26th October 2017
At 9 a.m.:
NICK HYRKA: Good morning everyone. I am being forced on stage. You early risers, you.
First things first, good morning all of you from afar. I want to welcome you all to the early bird session. You made it. You are what makes this meeting great. Thursday mornings, woohoo.
Before we start, I just wanted to thank a few people real thank, I want to thank our staff here, and also back home at the base, the folks at home in Amsterdam weren't working, then our members would be quite upset. So thank you all back home. And also a special nod of appraise to Martina ‑‑ Marita, sorry, they both hate me now. Marita, thank you so much for all the web support back home.
I wanted to also thank Lynn and Ronan, and Ronan's team here, the stenographers, Ronan, we miss you and wish you well. I hope I didn't forget anyone else. I am the communications manager at the RIPE NCC and welcome to the NRO/RIR report session. We have got a full roster.
So we will start with our friend from AFRINIC, so Madhvi Gokool, the Registration Services Manager.
MADHVI GOKOOL: Good morning everybody. Good morning. Thank you for waking me up. I am from registration services AFRINIC. I am here to present to you the update.
And just starting with the membership and resource statistics, we have about 1,500 members and total v4 space that we have issued since 2005 to our members is around 100 million, and the IPv6 allocations have been progressive, we have issued about 9,162 /32s to our members. We have roughly 350 legacy resource holders in our database, those are not our members, they held resources from before the RIR system was established. And they have roughly 0.5 of a /8 of IPv4 registered under them.
In 2017, the resource allocation has slowed down, partly because we reached soft landing, the last /8, in April this year, so there is about 7 million of IP addresses that have been issued, 90 /32s of IPv6 space and 119 ASNs. The figures regarding the IPv4 is different from what we saw last year, and also from what happened in 2015, where we had issued about slightly bigger than one /8 to the members.
We have a steady growth of the membership every year, it ranges around 160 members on average per year. And so we have, we are under ‑‑ in the phase 1 of our IPv4 exhaustion phase. There was a policy in that regard, so we are in phase 1 of it. And our members are being encouraged to get ‑‑ to get the focus on getting IPv6 deployed on their network so that they are ready to we reach Phase 2 or when we do not have any IPv4 address in our pool.
We have quite a few policies under discussion in our region. There is the AFRINIC PDP BIS policy where our community are suggesting improvements to the current PDP process, mainly in these four areas where we have a chair and vice‑chair models instead of the co‑chairs, clearer mechanisms for appeals and disputes and we have ‑‑ they want to introduce phases for policy proposal lifecycle and, as well as more transparency around consensus‑gauging.
There is another policy, the Route Aggregation Policy that a committee member proposed and the policy covers like the issuance of v4 address space as contiguous bit boundary ranges so as to limit or mitigate the number of broken IPv4 prefixes being announced.
The other policies regarding lame delegations where the proposal lays out a process to monitor the NS records responsible for lame delegations. And they propose to have a phased approach to removing these records from the DNS ‑‑ from actually the Whois database.
The Anti‑Shutdown Policy, that generated a lot of discussions as well. That proposed a framework that AFRINIC should deny address space and related registry services to governments that shutdown free and open access to the Internet in the countries in order to push political or other agendas. And that policy had a stipulation also that resources can be revoked for a duration of up to ten years if governments recurrently shutdown the Internet access in the country.
One other policy, so that is a fifth one, the Internet Number Resources Review, which allows the proposal, if it goes through, would allow AFRINIC to conduct routine or whistleblower‑triggered resource audits on its members and also provides for revocation of resources and the closure of the members should they fail the audits or the reviews.
The sixth policy is regarding the current Soft Landing Policy, it wants to change some aspects of it where it wants to fix the maximum allocation size to a /18 instead of ‑‑ to a /18, in the Phase 1, when, in fact, it's a /13 at the moment, and the /22 for Phase 2 of the exhaustion. As a reminder, the Phase 2 of our IPv4 exhaustion policy starts when we have a /11, that is about two ‑ of IP addresses of available IP addresses in our pool and this policy also wants to a to set a two‑year wait period for subsequent allocations if the member has already been allocated the maximum space in either phase. And also that policy proposed to reserve a /12 to facilitate IPv6 deployment. Just to reminder, we already have a /12, that is reserved for unknown or unforeseen circumstances, at the moment when we triggered the Phase 1 of the current Soft Landing Policy.
And we have the last policy, the IPv4 Resource Transfers within the AFRINIC region, is being implemented at the moment; and this policy provides or allows for IPv4 address space to be transferred within our region. It caters for African companies or AFRINIC members as well that need IPv4 space after we have exhausted the AFRINIC pool or when AFRINIC no longer satisfy the needs of such an organisation. The transfer recipients must demonstrate the need for the space to be transferred. So this policy is needs‑based at the moment.
So in regarding to training, we do IPv6 and Internet Number Resource Management workshops throughout the year, like every year the training usually starts around April and we select this for 2017, we selected 20 ‑‑ 22 countries, to host our trainings, and up to now 18 workshops have been conducted with about 500 engineers trained in IPv6 deployment.
In regard to the ‑‑ some other initiatives that we run at AFRINIC, we have the FIRE Africa, so the FIRE is a grant, we call it a fund for Internet research and development and it's a grant in hours programme that we have designed it anchorage support and develop innovative solutions and three projects have been selected in 2017 and these are the last mile connectivity, the mobile solar computer classroom, Ed Air Box Project and we have fellowships that we offer to participants residing in our AFRINIC service region to attend our face‑to‑face and so far 26 AFRINIC fellows have been provided with assistance to attend our ‑‑ both of our public policy meetings in 2017.
