to make a little fair I have gone out and I have spoken to the Jordanian government and to a few folks at the ICT in Qatar ministry, telecommunications, and I am working with them to try and see if we can hold round table meetings on the one side of the Middle East and one on the other so we are hoping to get that off the ground quite soon and we will report to you on any of the findings that we have there.

Just to let you know why some of us have bags underneath our eyes. This is the Internet governance outreach we have done since the last report we gave you at this meeting. This there has been a lot of activity. We do this not only alone but in great cooperation with the other RIRs and industry partners as well. I am not going to run through this whole list. We have gone to meetings at various governance meetings from governments and LEAs and some enterprise events, we are enjoying the reasons ships here and start to go get invited to a lot of events without having to try to push ourselves in, which again is a nice thing to be recognised as a community.

These slides of course, will be on?line and you can take a look at where we have been and if you have any questions, I am here and can tell you what our presence was at any one of these events.

So moving on to the NRO statement on the IGF continuation. As some of you may know, the last IGF in this series of the five is coming up this September so at the fourth in Egypt was held in November of 2009, there was quite a cafufal going on over what was the going to happen, what were the positions of the various sect certificates, or business or the ICT on how the continuation of the IGP should go. Well the RIRs got together and underneath the NRO umbrella we did issue a common statement and I have just pulled out some of the statements in this communique, I will give you URL in a minute so you can go and take a look at that. We actually were given a slide inside the IGF to review this and there was a video been made and we have linked the video into this so you can see my colleague from AfriNIC, she read this out to the whole community so some of the key areas that we should on there, we actually have listed that we have actually participated in the IGF process, even long before the IGF process had WIS's, we have been representing the interests of our community and members from the developed and developing regions from the on?set there is a lot of focus in the developing regions of the world as well and I am happy to say we believe the ICT community has got all the areas covered, developed and developing.

The NRO supports and environment were all stakeholders can participate openly and equally, this is something that we are very comfortable with because we like to operate like that in our own constitutes so we believe this is very important in the IGF. The non?decision?making status, we believe this facilitates very valuable discussions, we think it inspires the decision?makers there, many governments that go home and make public policy, we hope this information them and inspires them to make the right decisions. The NRO also urges greater efforts to facilitate remote participation because if there is so much emphasis put on the develop regions then having events like this that pull together a few thousand people is brilliant but not everybody gets to join so what are we doing to actually promote greater remote participation, I think that is going to bring some of the developing world into this scene a bit quicker and the NRO is committed to engaging with and financially contributing to the IGF. We have been a contributor ever since the start of it. And we encourage other stakeholders all the way from governments to the business sector to actually join us in this effort as well.

So, the statement on the IGF continuation, it was delivered directly from our directors to the under secretary for the economic and social affairs of the UN, Mr. Sha that statement was delivered to him in hand and it was also presented at the meeting, I have given the URL here where you can find that statement, read it for yourselves and also take a look at the video, little Jan did a very nice job in delivering that.

What is our presence going to look at? At the IGF in 2010, so before I hand the floor over to Patrik to give us a larger picture I wanted to kind of give you an idea what we have done to come together to prep us for what we are doing out there. We have three workshop proposals that we have submitted, apparently they have received about oh, gosh, I think it's somewhere in the order of 90 to 100 fork workshops, I think they are going to have 80 if I am correct. Patrik will touch on this. Out of those we actually, as the NRO, put three in. Farrelly, we would like to do something on IPv6, we are going to touch on enhancing transparency in Internet governance and openness, this is something that is quite dear to our communities. And maintaining the open architecture of the Internet within critical Internet resources which we would call Internet number resources in our kind of constituencies. So those are the three.

Maybe not all of these will be accepted, we hope that at least one of them will be accepted. We will probably be asked to merge some of these together. We will do so, we are ?? we are actively looking for industry partners to realise these workshops because they do look at the diversity of the different groups that are going to be participating in your workshop. Last year we did a great job in working with a bunch of industry partners, we even worked with the ITU to throw a successful IPv6 workshop so again this year we are going to be doing the same. This is run by my check Chris Buckridge and Roland Perry from the RIPE NCC so we are leading that up with the other RIRs this year. Of course we have have active participation, our directors will be there, we will plop them where we think we need to have to have them, inside speaking slots for under critical Internet resources but we also have various other RIRs getting involved in other areas of the IGF. That is a quick look at what we are planning on doing for this year.

And that brings me to the end of the update. Does anybody have any questions for me?


PATRIK FALSTROM: Thank you very much. So, maybe there are more questions after I presented my stuff. Kurtis point out that I wrote the slides so I should know them, I don't have to see them. OK. So what I will talk a little bit more into detail on the status of the work regarding the IGF. It's a little bit (IGF) it will be a little bit strange to talk about it as you will see because there is the first major preparation meeting is actually next week in Geneva and a lot of things depends on what is happening at that meeting let me show you a little bit of what is happening. The next meeting (meeting) the fifth IGF meeting in the first series of five, is in Vilnius in Lithuania. For those of you who don't really know, it's like here, and it's actually not very far away, and it only takes about 16 hours to get there from here, and it's not until September. But, the ?? but of course to prepare a big meeting like this, there need to be a lot of other meetings as well, as if we didn't have enough of them, but the serious part is that we have three preparatory meetings, the first one coming next week, May 10 to 11 in Geneva, followed by a closed meeting in a group called the multi?stakeholder advisory group. That is a group of appointed people, I think the order of 30 or something, which discuss what Paul mentioned, for example, what should actually be discussed at the conference, what are the workshops that should be approved, etc., what should be the speakers, what should be the format of the meeting, should there be just presentations or should it more be people discussing things on the stage?