With that, I would like to invite you to our next public policy meeting which will happen in Lagos from the 27th of November to the 1st of December, where we would like you to participate on site or even remotely.
And on that, thank you very much for your attention and presence here.
BRIAN NISBET: Brian Nisbet, HEAnet. I am just wondering in regards to the shutdown policy, which exact number I don't remember, can you give us some feel ‑‑ because it was raised at the RIPE meeting in Budapest, but can you give us some feel for how the conversation in AFRINIC is going ‑‑ I know it's in discussion at the moment ‑‑ but some feel for how that conversation is going in AFRINIC at the moment?
MADHVI GOKOOL: Okay. From when the policy was proposed, while there were discussions on the mailing list and during our public policy meeting, we had several sessions, so we have one session with the AFRINIC African government Working Group so we had ‑‑ we are the facilitators usually, so there were forums where participants were allowed to discuss it, but at the ‑‑ at the RIR level as registry level, we just, we facilitate the process, it came as a policy, so we allowed the discussions to carry on.
BRIAN NISBET: Sorry, of course you did, because that is what you need to do.
What I mean is, is there a sense from the community of ‑‑ I know version 2 I think of the policy has come out now. Is there a sense for what the community actually thinks or whether ‑‑ where are those discussions? Is there going to be a Version 3? Do you think it's going to be accepted? Is there any sort of feeling about that?
MADHVI GOKOOL: It was not accepted in the first discussion. It's still under discussion and hasn't been withdrawn or anything by the authors, and from the history that I have, I don't think there is a Version 2 that has been proposed recently.
BRIAN NISBET: I am obviously not asking you, I am just trying to get some sort of general feel for how things are going. That's fine. Thank you very much.
AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Eric ‑‑ thank you for this very interesting information.
Just a technical question about IPv4 consumptions, the current consumption, you can observe so in your region and under the current policy, when do you expect the first two of will be triggered?
MADHVI GOKOOL: We know for sure it's not going to be this year because we have about ‑‑ only two million of IP address requests that are under evaluation at the moment. We foresee maybe April 2018, the reason being most ‑‑ before the exhaustion phase our members were coming for one year, 12 months' projection of IP resources and they got more than the ‑‑ there were no limitations to what they could get. So based on that they would be exhausting their IP addresses this year, because 2015 and 2016 we saw a big jump in the allocations, so hopefully it will be as from April next year.
AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Thank you very much.
DANIEL KARRENBERG: I am Daniel. Just a question, could you remind us on the Policy Development Procedure that you have in the sense that the things that are under discussion right now, is there a foreseeable point in time when they will be decided or is this open ended and can go on forever?
MADHVI GOKOOL: No. I have seen proposals being either withdrawn by the authors if they don't reach consensus, or there is a period in the PDP process; so if there is no new developments to the text of the policies, then I think they phased out, I mean they just drop off.
DANIEL KARRENBERG: So more specifically this shutdown proposal, is there any time in the future that can be foreseen right now when this will be decided?
MADHVI GOKOOL: I don't know.
DANIEL KARRENBERG: That is an answer.
MADHVI GOKOOL: Sorry about that.
AUDIENCE SPEAKER: So this is Seán member of the AFRINIC board, I just thought I should also provide information that after the last meeting in Nairobi the Board of AFRINIC in collaboration with the other ‑‑ did release a statement noting our consent for Internet shutdown but also noting our consent for the anti‑shutdown policy. We do not support it, we do not believe it's the way to address things, and that is actually on record. Thank you.
DANIEL KARRENBERG: Thank you very much for pointing that out.
MADHVI GOKOOL: Thank you.
NICK HYRKA: Wow, questions so early. Thank you very much.
Next up we have got Paul Anderson, the ARIN Board of Trustees Chairman for ARIN.
PAUL ANDERSEN: John wasn't able to make it, so I haven't seen these slides much more in advance than you.
So ARIN, for those that don't know, is the RIR in the North American region. We focus solely on the RIR function. We do work closery with some of the network operator groups in our region, they are separate such as CARIBNOG. Our region is the US, Canada and a large portion of the Caribbean, mostly divided on the English‑speaking countries in the Caribbean with LACNIC taking the remainder. Our current serving size, we have just over 37,000 organisations, of which 20,000 are contracted customers, disparity in that mainly being we have had a historically larger percentage of the legacy space in some of those organisations are not contracted and of those customers about 5,500 of those are members in ARIN's region any ISP that joins is automatically a member and anyone who holds numbering resources is entitled to also join member for a small fee.
Our focus is much as you might expect, we continue to do quite a bit of IPv6 outreach to stakeholders, government, civil society, technical organisations, vendors, ISPs, anyone who we can get in front of. We have been doing quite a bit of development in the past few years and continue on online services, we have really brought those, we hope, up to speed, in terms of just functionality and we continue to pour significant resources to try and serve the many features and requests we get from our community.
We do do quite a bit of community engagement. One of our ones that we have been doing quite a bit of recently, is getting out to as much of our region as we can. We hold our two big policy meetings in the region, but we have been doing these ARIN‑on‑the‑road events which tend to be in smaller areas which we cannot have smaller percentage of members but we do basically a one‑day show where we can educate that community on what we do and get some good dialogue. We have holding about eight of those a year throughout the region. One of our most recent ones was in Puerto Rico and we hope to be able to get back there soon.
We also have been doing quite a bit of liaising with law enforcement and government. We have been seeing increased engagement from that community. And one of the items that we are working on is trying to make our public policy processes as accessible as possible. So we have been doing education and new materials on trying to help educate people on how the policy process works and how they can be engaged. And we have also launched recently a quarterly newsletter called ARIN Bits and we are saying that out plate sized piece of information so those who can't follow every e‑mail and denouncement can get the gist of what has been going on in the region. We have been doing increased Caribbean engagement, we brought on Bevil Wooding to help lead to see where we can enhance that, ARIN is in the Caribbean. We have been working with a lot of the organisations out there, such as the CTU, CaribNOG and CANTO to see how we can increase enhancement and engagement in that region.