I have been, myself, a member of this multi?stakeholder advisory group from the beginning and I recognise a few other faces in this room. Nowadays I am no longer a member of this group but I am an advisor to the chair, so I am still part of the work, still.

There also have been scheduled a second preparatory meeting in June 28th and 29th that will be used if it is the case that the multi?stakeholder advisory group feel that that is needed. The earlier IGF meetings has been in November. This one is in September, given that I live up in Scandinavia on the same latitude, I know it's much nicer weather, so maybe that is a good thing. One of the reasons why the meeting is in September, is as I said in the beginning, this is the fifth meeting out of five IGF meetings that was scheduled. What is happening in parallel is there is a review process going on that will lead to a proposal that will be put forward to the united nations general assembly later in the fall of 2010. I don't know this schedule in top of my head but we talk about very late November or early December. The January assembly will then literally vote on whatever that proposal contains. As you will see a bit later, many of the stakeholders and specifically here in Europe, and in the RIPE region, as a whole, has asked the united nations and SHA to extend the IGF to have more meetings than now Vilnius, which could be the last one. It's even the case that Kenya has stood up and said that they are happy to host a meeting in 2011, but the actual decision on whether there will be more meetings is taken in the united nations general assembly, which means that countries vote, so that specific decision is not multi?stake holder, according to the IDF process ?? it's following the standard UN process, as part of Ecosoft.

We have another time?line which has to do with the deadlines and these are ?? this is ?? these are the deadlines, the dates that people that would like to present or like to participate in the meeting in Vilnius, they have to do things before these dates, and as you see, many of them have already passed. And the reason for that, of course, all these dates, 30th of March, 15th of April, 30th of April, the reason why those deadlines are so early, are of course that what people have done, according to those deadlines, is of course what will be discussed next week in Geneva.

So if we look at, for example, 15th of April, that was the deadline for providing proposals for workshops, best practice forums, etc., we have approximately 100 proposals on the table as Paul mentioned, but experience from the previous year plus the layout of the conference centre itself means that we must go down to 50. Yes. So, which is much ?? previous year it was about 20 percent that we had sort of encourage people to withdraw or merge their workshops; this time, it's 50%, and that will be a pretty interesting discussion next week, how we are going to do that. It might be the case, what we have been talking about, is that we are going to evaluate the workshops on whether the topic is unique, if there are multiple workshops that talk about similar things, we will encourage to merge. If it is the case that our workshop or best practice session, for example, with very few organisations that organise in it, it might be the case that that get lower priority. It might be the case that sessions that we identify as being reporting back from, for example, local IGF meetings and stuff would be encouraged instead to do a do a video or some kind of material that can be presented on?line. It doesn't need to be a complete, take a complete slot at the conference but all of this will be discussed next week. So after Wednesday next week, I can tell you much more, and you will see much more on the website.

The current proposal for the conference or the main topics, are the following:

You can read yourself. There are a couple of new ones here, Internet governance for development, and specifically that under emerging issues, should be talked about cloud computing, and of course, these are the kind of meetings where words like that are not so precisely defined so don't ask me what is meant by cloud computing. That is part of the whole idea. But these main themes might actually change next week, based on the input that people sent in and what they think and what people will say next week.

If you look at one of the main things that is specifically important for the RIPE region has to do with critical Internet resources. The main theme has these sub bullets or sub themes: Status of IPv6 availability, specifically examples on case studies, internationalisation of critical Internet resources management, the importance of new TLDs and IDNs for development, enhanced cooperation, etc.. maintaining the open architecture of the Internet. Maintaining Internet services in situations of disaster and crisis. And of course, the main sessions are not very long so the question is how they are going to like, just one of these bullets is big enough from my perspective to be a conference by itself but they are sub bullets for one session.

So, that is where we are regarding the IGF in 2010.

I wanted to look back a little bit on the IGF in last year, Sweden was the presidency of the EU so we had our minister down there and this is the slide that I wanted to show you on behalf of the Swedish Government, it was also I showed this slide also at the meeting in February and these are the ?? these were the messages that the European Union, that Sweden presented on behalf of the European Union at the IGF 2009, and it might be the case that to remember that this was actually what at least like now Europe is a small part of the RIPE region, but I wanted to show this anyway. And part of this you see specifically that there were interest from the EU to extend IGF another five years, continue to be multi?stakeholder, continue to be a non?decision body, etc.. and that was all.

Any questions? Good, because then we can move into the real discussions. So Roland, I think you are the...

ROLAND PERRY: I work with the RIPE NCC on public affairs issues. What I am going to try to do fairly briefly is give an introduction to the ITU, an introduction to their recent thinking on IPv6 and conclude with a summary of a report that came out of the meeting that was held in Geneva about a month ago.

So I thought I would do this in terms of a time?line. Now, thinking about IPv6 and indeed IP address allocation for quite some time. However, as an organisation, it runs on a effectively four year time cycle, and so, I thought I'd restrict myself to the major events in this current four year cycle and they tend to have all kinds of conferences and forums and council meetings and things like that where each time a new meeting comes along resolutions are put in front of the meeting and those resolutions editeded a bit and passed and it goes on to the next meeting, it's kind of a rolling balance and so in this particular four year cycle at the moment, which incidentally ends in October this year, the WGIG in 2005, there was some comment about allocation policies needing to ensure they called balanced access on a geographical basis. Now the ITU along with lots of other organisations has its own jargon and one that crops up over again in terms of IPv4 allocation is what they call a historical imbalance, that is their word for it; our word would probably be legacy space. Just by the way that it was allocated in historical accident, that is the way it's turned out. So the first major resolution upon which most of the ITUs work at the moment is based, was at a conference in Johannesburg, W TS A conference and again in ITU parlance, they tend to talk about meetings, so you hear people talking about the Johannesburg resolution or the Dohar resolution and unless you actually know oh Johannesburg and that was in 2008 and it was this particular group that got together, you can get a bit lost so the resolution 64 had some words in it and which I have paraphrased here, where they said it would be good assist developing countries to look at regional needs, to create awareness and training and deployment for IPv6. And it also said that the ITU should study IPv6 allocation, again study is a jargon word in the ITU, everything they do is is a study and in fact they have study groups and things like that which go off and do the studying, want to study especially for developing countries and report back to the council meeting in 2009, and that is an annual cycle, they have a council is, off the top of my head I think about 40 of the Member States and it's kind they are a management board that runs the ITU from one year to the next and looks at resolutions and make sure progress is going on.

So the council meeting shortly after the W TS A then passed a resolution which established so?called dedicated group on Internet related public policy issues. And that belongs in a little bit of the ITU called the council Working Group on WSIS, that council working Working Group is closed and only Member States just like on the council itself, it's a Member State?only thing.

I have skipped too far. So, moving on to the next bit of this time?line, I like I said the ITU has study groups which are populated by Member States but also by sector members who are generally organisations from telecommunications industry and other interested parties, and the study group 3 is is a group that looks at tariffs and charging for telecoms and they passed a resolution which suggested that many developing countries would like to obtain their addresses directly from the ITU.

Soon after that, to take this process forward, the ITU issued a circular to its members, circular 30, and this asked some questions about IPv6 allocation and IPv6 deployment to feed into the various studies that the ITU was doing. There were 35 responses to this questionnaire, including two responses from RIRs and we sent in information about the current state of deployment of IPv6, it's all public information that was available anyway, but we formatted it up nicely for them. And then the final, next stage was the ITU council so this is a year on now in October 2009, and again, they looked at the very same buzz words, assisting developing countries and training and deployment. They also said that IPv6 allocation itself should be studied and report back to the council meeting the year after that. And in order to do that and remember we have got the council and a council Working Group and then we have got a dedicated group on Internet public policy issues and now yet another group which is the IPv6 group where they allowed not just Member States but sector members and various experts to come along and discuss it.

And in particular, the resolution at that ITU council meeting approved a document which was a report from the ITU secretariat, a document called C 0929, often called in shorthand C 29 document, and these were the proposals that have been put by the ITU secretariat which included a reservation of a large IPv6 block for the future needs of developing countries, again looking at the equitable access to IPv6, possibility of ITU becoming additional Internet registry, feasibility and advisability of a C IR, that is a country Internet registry model and assist capacity building. So that was what the, if you like, the IPv6 group was asked to look at. And so we all trotted off to gene Eva on the 15th and 16th of March this year, two RIRs attended as sector members, that was LACNIC ?? AfriNIC and APNIC. And the other three RIRs attended as invited experts. However, since then, in fact I think quite soon after the meeting, RIPE NCC applied to become a sector member and we are now of both development and telecom parts of the ITU. The report out of this IPv6 group meeting is not a public document yet; it may become a public document, there is still some debate going on between the various Member States and other people that are at the meeting as to whether the document should be public. Clearly we would say we do want this to be printed and published. The report itself is effectively the minutes of the meeting that we held over those two days in Geneva. That report was sent to the ITU council in 2010, in April, which was about a fortnight ago, and the council meeting itself said that for future meetings of the IPv6 group, and the next one is in September, that the chairman of the group, who is a Member State from the UAE, and the directors of the ITU T and ITU D divisions, can decide who are "relevant experts" to invite to the next meeting and this was something about which there was a great deal of debate actually at the meeting as to who was going to be allowed through the door, and I think it's still the case that it's not 100 percent clear who will be deemed to be a "relevant expert." So there is some work to do on that.

The other conclusion of the meeting was that the project would be taken forward between now and September by so?called correspondence group, which is another bit of ITU jargon, is is a mailing list and there are two, correspondence group 1 and 2. The first one is basically the awareness and education one, to encourage IPv6 deployment; the second one is going to look at the issues of basically is something broken about the way IP addressing is managed at the moment, and if something is broken, can it be fixed within the current framework? And only if enough matters are raised which cannot be fixed under the current regime, will this group start looking at possible alternative schemes which would include, for example, the country Internet registry or the ITU getting involved. So the meeting decided to park the question of should the ITU become involved, should it become a registry, should it get an allocation, should it do all those things until after it's looked at or after the group is looked at, the concerns with the current IP address management system, the impacts of those concerns and whether or not we have been able to identify solutions within the current IP address management system.

So that is what happened at the meeting. We have got lots more work to do between now and about a month before the September meeting, so effectively, the report from the correspondence groups will be created during August, let's say, so we have got until the end of July to do some work on these correspondence groups, to bring them to a satisfactory conclusion and produce the desired result.

So does anyone have any questions on that?