Into what is happening resource wise, transfers is certainly what keeps our registration services busy, since that is right now the majority of the way that v4 is accessed in the region. They have been mostly steady certainly with more and more increased specified transfers which is the ‑‑ where the two parties are transferring between each other. We do‑‑ and we do have ‑‑ seen a steady number of Inter‑RIR transfers.
The graph we always hope to see a better, we did see finally this year finally the number of organisations that have from us v4 and v6 is now greater than those that only have v4 so that is good, better late than never, still growing slowly and steadily.
On the policy front we do have quite a bit of policy work and policies in our process, the organisation recently adopted two policies, both in terms of transfers, one allowing ‑‑ simplified the requirements on transferring effectively allowing you to double up to a /16 once every six months address space that you had, so you can ‑‑ so for smaller transfers to try and make that a little less onerous. And we have also simplified when an organisation is doing a merge and acquisition the proof of acquisition is only required; there is no needs assessment since the view is from the community was the needs assessment was done previously.
And just kind of ending off, the latest we are excited ARIN was named a top place to work in the Washington DC area by the Washington Post, thanks to our great staff. We have been doing a Policy Development Process Readiness course, we have actually seen some increase in engagement in our area from more non‑traditional stakeholders and tried to make it as easy as possible.
We completed our election cycle. We have had two of the two slots open where new board members, both of our existing incumbents stood down, and a better late than never department, we had our first women elected so we are very excited about that.
And we also continue to do online ARIN enhancement and we will be completing our customer survey, that is something we have been doing similar to ‑‑ I believe RIPE does as well. Every few years, we do a large survey to try and see what the needs of the members are, where we are not doing as well or doing great and we hope to complete that this year.
I will end you have as always welcoming you to our next two policy meetings with in Miami in April and in Vancouver in October. And with that, I will take some questions.
NICK HYRKA: We do have a bit of adjustments in the roster. Next up we do have Agustin Formoso from LACNIC, he's a software developer. Come upl, and welcome.
AGUSTIN FORMOSO: Hello brave people. So, we have been doing a lot of work since the last update we gave here. I am going to talk briefly about four main points, there is lots of content in these slides, I am probably not going to stop in each of the points, just feel free to ask questions in the end or just check the content because it's probably there and I haven't talked about it.
So it's basically about four big points, it's the excellency in Internet Resource Management, the continued strengthening of the Internet, promoting the bottom‑up model and community participation; and lastly something about quality and continuous improvement.
This is our membership evolution graph. The most growth has been located in what you see as red and orange in the graph, it's for small/micro and the end user categories. Something about two or three weeks ago we hit the 7,000 members mark, that is the last column is the 2017 numbers so far, so it might be a little bit different at the end of the year.
So a brief notice about what we call Phase 2, it's not our current phase but it's a previous one, it ended in February this year, and that after Phase 2 it triggered the start of Phase 3, that is the current phase we are going through now. The most important thing of this phase is that you can get a resource ‑‑ an IPv4 resource if you haven't been given one previously. It is expected to last about four years from now. You can get it at most a /22 when you are giving an IPv4 resource.
About resource transfer, resource transfer triggered with the policy, you can see on top at the moment only intra‑RIR transfers are permitted. And there is also a policy in discussion regarding inbound‑only Inter‑RIR transfers. This brief list of all the transfers, from the transfer log so far, you can check the details on the slides.
The LACNIC Board of Directors is having two of the positions being renewed; the voting occurred the week of the 13th to 20th of October. We had about 13 candidates presented and the results will be announced on November the 3rd.
About the continued strengthening of the secure, stable and open and continuously growing Internet, so regarding the more technical side, there is ‑‑ the 0/0 implementation, it's planned to be taking about the second week of November. We have been doing lots of RPKI outreach in the region and we have also been doing some activities trying to promote IXPs, in particular the one in Argentina through ArNOG. Regarding the DNS we had a K‑root instance place in Montevideo and we also concluded an open call to host an I‑root instance in the region, we are working now to get them deployed.
This is the ‑‑ the chart shows the amount of ASNs that have v6 visibility. So there is about 37% of ASNs that have at least one portion of an IPv6 blocks being announced, that is really good. If you see on the chart the red line corresponds to the LACNIC region and the yellow line corresponds to everything but the LACNIC region. You can see 37% is quite an interesting number. We are really happy about it.
Regarding IPv6, we are seeing a ‑‑ naturally an increase in the adoption rate. There is the usual candidates that have already been deploying IPv6 for these years, but we are also seeing new players coming in, one example is Uruguay and we saw a huge increase in the IPv6 adoption rate barely six months more or less things started to look quite active in the v6 space and this little map is taken from APNIC's RTT difference experiment, and it just shows how v6 and v4, how can they be compared, whether v6 is faster, it will be coloured in green in the map and if v6 is slower, it will be coloured red.
About the trainings and the webinars, this is a chart that shows the online and in‑person courses and the participant count. And we are doing lots of effort to give better and more courses through our online campus.
FRIDA is the regional fund for digital innovation, it's the equivalent for the RIPE NCC Community Projects Fund. This year, we have more than 300 applications, and we offer two awards, one including Women in Technology award and the other one, it's a technical grant in innovation; and there is much more information about this project, you can look for FRIDA and check for the details on the website.