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Richard barns, BBN. So these correspondence groups are a way for people to pride some further input to the ITU T, do you know who was invited to be ?? to participate in those correspondence groups?

ROLAND PERRY: At the moment, I think it is all Member States, all sector members and if you were an invited expert at the first meeting, OK. So if you weren't an invited ?? so you are in luck if you are a Member State or you are friendly with a Member State, you are in luck if you are a sector member, but and if you were at the meeting in March, but if you are an expert who is hoping to come to the September meeting, then you probably won't get on the correspondence groups.

JIM REID: Following a question from Richard, are those groups, are they go going to be public or follow or be behind closed doors for members only?

ROLAND PERRY: I think the correspondence group is is a private mailing list. You can't even get to the page where you'd subscribe to it without being a member. But they have signed up the invited experts who are at the first meeting to it. In fact the correspondence groups are running at the moment but they are completely silent; in other words, all that has been posted in there are a few messages oh is this working or not? Oh, yes it is. Known has posted an opening salvo of comments or remarks. What I am not sure about at the moment is whether everyone is going to wait until the last week and have a, do a rush at the end or whether people are going to start pitching in some comments at the moment. PAUL RENDEK: RIPE NCC. I just wanted to touch on a little bit on this meeting and kind of what happened inside that have meeting just very briefly, because I think it's worth note ago few countries and organisations and their contributions there. Actually we are here in Prague and I have to say that out of the country states that provided, that stood up and provided their consultation to the room, I have to say that the Czech Republic did an absolutely fabulous job in bringing statements forward that were very much in support of the current registry system and they brought forward quite nice arguments on what was happening there so that is quite nice to see and we are here. I think that Jane cough fin from US department of commercial needs to be noted, she did a brilliant job. Other organisation that is we can look at, Cisco, Juniper, they did a wonderful job and I so. , ISOC was there in full force and good show and they did a brilliant job as well. And another one, Egypt, the comments that came from the Egypt delegation were also very much in favour to this community, so that was also quite nice to see.

ROLAND PERRY: It's also interesting to note although the meeting finished on the 16th of March, quite late in the evening, I think, there has been quite a lot of correspondence on, not on one of these actual formal mailing lists but on a classic cc backwards and forwards about the content of the report, to what extent it reflects what people remembered happened at the meeting, whether the report should be made public or not so the meeting is still in a sense carrying on with various people making their contribution into it.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: John Curran, CEO ARIN. Roland, could you describe why the results of the meeting or the content of the report is actually important to the community? What sort of at risk given what might be in the report or what might happen the results?

ROLAND PERRY: The report itself is quite educational in that it lists the contributions made by the various speakers so you can get a feeling for the position, political position of the various people commenting in there. I think the meeting was quite a successful one for our community because we did manage to park the issues of studying how would a C IR work, how would the ITU become a registry so all that have has been put on one side until the situation has been clarified as to whether or not there is something wrong with the current system. So the danger to our community is that the traffic on the correspondence group will come to the conclusion or draw a conclusion that in, fact, there are things wrong with the current system and that, therefore, the ITU will need to go back and look at the possibility of either a C IR system or possibility of having a block of addresses, IPv6 addresses reserved for it for future use, because what the people promoting that plan are worried about is effectively history repeating itself for IPv6 the way they see it as having happened for IPv4, and what they see happening with IPv4 is early doctors in developing countries getting most of the addresses and not leaving enough for developing countries (adopters) and so they are just saying simply we don't want that to happen again with IPv6 so let's have a little secret store which we will put on the top shelf and that will come in handy one day when IPv6 runs out. What we don't want to do really is discuss all of that what if scenarios at the moment, because we are quite convinced our current system will work perfectly well and therefore we don't need this sort of light raft approach, which is the one that basically all of this process is predicated upon.

ROB BLOKZIJL: Triggered by this ongoing stuff I took sometime a couple of weeks ago and read the dot 164, that is a document that is a series of documents but one of the appendices gives the global telephone number plan. It's highly recommended because a quick glance shows that there are three classes of telephone numbers, let's call them A, B and C, then, it sounds familiar. Class A is a one digit country code, which means that that is 10 percent of the whole number space. There are two of these lucky countries, the United States and some of its neighbours who share this one thing, and Russia, who has the other class A. There are no more class As available. Then we go to the class B, two digit country code prefix. Which means you get one percent of the global telephone number space. Well, there are countries like the Netherlands, Germany, the UK and the neighbourhood here who get that, apparently if you have between 10 and 60 million potential users in your country that, seems all right. Vatican city which has ?? also has such ?? larger countries, typically late comeers in the world of telephony got a three digit country code, which is one per mil of the total. Some of these major countries have a problem with the way these numbers have been distributed. So, if we in the past made some mistakes as the ITU said, well, we are not the only ones. And I have not shown that ?? they have not shown that they can do better. I think one of these days we should find a way to summarise this and publish it.

ROLAND PERRY: I am very glad you brought up the subject of country codes because there is a possibility that the ITU is underestimating the amount of work involved in being a regional registry, and I think they may suspect that there are only ?? the only work they are going to do to do to use IPv4 maybe to hand /8 out to each country and say right you get on with it. We know there is a lot more to it than that.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Just to make a comment about something you said earlier. You said that motivator for ITU is comparing what we have done in the past and saying there were mistakes and it's unfair on growing nations and so on, but this is only one of the arguments being presented because it's an easy argument to make; one of the reasons that the main troublemakers, the main schemeers and shouters behind this movement are making internally and on a one?to?one basis to different governments is not how numbers get distributed because that is a weak argument that can be argued against and we can simply say listen, the legacy space is legacy. This was distributed before the RIR. That is not the argument they are using to win support. It's having a nation have more of a say in policy making and number distribution than they currently do. Today, it's being managed and run by the community. A lot of those Third World nations don't want the community doing it. They don't want the LIRs and the RIRs having the say. The RIR system is a collection of LIRs, LIRs have a say. In those countries, that LIR is ?? on good political side so we don't like them so much, we don't want them to have numbers, we want the C IR to stop giving them numbers so they cannot maintain and grow. That is the real reason behind this movement. They are claiming the nation has to have the right to decide what IP addresss are allocated and where and that is the big danger not whether they are legacy system and the crap that happened 4B4 is an issue or not.

ROLAND PERRY: An elephant in the room is can that issue be solved under our current system?

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: No. Sorry, no. You tell me you want to make nations have the right to decide how the Internet grows or not? That is the whole thing we are against. You don't want a country decide whether the Internet grows or not. The Internet would not be the Internet if countries decide what had to do. We would not be here in this room if it was run by governments. No. No. No way. Sorry.

JIM REID: Just a couple of comments and clarifications, really. We have got to be very careful here when talk about the ITU this and that, because what do we mean by the ITU? There is no common view amongst the ITU membership about what needs to be done here, as there are some people very in favour of this ITU approach of suggesting some form of address allocation and management and stuff to do with Internet governance, equally strong views that could be opposite views and those opinions are being expressed at the ITU. Something very important for this community and others is to make representations to their governments who can then make make representation toss the sector members as governments as a participants in these study groups to make sure your views are held. We can facilitate this dialogue here but if you have got contacts with your governments and Member States, please ask them what are you doing, what are you going to be saying at ITU about this and how are you planning to vote in the up coming council meetings for seats, how are you planning to vote in the planning petentiary at the ITU. We have got to consider the ITU as a bureaucracy, and will have its own views and opinions about things and to some extent, one of the things I am trying to get my head around to what degree are the opinions that came out of Geneva being expressed, bureaucracy or is it because they are allowing certain Member States to align themselves with user compatable and allowing that game to be played forward.

Second point I want to make is what is said, there is a fundamental problem which is an international law, international resources are not under the control under one Member State, and that fundamentally is a problem with the Internet still have to grapple with because the Internet is an international resource, and however you want to pretend to dress it up is ultimately under the control of ICANN and ICANN is a tied to US jurisdiction and that is a problem that needs to be addressed somehow and that is going to be a long, long long time sorting that one out.

ROLAND PERRY: Thank you for all those comments, very useful comments. When I talk about the ITU, you have got to realise the ITU is a very input driven organisation and output driven organisation. If it doesn't appear in a document put on the table at the start of the meeting and if it doesn't appear in the document that comes out at the end of the meeting then it doesn't exist, those opinions don't exist. That is why there is so much fighting over exact words that go into the resolutions, exact words that go and believe it or believe it not, people will spend hours arguing over one world, OK. I stressed it earlier, this thing about who can be invited to the next meeting in cement, it's relevant experts, hours were spent arguing over that word relevant. It's in the report so that is what the I G U thinks because that is the way it works.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Lessee Daigle ISOC. I wanted to make two comments, one back to the UN 64 numbers and I will also comment yes the ITU is also a member driven organisation and some people in this room might recall what happened when Taiwan was trying to get space in the ENUM directly based on E164 and going back to whether or not governments will allow the Internet to grow in their countries, if they allocate IP addresses, I think we have already seen examples that have through the ITU. The other point was in terms of the discussions at the IPv6 Working Group at the ITU in general. You were making the point just now about relevant experts being invited to participate in that process. One of the slippery slopes that this process has and it's certainly one of the remarks that ISOC was trying to make very clear in the March meeting is relevant experts can participate in that process to have to help inform an ITU process but in no way should that be perceived as taking the place of having discussions of technical activities outside these forums, the RIRs, IETF etc. So relevant experts at the meeting for sure but staying focused on making sure that the discussion does not stray from ITU relevant topics.

ROLAND PERRY: In order to efficiently take this process forward and for us to participate in the correspondence group, we are suggesting that this meeting makes a community statement on IPv6, it follows quite closely the words actually in the conclusion of the report and particularly the terms of reference of the two correspondence groups. I will just walk you through it section by section. The first sentence basically says we support the work of the correspondence group 1, in other words the education and outreach and assistance in deployment. The next one says but on the other hand, we have noticed lots of worries coming up in the ITU group, that the current management system is inadequate. And what we want to do is to work with the ITU group, the members and the this community to identify the concerns, in other words to answer this question what is broken and then to see if we can also say and this is how we fix it inside our own management system. So, that is draft. I wanted to keep it short and to the point, and I'd welcome your views on that draft.

JIM REID: I don't like the idea of trying to do document edit by meeting of this size or a group, it doesn't really work that well. The only minor quibble, I think the text there is fine and we should pretty much accept it. One small thing I would quibble is the end of the second sentence, I think probably the view that the ITU study group has is the current address management system is inadequate, it's not whether it supports operators or not, I don't think anybody really care, they don't like the current system full stop. I wouldn't want to quibble about that. It's just an observation.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: I just wanted to ask a little bit about the last ?? I totally agree with Jim, let's go forward, this would be good enough. One minor point there. You said the RIPE community managed the RIPE NCC to work with and so on, that is fine. And the community ?? sorry, "to clearly identify these concerns and to find ways to address them within the current IP address management system." The question is should RIPE NCC address that or the RIPE community address that after these issues have been identified? So that is just a question.