About Internet governance and community building, this is the numbers for abandoned, implemented and presented proposals for the last four years. We can see that 2017 has the most amount of presented proposals, that is very interesting to see the community engaged in the PDP process. And there are also four policies in last comment period.
LACNIC on the move is a ‑‑ an event focused mostly in the Caribbean and Central American region. It's ideally aligned with local ICT events to get most out of engagement and out of those regions. We have had March an event in Guatemala, you go Jan nan happened some weeks ago and the next will be held in Colombia at the end of November.
And a brief mention for quality and continuous improvement, we are getting some of our core processes, recertified about Internet resource management, the PDP process and the events organisation process.
My LACNIC, this is very interesting, it's a new portal we have been building. So it's a members' portal for them to manage their Internet resources, it also provides some functionality for RPKI resource certification and is also has a feature that let's you modify your ROAs.
The strategic plan for the following years, usually LACNIC has strategic plan that may vary from three to four years. The last one was completed last year and now we are running the 17‑20 strategic plan. The mission ambition were clarified and there were done some minor changes to the general strategy and we added some minor goals and transparency risk management and the new fee structure sustainability.
And with that, I would like you to ‑‑ invite to the next LACNIC event, it will be held in April in Panama. You are more than welcome to go, we'd love to see you there, beautiful city.
And with that, I'm done. I would like to know if anyone has questions, just go to the mic and you can also remember to check the content of the slides. There is lots to see.
NICK HYRKA: No questions, okay, thank you.
All right. We are going to go back in time and invite Geoff Huston to come up. Geoff is APNIC's Chief Scientist. Welcome.
GEOFF HUSTON: Good morning, Geoff Huston here. Paul Wilson would have normally done this, our Director General, but he took ill a week ago and spent a couple of days in hospital. I am pleased to report he is now feeling fine, but he is not travelling for a couple of weeks while he fully recovers, so you have got me.
I have never seen this slide before so this is an adventure for you and me, I am going to make it up as I go along. And thank you, hopefully we will get a decent picture.
This is what we do, right. Like most of the other RIRs, I don't think there is anything special there.
In terms of membership, we are seeing continued growth, and APNIC does have this sort of special case of a small number of National Internet Registries where the job, if you will, for the RIR service within that country is undertaken by an organisation within that country, but generally not exclusively. So entities within the country have the option of either joining APNIC directly as members or becoming a member of their local national Internet registry. We get information from those registries as to their memberships so our total count of around 14,000 by the end of the year, basically is 6,000‑odd members, a little members of APNIC and another 8,000 members of ‑‑ include India, China, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Indonesia and possibly others whose names I have forgotten. I think that is all.
IPv6 delegations, we were doing sort of 600 to 800 year and all of a sudden in 2016 the numbers went right, right up, which is a good thing, and certainly a little bit unusual. The numbers basically come from east Asia, east Asia being China, Japan, Korea and around that area. Our projection up until the end of the year we will probably do about 1,800 delegations this year, 2017, which is the new highest number for us.
V4, we have still got about a third of a /8 left in the available pool so around about, as I recall, about 4 to 6 million addresses are still available. They are handed out under the last /8 policy, which is, as I recall, between a 24 and a 22, I think, 256 and thousand addresses. Even though our pool has not run out, the delegation rate is coming right off the boil. Now, you can only get one allocation, you can't get more. And so to some extent, I suppose, there is a certain amount of saturation going on and the rate of new entrants is actually coming down; maybe it's because we are all getting far more confident about virtual hosting arrangements, and the whole idea that you needed your own IP address to have your web content hosted is largely disappearing but as you see, the numbers are coming down in all parts of this region.
The transfer market, well, if you compare it to the number of delegations, which is up around 2,000, the transfers sort of in and out of APNIC is actually really quite low, around 250 a year, a fair deal of those, 150‑odd are within the region and a smaller number is actually across the region. That is not a breakdown by address ‑‑ oh look, here it is ‑‑ this is the address content. You will notice that 2017, it's about half the number in previous years. Now, there have been some policies being implemented that do place some constraints on addresses received in the last /8, but again it's kind of interesting that the level of activity is coming down, not going up.
For those who are looking for signs that we are finally transitioning to v6, you could well interpret this data as being a helpful sign. I know I do.
AS number delegations, you know, this is really curious. Around this part of the world, we do almost a tenth of the AS delegations from other parts of the world and notably the northern hemisphere. So these numbers, 800 a year, is far, far less than the RIPE NCC's numbers or from barn's numbers exactly what the make‑up is that players in the Asia Pacific region do not use their own AS number and do their own BGP, exactly why is a little bit of a mystery. There is certainly a fair deal of multi‑homing, but they don't multi‑home with their own AS. It's relatively uniform across all the areas of the region. We certainly go out there and preach BGP; we preach BGP a lot, we are true believers but for some reason this region does not use that sort of routing construct as much as others. I think someone is actually looking into it in APNIC because we got curious why this is a long‑term phenomenon.
Supporting Internet regional development, like all of the other RIRs we do lots and lots of training, face‑to‑face training, we did almost 2,000 people this year, we do videos, we do all kinds of things and they all have a lot of fun.
We have launched an on‑line academy, free public access, and we are concentrating on the cyber‑security area where our specialist has got someone helping him there and we are doing more activities in that area of national cyber‑security; it does appear to be a very, very hot topic inside our region.