ROLAND PERRY: What we are trying to express here, trying to capture here, is the idea that the only way that we can work with the ITU IPv6 group is through that correspondence group mailing list. That is the only tool that we have. The RIPE community itself is not and cannot be subscribed to that mailing list. Only the RIPE NCC and other similar organisations who actually sub vibe to that group. What I can asking here is for the community to use the RIPE NCC, probably me, but we haven't made that particular decision, to act as a channel between what is going on on the mailing list and your views, so my vision of this would be to monitor concerns and we are not completely in the dark about what these concerns are; one Member State has produce add three?page document listing all his concerns, OK. It's not a secret, and presumably these will pop up on the mailing list sooner or later and my role would then be to come back to the community and say, OK, this is what has been expressed as a concern, do we have a way of solving that within the current system? Because that is all we have been asked to do, that is all this correspondence group has been asked to do is identify the issues and see if they can be resolved and unfortunately, although the ITU process takes four years to go around the big cycle we have only got until the end of July to input things into this mailing list so we do need to be fairly swift on fleet of foot in order to participate.

ROB BLOKZIJL: I think, I agree with all the previous speakers that we are not going to do community editing here. I think the statement is as good as it gets. I personally would have used some stronger language.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: And your name is?

ROB BLOKZIJL: Rob Blokzijl. Sorry. I want to add to what Roland just said, what is basically says this statement is ?? we as a community, we tell RIPE NCC do this. We cannot do this as a community as we have just learned, that is not how the ITU works. RIPE NCC is is a legal entity, RIPE NCC has some sort of membership in one department of the ITU so it seems to be an organisation where the ITU is at least willing to listen to. This cannot be achieved by the RIPE community so the RIPE community tells its secretariat, the RIPE NCC do this and of course it will do this in close cooperation with the community and individual experts from the community. Yes. Is that the correct understanding?


ROB BLOKZIJL: Thank you.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Sander Steffan: Two?and?a?half years ago we had a RIPE community resolution on IPv6 so maybe you should watch out the titles don't get mixed up and people are reading the wrong document if it's published somewhere.

PATRIK FALSTROM: Good point and good memory. (Reading).

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: I fully support this statement, I think that we can pass this and give RIPE NCC these task, of course implicitly we trust you to run through this existing processes but don't have to confuse that message by putting that in there. As a side remark that it's not that long ago that telcos also in this part of the world wanted to prevent ISPs which were a new creation from getting numbers and getting into this territory. Our memory isn't that bad, we can remember it was a struggle 20 years ago, 15 years ago, even 10 years ago to fight this in Europe. When telcos wanted this to be under their control and there wasn't a distinction between Telco and government at the time so it's into the new thing.

KURTIS LINDQVIST: I read this slide I don't know how many times, do believe it might be a bit short and I think that we are losing some context by trying to produce a very short statement to fit in a slide. I just had two observations: One is that the ?? not all the concerns raised is to support operators; there are a lot of other concerns in there as well in brought to the IPv6 study group or IPv6 group. I don't know if you want to change that wording or not but it's just an observation. Yes.

ALAIN BIDRON: From France Telecom. Very quickly. I have just a question regarding the last part of the sentence. We say to clearly identify these concerns, and to find ways to address them within the current IP address management system. Are we sure that all concerns that can be identified need or can be addressed? The concern is for some government to take control of the management of IP addresses could be concern. Should we address it?

ROLAND PERRY: I think what we are trying to capture here is that we must work hard to identify what exactly what the concerns are, that is the getting it clear part. I think it will be weaker if aput attempt to find ways to address them. But this is ??

ALAIN BIDRON: If needed or recognised as a concern by the community.

Geoff Houston: I have been asked to give you a bit of information here. I wasn't in the room earlier but APNIC at 29 member meeting had a community consultation as well on this very same topic and did prepare a statement, somewhat longer than this but in a similar vein and I don't remember it offhand, but it is on the APNIC website and as you sort of think about what you are saying here you might want to have a look at what the APNIC community came up with as statement and see in what area there is an intersection of interest because I suspect there is a very similar theme in these two communities in reacting to where and what is happening with the ITU T. Thank you.

ROLAND PERRY: Thank you, Geoff. I participated in that Kuala Lumpur meeting by remote participation and since then, the IPv6 group has come up with a mandate for the correspondence group and what I have done is I have refined it down, I have reduced the scope of this statement to include only those things which the correspondence group has been asked to look at. Now, if the correspond engroup finishes its work in July, the report goes to the meeting on the 1st or 2nd of September, there will be another output document and a new man date for probably a new correspondence group which will be asking different questions doing different studies and then this will be out of date and we will have to come back in November and ask OK what do we now do, now that the world has moved on? So I am trying to capture this moving target as it is from now until the end of July. That is what this is trying ?? trying to solve that problem we have between now and the end of July. Will change on the 2nd of September.

PATRIK FALSTROM: So just the two persons at the microphone and then we move on. Thank you.