In terms of community presentations, we do a lot of travelling to the various network operator meetings, the NOG forums, and some of us, including me, spend a certain A our time on the road presenting not only about what APNIC does but presenting about the kinds of things I presented here, issues around v6, issues around what we see in technology, measuring the Internet and so on. We have a certain amount of deployment of RIPE Atlas, we have anchors in ‑‑ what the hell is the country MM? Wherever it is, we have one. Someone can look it up: Australia, Nepal, Indonesia, Vietnam, Myanmar and somewhere else, around 270‑odd probes. We are doing installations of route servers but we are trying to come off that a bit, we kind of think that deploying instances Anycast instances of route servers is not the best use of our resources and instead we have did a deal with Internet software consortium to fund the development of aggressive NSEC caching. The observation is that the route servers actually hand out 70% of their queries with responded with NX domain. So most of the time, most of the route servers are saying, no, and if we can get the resolvers to effectively cache those no's in a way that can answer future questions ‑‑ and aggressive NSEC caching is the way to do this ‑‑ we could cut the queries to the route servers by up to 70%, and if you signed your own domain name it would cut queries about attacks to your name as well. If everyone did this, all of the time, the the route servers would get less than 5% of the queries they are currently getting and most of the random name attacks would be basically absorbed by the recursive resolvers.
So we are pretty keen on that. It's a case of trying to build bigger and bigger route servers is just kind of crazy and if we can change the way the resolvers operate, we can push the load out to the millions of resolvers and stop trying to build a small number of heavily fortified route servers, so we are keen believers.
Have I taken up my ten minutes yet? We do a lot of security because we are very interested and v6 training because it is going to happen sooner or later, so there is a fair deal of presentations and I do a lot of measurement with online ads about where v6 is and why.
There is a certain A growth of people holding addresses and certain amount of growth of overall capacity, around 17% of the region now does IPv6? Why? Because reliance had a mobile operator called GEO, do an ultra cheap service to millions of Indians on v6, amazing. So one of the biggest countries by population of v6 right now is India. Who would have believed?
We have a foundation now. The reason why we did this is, we try and do good works around the region and as geeks we are pretty lousy at doing this, you know it's not our job, and we're not good at it. So we thought we would set up a body with folk who understand this area and work within it, within the parameters that they are good at as well so we are doing grants from this foundation, we are doing joint courses and we continue to get support from Canada's IDRC, I have forgotten what that meant, and support from ISOC for which we are very grateful. Cooperating with the Internet community, that is a security forum thingy. We are a member of it. Various other acronyms in which we have a lot of fun participating in. We are big in Asia Pacific economic community with APEC Tel, the telecommunications sector. I personally and Joao Damas who works with me have done a huge amount of work in the past year and we hope we have been help to the folk in ICANN looking after this and the broader community, to inform folk who are doing validation what is going on.
There are heaps of IGFs because there just are stuff.
And we go to other RIR meetings and we work with them because we are nice people, I assume.
And I should have used up the ten minutes by now. You know, Mount Everest is that high and if you want to see it the place to see it from is Katmandu, if you want to see the tallest mountain in the world which is taller than the tallest building. It's a nice place and I will be going there myself. After that, if tropical islands are your thing, the French have an out post just off Australia in Numia which we are going to in September. Very few direct flights. After that we going to the Republic of Korea, which I have never been to but evidently has a pretty multi‑coloured bridge. Thank you. Any questions?
AUDIENCE SPEAKER: MM is Myanmar.
NICK HYRKA: We have a winner. Thank you very much, Geoff. And I miss Paul. But I do appreciate you standing in for him. And never worry about taking too much time, Paul does, Paul doesn't think twice. Anyway, thank you for that.
Now we move on to the NRO area, the Number Resource Organisation presentation. So we will begin this with Axel Pawlik, my Managing Director at the RIPE NCC who is standing in for John Curran, the Chair, thank you.
AXEL PAWLIK: Good morning, favourite people, because you are here on the RIPE Friday, and I know it's a Thursday.
So, yes, I am Axel. I walked in this morning and this is about the NRO update and our role within ICANN as well and walked in and had the weird weird thought that this looked very much like one of those updates that we occasionally do at ICANN meetings for the numbering community and it's typically like dozen people in the room and mostly our selves but that has changed a bit so I am very grateful that you are here.
About the NRO, the NRO wants to be the flagship and global leader for collaborative Internet number resource management as a central element of an open and stable secure Internet.
What is the NRO? The a number resource organisation, we agreed among the RIRs at the time in 2003 that it would be a good thing to have. The mission is to coordinate the RIR system and joint RIR activities, basically lend some structure to us being good people and visiting each other and doing things together as Geoff has said.
To promote also the multi‑stakeholder model and the especially bottom up policy development, that is an important thing, all the RIRs support that and we want to do at that together. Like I said, in ICANN we fulfilled the role of the ICANN supporting organisation. And we have a website.
We have a bit of structure within the NRO to keep it all orderly. We have an Executive Committee: John is Chair; Paul is Vice‑Chair and Secretary; the Vice‑Chair is a newish thing that we did, pal an and treasurer and me and Oscar being on vacation in a way. We have a secretariat that is hosted by APNIC and we have an executive secretary there, and Suzanne is that, she is currently supporting the secretariat as well. There is quite a lot of work around this whole ICANN thing too. We have a couple of coordination groups doing, again, keeping structure, doing things together on communications, engineering and registration services.
We do a couple of publications regularly, the Internet number status report is a quarterly update on Internet number resources among the RIRs. We have a comparative policy overview updated quarterly giving a list and seeing what policies for which region might be, actually, sort of similar in other regions as well and what the differences are.
And also information on membership policies and similar things. So again, the website.
And of course the big website for the ASO.
Finances, we do things together, some of them cost money; we jointly contribute to ICANN as well and we have a formula based on size of our registration services, income and activities. It turns out that is the 2016 numbers stat.
Expenses, travelling, secretary and the like, contributions to the IGF, that's an ongoing thing, the Internet governance forum, we see that as our main input into the global Internet governance discussions. And also the, by now, very, how you say, I don't know, missing the word, it's early, the contribution to ICANN, it hasn't changed in so many years, 823,000. And also the RIRs have earmarked money as a stability fund to keep the RIR system stable in case there would be something needed there, there is a fund there.