JIM REID: Richard barns has asked me to tell everyone he has just posted a link to the APNIC contribution, he stuck that into the Jabber room. From what Geoff was saying I think we have to be careful we don't end up going around in circles, the APNIC community statement that was produced was submitted as a contribution into the ITU study group or working that's right that was looking into. The statement of text we are working on here is not going to be appear as an ITU contribution at some point, what we are want to go do is give bottom up approach that gives the mandate for the NCC to participate fully, make some constructive suggestions within that working party, whatever ITU is calling it this week and report back to us if there is anything of concern or signature. I think we can all agree with that and let's get on with and get it done.

PATRIK FALSTROM: Thank you. Please continue to discuss this both with each other here and also people remotely on the mailing list, etc.. Rob, do you want to explain a little bit for people in the room how the ?? what the process is for things like this.

ROB BLOKZIJL: I think we, if I remember what the process is, is as follows: At the closing plenary session, Friday morning, after the morning coffee break, I will introduce this statement and that is the last call for protest, not for editing. And if there is a wide consensus that the ?? the RIPE community, as gathered this week in Prague, in that room, supports that, then I think it should be published as widely as possible, by publishing it we should explain the status of this document by saying we discuss this in Prague and RIPE community present at the RIPE 60 meeting in Prague adopted the following statement. That makes it clear, I think.

PATRIK FALSTROM: Thank you very much

ROB BLOKZIJL: We have done this this in the past with other similar statements.

PATRIK FALSTROM: So with that, I would like to move to the last item on the agenda, Constance Berger from the Ministry of Interior in Germany, please.

Ms. Burger: Hello, nice to see you. Introduce myself, my name is Constance Berger from Germany, from the ministry of the interior, I think everybody knows me. First, yesterday shocked me a little message from Patrik about similar theme we discussed here and it was a statement from ZD Net over our ministry will nationalise the assignment of addresses on the Internet." It's not true. There is counter statement of the site of ZD Net in the following messages you can read it. A few words to this message. Allocation of IP addresses by government, by German government is not at all be aspired. The hoax is based on another press report in which the minister has commented on the general role of government in dealing with the Internet. And the passage was not based on the allocation of Internet addresses. The minister expressed rather literary in another place the address assignment works even though it is arranged only by private persons."

And you see the counter statement.

So let's start to an update of the statutes in Germany. I think we have done a lot of things. 1st of April, shocked me or ?? I was very happy about this statement. All IP addresses are taken, ICANN disabled route server and this from a very professional important news channel. You see the meaning of v6 is raising. It was very good message for me.

You know our political basis. We have a federal system and it's very hard to get agreements in this system, that, therefore, we was very proud to get consensus within decision boards representing all administration levels to apply for a common v6 address base. We became a LIR member and we became ?? no we got a/26 address space. It was very proud of it. And German government said IPv6 as a topic in the final declaration on the fourth German IT summit in December of last year. After that we build up a Working Group, a representative Working Group and we designed drafts of address concepts and organisational concept. Now, we need a formal approval of the planned approach within ministry of the interior and other decision boards.

What we did. Some of you, that is my son ?? he has to play with IPv6 addresses. That is one address, a real address from our block. We started in Germany two programmes, some of you know them, to modernise our communication infrastructure in public administration. The first is Deutschland on?line infrastructure. It is an infrastructure serving federal government states and municipalities. There was implemented dual stack in October 2009. Next steps are implementing of network protection devices. We hope, in June, if the devices are ready, and the encryption devices in December 2010, and the next information to the NDB, it's network from common network for the federal administration, this network infrastructure is ready to migrate and we are planning it also and will be enabled v6.

So where is my next slide? What is the statue ?? status deployment. We designed drafts, I have to say drafts, there is no confirmation and no the boards have to say it's OK. Therefore, they are ?? there is address draft concept, we broke down the/26 space in ?? oh, no, once more ?? we broke down the/26 in 64 blocks of sizes of /32 and we did assignments to federal states, D O I and ministry of the defence. We designed a draft of an organisation concept and this concept describes the independent administration of the /32 blocks by sub LIRs. D E dot government, the role, this describes this organisation concept, too. In planning migration toolset for the users, it will continue operation guidelines, configuration checklists and address templates.

Pilots: We have the first pilots in V6, with start?up port from Hamburg. Perhaps you know, they want to do voice over IP. Then we have the test bed D O I and the D O INET infrastructure by transport and services, and we try to migrate our C I O website, it's very difficult to migrate because this infrastructure or this website is embedded in a very secure infrastructure, so we have many difficulties to migrate.

But then, we have another interesting project. We set up research and development project and in this project, we want to develop IPv6 profile for the public administration of Germany, analog the US government did it in the N IS T paper. It it should include v6 specifications and purchasing guideline and we would propose to extend it for Europe later. This profile should be transparent ?? should bring transparency for the industry and users. Also, we are looking for an update for our IT infrastructure frame works. This development project includes also a test lab and we will collect experiences in mobility, multicast services and interoperability tests.

The project ? in this project is involved, the Fraunhofer focus organisation.

Our next steps: Finalisation of address concept and organisation concept; approval by the German IT planning board; starting IPv6 address distribution; continuing the development project; supporting and facilitating v6 pilots and supporting European v6 initiatives.

We offer to share our knowledge and experience.

Just a few words about our statement of Germany to the government ?? no, to the continuation of the IGF. If you are interested in this forum was established as a unique ?? a platform for non?binding multi?stakeholder dialogue. It is the only forum that allows a gathering of representatives from all geographical regions across all stakeholder groups to discuss all aspects of Internet governance on an equal footing. We feel that the lack of pressure to negotiate binding outcomes contributes to frank and open exchanges. And Germany supports a renewal of the IGF mandate.