IANA transition, thank God it happened. We now have an SLA that is basically a Service Level Agreement, a contract with ICANN on IANA services, give us numbers, we give you money and this is how we do this mutually, we all agreed this and signed it in Helsinki, the effective from the 1st October last year, it's great, lovely to have, it keeps our minds free to engage other things.
Now, there is a Service Level Agreement and there are service levels and they need to be kept in check so we see that he willees and folks are doing it all right, of course we don't have that much actual interaction because the amount of number blocks and other things that are being, sent forth ‑‑ back and forth is really, really low. However, to make it proper, to set it up properly we have a number services Review Committee, with members from each region, one RIR staff representative, secretarial support a little bit and two community elected members. Those people meet and they have public archives and minutes, this is the Review Committee as of right now. You see them. And they keep us all nicely aligned, but again, there is not that much interaction in terms of allocations from IANA to us currently, so it's a fairly low‑key activity there.
ICANN accountability, it is still an important thing. We talked about this quite a lot, there is the Cross‑Community Working Group on accountability that is busy; we have representatives from the numbers community in there, they are now working on what is called the Work Stream 1 ‑‑ Work Stream 2. Work Stream 1 was stuff that needed to be done get the IANA contract in place and let the ‑‑ and Work Stream 2 were seen to be things that could be done afterwards so this is now going on.
ICANN that is changed a little. There is now something called the Empowered Community, basically, all the various bits and pieces and stakeholders within ICANN working together to keep ICANN accountable and to effect changes and to make sure that everything goes well.
I have another presentation in a little while about stuff like that. Basically, there is a lot of work in there, potentially, and we have adopted the ASO interim Empowered Community Procedures to make sure we are ready to react and activities there as it's happening. Procedure for Empowered Community approval actions and rejection actions and director removal actions, the ASO standard practices for such. Have a look at the by‑laws the and the whole row of activities that was in there.
Speaking about accountability, RIR accountability was important, still is important. We have a long‑time governance matrix that summarises and nicely lays out how the various RIRs are accountable to whom, how this all works and by‑laws and the policy development, in dispute revolution, data protection budget, planning who gets us to do what. That is not a new thing and we update it as it goes along as changes are happening.
We have an accountability Frequently Asked Questions document and we have done independent accountability assessment, third party looking at all the RIRs, third parties looking at all the RIRs and producing one document, basically it's not looking bad. It's looking good.
Then we have done a review recently and I will talk about that in some more detail later on, so I will just quickly, have a look at this and I talk about it later.
The RIRs together to a couple of technical projects as well, and you have heard mentioning in the reports from the various RIRs, RPKI services for all resources as of the end of September this year, reporting requirements for IANA; it's part of the SLA. We have heard a couple of talks I think also earlier this week about the identifier technology health indicators. The RIRs have not been ‑‑ we have consultation out there, we want you to confirm that we are thinking in the right way or give us different input there. And we will build the NRO website.
That's it for this time from me on the NRO activities. Thank you very much.
KAVEH RANJBAR: Thank you very much, Axel. I have a bit of news for IANA geeks here because transition wasn't done until five minutes ago because there were the IANA.com net org domain which was supposed to be transferred to ITF trust, and it was signed five minutes ago so IANA transition was done just right now.
AXEL PAWLIK: Who would have thought? That is good news, thank you.
NICK HYRKA: Thank you very much, Axel. And a special note of thanks to you coming in at the last second this morning to back us up as well Geoff backing up Paul and Paul backing up John. So, we got some good presenters here.
We are going to continue with the NRO theme. Next up is the NRO statistics report and this is coming from my colleague, Ingrid Wijte, RIPE NCC Services Assistant Manager. Welcome aboard.
INGRID WIJTE: Good morning. Axel already introduced ‑‑ we produce a quarterly report on the NRO statistics and the report I will present today is hot off the press, it's from the end of September when we produced it. And I have mentioned it a few times, but this will be the very last time that I will present this slide tech, we have been working on a new slide tech for some time; not finished yet, so if there is anything you would like to see in this report, then do let me know, either via e‑mail or at the mic or after this session. But cross my heart, hope to die, this is the last time for this set of slides.
So this is the overview of the total IPv4 space that was distributed. IANA has no more /8, they are at zero. There were 35 /8s that were distributed to the technical community for special purposes, and the RIRs together distributed 130 /8s amongst themselves. 91 were distributed to the central registry, which basically was address space that was distributed before the RIR system was put in place.
The amount of available /8s in each RIR, RIPE NCC is still at .7% of a /8. AFRINIC is now at .7, a year ago they were still at 1.4, so they have slowed down a little bit in their utilisation, probably because they entered the Phase 1 of their exhaustion phase.
So this is over time how the address space was distributed, so you can see from this graph the moments just before IANA and the different RIRs reached their last /8 where there is a little peak just before and after that, the graph goes down again.
This is the overview so you can see that APNIC received 45 /8s to further distribute, RIPE NCC 35 and ARIN 32 and the others 10 and 6.
AS number assignments, again here you can see a little spike around the moments of reaching the last /8. Membership growth, and went up just before and normally that goes along with an ASN number.
The overview in numbers of how much in total we have assigned: And interesting enough, when we compare it with 32‑bit ASN, you can ‑‑ I will go to the next one ‑‑ you can see that the ‑‑ I have lost my track ‑‑ yes, that was my point. The ‑‑ the earlier this week on the day I presented on the percentage of 16‑bit and 32‑bit ASN and how that was distributed between, in the different regions, the majority of RIRs is about 80 to 90%; RIPE NCC distributes about 70% of 32‑bit ASN, ARIN a bit lower, and that's probably because they start with the smallest number first, and the other RIRs distribute a 32‑bit ASN by default and a 16‑bit if there is a technical requirement for the request.
Also, allocations you can see that after 2015 in the RIPE region the amount of v6 allocations has slowed down a little bit and that is because in 2015 the policy proposal was accepted that there was no longer a requirement to have v6 in order to receive your v4 allocation.
This is the overview, RIPE NCC has issued over 13,000 and after that LACNIC, almost 6,000, APNIC 5,000. And the interesting part when you compare it to the v6 assignments, is that in the ARIN region, the PI assignments and PA assignments are roughly half/half, a bit more allocations, and in the other regions it's the majority is v6 allocations and a bit of PI. There is currently a proposal in the RIPE region to change the PI policy, so we will monitor how that will change the division in this region.
Finally this is the percentage of members that have both v4 and v6 in each RIR. We are at 73%. A year ago, this was bit higher, 76% in our region. So, that has gone down a bit, probably by the huge growth in members that we have seen in the past year that got their v4 but are still in the process of requesting their v6.
Last year also got a question whether there are members that only have v6. I looked at that, it's very negligible amount, if we put it on a slide it wouldn't show up. So it's v4 and v6, no v6 only.
All these numbers are on our NRO website, so if you want to see the raw data, have a look.
And, yes, again, if there is something that you would like to see in this slide tech, do let me know so we can include it for the next slides.
And I will take any questions, if you have any.
AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Good morning, Alain Durand from ICANN. I was listening prior to Geoff's presentation on the apparent slowdown in the rate of transfers in their region. Are you planning, in the next version of your slide tech, to show an aggregate view of transfers across five different RIRs?
INGRID WIJTE: Yes, those slides we are already working on, we will present them both within the region as in between the regions.
ALAIN DURAND: Thank you.
RUEDIGER VOLK: Deutsche Telekom. Actually, I have less of a question for you, Ingrid, and more a comment going back to Axel's NRO presentation.
Axel, you didn't ask for comments or questions; I would have heard it. Being the usual annoyance at the mic, I have to comment on two ‑‑ on specific action of the NRO. The change of the Trust Anchor RPKI stuff, at the very minimum, has not been complemented by sufficient and adequate communication; what it actually means, at least in my analysis, is changing things that actually conflict basic, basic security architecture premises of the system without achieving prior technical consensus and, well, okay, at the time the announcement came out, unfortunately I had personal circumstances that took me out of the communication; however, the communication at that time was very scarce and, in retrospect, in retrospect, I figured out that the missing communication actually means that other active parties really didn't take notice. And, for myself, I have to say, yes, I was very glad that, at this meeting, RIPE staff was pointing me to information that had been hidden from me in communication, certainly not with bad intent, that is really important for analysing what is going on.
I just have to ‑‑ I just have to make those remarks for the record.
GEOFF HUSTON: Geoff Huston, APNIC. If you allow me to respond to this, Rudiger.
The whole issue of the content of the RPKI Trust Anchor, the issues around the validation algorithms and the inherent risks of inadvertently causing invalid results, have been discussed, particularly in the IETFs Working Group at the time, for many years. We certainly were worried that the technology at the time was incredibly fragile and the slightest slip‑up would have caused a large amount of invalidity. The response to alter the way that we were formatting the Trust Anchors from the various RIRs to a uniform format was something that we signalled in a draft that was presented to the CIDR Working Group over, I think, four or five meetings and we have tried to be diligent in communicating that. Evidently, we have not been completely successful, as evidenced by Rudiger's comments, for which we apologise and will try better next time, although we are hoping that we don't need to have next times in this area; that the format we have got now is relatively stable, at least while we are using the current validation algorithms. If those algorithms change, which is another particularly different topic, then we may contemplate a change in the Trust Anchor structure because at that point the algorithms would allow a greater degree of resilience. But certainly there are shortcomings, as you have noted, evidently, we apologise for that, that we have tried as hard as we can to inform and work with the technical community to make sure that what we are doing is stable and safe. Thank you.
RUEDIGER VOLK: Geoff, for keeping kind of statements correct, the draft that you are referring is talking about something different than the change of the Trust Anchors, there has been an expired draft that did not draw any positive response at the time, except to ‑‑ from the authors.
NICK HYRKA: One last comment before we go.
AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Akamai, ARIN AC. I think the relevant statistic that we probably want to use going forward, rather than members with both v4 and v6, is fraction of members that have v6, because while at the moment the fraction that have v6 only is minuscule, I believe it will likely become a monatomically increasing number as time goes forward. And that, therefore, really what we care about is the fraction that actually have v6, whether or not they have v4, I think v4 is largely irrelevant in that question at this point, as it will become more and more irrelevant in other questions.
NICK HYRKA: Thank you. We are going to have to cut this section short. Thank you very much, Ingrid. We are running tight on time, but I thank everyone for their contribution here. We have to run on to the ASO review presentation. Again, Axel can com right back up. Thank you.
AXEL PAWLIK: I am not intimately familiar with the slide set, in case there is no question slide at the end, I invite questions and comments straight away.
So, the ASO review, I mentioned that before. In the ICANN by‑laws, somewhere in there is a long‑standing requirement that all the supporting organisations within ICANN are being reviewed every five years, and as the ASO in our SO ‑‑ with ICANN we have specified that yes, of course we to want to improve ourselves all the time and we are happy to do this review, not ourselves but by a method of our own choosing; and we have done so before, five or six years ago for the first time hiring external consultants.