And another statement: We have a statement too to the ITU v6 Working Group. The ITU initiative is an attempt aiming at levering the existing mechanisms of allocating IP addresses and thus submitting the management of IP address toss more control by the State. As the intervention intended by the ITU poses substantially risk of the workability of the Internet as an information medium and platform to do business. Germany does not see many benefits of creating a country Internet registry model as proposed by the ITU. From our point of view, it will be important that we highlight these problems in the Working Groups for any supporting and this would be ?? for any support in this we would be grateful. I think I can say we can support your statement. Thank you for attention.


PATRIK FALSTROM: Any questions? We have another seven minutes. Anyone else that would like to say something? Questions on what we have done so far? John is on his way.

John: John Curran CEO ARIN. I just want to relate to this community what I have learned over the last four months, having immersed myself in this ITU process. It's not ?? it is not as straightforward as it's been communicated here. The ITU consists of many different study groups and many different meetings and conferences, all of which have the potential to create a work item or action item which, ultimately, will end up at Planet Pot in October to cause a form of action for the Planet Pot which only happens once every four years, to add country Internet registries for IPv6 to the ITU's agenda for the next four years, so we have a garden with lots of seeds, some of which we can see, the IPv6 study group we know where it is and we've built appropriate fences and we are careful to watch our hands, but there is a lot of other ITU groups and any one of them can create a finding or a referral to another and end up in October with a question or an action item on the agenda for Planet Pot. To this extent, I have asked everyone in the ARIN region if you are a sector member, to please coordinate with your RIR because we need help chasing down awful these. If you have liaisons with a Member State correctly, a country that is representing, please help your RIR find that Member State because this is a multi?headed thing we are fighting and we don't even know where all the heads are yet. That is all I will ask.

PATRIK FALSTROM: Thank you and personally I completely support everything you said and hope that people note it. Thank you.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Brian, speaking right now as Anti?Abuse Working Group chair. Paul mentioned earlier one of the activities that the NCC have been engaging in is law enforcement interaction and cooperation, and just to mention to anyone who is interested in such things but hasn't looked at the anti?abuse agenda, quite a lot of the agenda for the meeting tomorrow at 16.00 will be dealing with the NCC and the community's involvement with the law enforcement agencies, so if that is something of interest, please come along to this room tomorrow at 16.00.


ALAIN BIDRON: I don't know if it is appropriate to address it here but I would like to ask a question regarding the implementation of the information of commitment, and as you know the information of commitment was signed and it was some support from NRO on this new framework and there is ?? the implementation ?? a series of review teams were put in place or were going to be put in place, the first one being review team on transparency and accountability and also organisation is supported to be represented, including the SO, and where something describe coming from the SO to populate these review teams and I was a bit surprised the way the first review team from the ASO was populated, don't you think that something that could be addressed here and something that is needed, to have a very clear way to populate this reviews, review teams?

PAUL RENDEK: Thanks, Alain. That is a very difficult question. I think is there somebody here from the ASO? If this is something that you want to bring up with them, I think that is something you should bring up with them. We have a website that has a channel to them, we have an ASO member here and they would like to say something.

JIM REID: John Curran mentioned a few minutes ago that this ITU thing has got many, many heads and some of them we don't even know where they are. Well, there is one of these little heads has just popped up very, very recently and there is a meeting just around the corner that I think you should know about. Study group 2?3 is about to meet and two things on the agenda ?? study group 3 has got things on the agenda which are including, one, the ITU role potentially in Internet Exchanges. Right. Now for the biggy: There is a proposal coming out of China which is to do with ITU suggestions for extensions and changes to BGP. And the idea that they are talking about there is in cooperating Telco?type tariff models into your BGP exchanges of routes. I think this is something that concerns some of the people in this room, so if you do have any way of influencing the discussions at study group 3 either by making representations to people that are going to be there or to your Member States whom you have some involvement in these meetings, I think you'd better start moving quickly. The deadline for contributions to that meeting is tomorrow.

PATRIK FALSTROM: Actually, we have one more minute so...

Wilifred: I would like to come back to this comment. First of all, you have got me on my left foot. I am not prepared to give you ?? no, no, that is OK ?? just to set the stage. The fact and the reality here is that I guess all of us on the Address Council and in particular the three of us for this region, we still do have some sort of a day job and there is lots and lots of things in the vicinity of ICANN which you could get involved with or entangled in if you have got the spare cycles. Sort of this is not trying to apologise for not having raised my hand, but just the fact that I myself am for this year under Nomcom and I can tell you this is a little bit of an effort. I guess there are one or two other people in this room who know how that feels. So, if the ?? to come to the point: If the community really gets the feeling that it is important that one of the groups, one of the roles, one of the functionalities from within the community actually gets actively engaged in that, then I would really welcome sort of that sort of input and I definitely take yours as something to review and to think about. There might even be recently have been an extension of of the deadline to apply for one of these or for that particular committee. So, personally, I will definitely not be in a position, time?wise, to get involved, but maybe some of the others of ?? of the other 14 would be in a position to do so. So I am going to talk to you privately. Thank you.

PATRIK FALSTROM: Thank you very much. And with that, I would like to thank everyone for ?? we want to close, everyone, and thank everyone for coming. As always, please contact me or Chris or Paul or Maria and come up with ideas or what we should deal with next time, and also, of course, use the mailing list. Thank you very much and thanks.