And ‑‑ is this the one? Yes. And we have done that before and we have done this again this year, many of you or some of you may have been contacted by people talking to you about the ASO and how you see it as deficient and defective and stuff. This is a bit of the outcome presentation, so again the ASO is the address supporting organisation as part of the structure of ICANN, it has a couple of tasks to do there. The number resource organisation by he will /TKPWAPBS of MoUs and the like has said that it would perform the function of the ASO within ICANN, so we have a couple of structures within the ASO, it's the ASO Advisory Council, it's made up of the NRO Number Council, the same people, different name‑tag, it coordinates ‑‑ has coordinating role in the Global Policy Development, it looks at procedures for selecting individuals to serve on the ICANN board, there is two seats there, it provides advice to the ICANN board, if so requested, and it selects candidates for two seats on the ICANN board, and selects one seat for the ICANN ‑‑ the ASO who is in there, it's the NRO executive council, but the ASO Address Council, community members, you select them. From our region currently it's Nurani, Wilfried and Filiz. You know, you see that Wilfried isn't here, he has said he wouldn't want to be reselected for the next period, his seat is expiring at the end of the year. He has done this job for nearly 20 years, so thank you, Wilfried.
And I particularly like this photo of him. So the ASO within the ICANN structure, so there is a community part of it all in the regions and there is the require part of it and the areas supporting organisation, the white bit is the Address Council's part of the community and then the NRO Executive Council is part of the RIR stuff, and together with all the other SOs and ACs we make our part of ICANN.
Why do we need a review, things are examining well, aren't they? It's a requirement in the ICANN by‑laws,, the first review was done by independent consultancy in 2011, the second review was completed in August this year, also again by items, we had a number of candidates and we weighed all the proposals, it's ‑‑ by different people in there this time around.
So, there was lots of research on documents, looking at whether the documents are complete and give a good review of ‑‑ good documentation of what the various bodies are doing and how the procedures are going and the like. There were quite a number of face‑to‑face interviews with community members, at all of the RIR meetings looking at the ASO, NRO, EC, RIRs CEO, and 69 people have filled in a survey, online survey, that is great, and the ASO report has been published, it's not too long document, it's quite readable. It's published on that URL.
What is in there? It's the purpose of the ASO; it's looking at organisational and operational effectiveness of the ASO; and it's looking at, because we do these days, looking at accountability and transparency and is it all clear enough.
A couple of findings, yea, us, the ASO seems to be one of the better organised and efficient parts of the ICANN system. That is nice. It operates in a transparent manner, lots of minutes and open meetings, that is also good. And yes, it has a continuing critical function within ICANN, okay, there is the global policy development, there is both seats that need to be filled and stuff like that.
There are two bodies, like I said, there is the AC and NRO EC. The ASO AC responsibilities are set down in the ASO MoU and that very much focuses on the Global Policy Development process and describes also the filling of the Board's seats and the like. Like I presented earlier, the NRO EC is involved in all sorts of activities, coordinating the RIRs with each other and doing things that go beyond the fairly limited mission of the ASO within ICANN. We are doing other things as well.
Now, ICANN is all new and shiny, they have very nice wonderful by‑laws and there is this Empowered Community thing in there as well, I mentioned that earlier, and surprise, the ASO is part of it. And it comes with added responsibilities, new roles, new procedures, and it's all a little bit daunting if you start to look at it for the first time.
The findings of the ASO review clearly state that apart from all the internal and standard and routine functioning of the ASO, this Empowered Community thing is of concern because there is increasing involvement in issues that go beyond the fairly limited scope of the address supporting organisation. There is stuff in there about names and ‑‑ I don't know, all sorts of things. And the guys in the report laid out a couple of options. They have three ideas so they derived talking to all those people and other wrote them down and I will go through some of them. Those options are not prescriptions, obviously we need your input to this report as well. We want to hear what you are thinking, maybe people who haven't talked to those guys, maybe you have thoughts, new thoughts and shinier thoughts and want to let us know about that. These are not discrete options but those are things that we saw in the report.
Option one is status quo, things are going fairly well. When people come to you and want the ASO to do things that you think are beyond the scope, just say, no, we don't want to be bothered. The good thing is we adhere to our relatively narrow scope and the potential, within ICANN other stakeholder communities might expect more from the ASO under the Empowered Community thing. So we need to be careful, if we do this, to be managing expectations and be very clear about what we are doing, and by not doing other things.
Option 2, status quo and increased coordination between the Address Council and the NRO Executive Council. We do coordinate, fairly regularly, we have the NRO EC meetings, the ASO AC has their meetings and occasionally they cross‑fertilize a bit because we coordinate but maybe we don't coordinate enough or clearly enough or maybe we could improve on those things. This should determine within ICANN who is doing what, is it ‑‑ and we have this perennial issue about the ASO Chair, who is the ASO Chair? Is it the NRO EC chair? Is it the Address Council Chair? Is it both together? So those things need to be clarified.
There is a little bit of a more elaborate option 3, adoption of a two house ASO council, so there would be the policy house looking after global policy and appointment to the ICANN board and other ICANN bodies as ICANN sees fit to request, and there is the registries house which would be more reg based for contracts, for coordination and other operational matters within ICANN looking at the ICANN activity plan and the ICANN budget, strategic plan, stuff like that.
That wouldn't be necessarily operational changes, but again, clarifications, more structure to this and ‑‑ those are things that were not in place when the ASO MoU was signed, like many years ago. The world changes.
Better description of roles, right, and various manners of implementing those, various complications, I won't go into detail, I am running out of time here.
Other considerations, like I mentioned earlier, we have drafted interim procedures to play with the Empowered Community for now. Tomorrow the NRO EC is having a retreat and we will discuss this a bit further. More clarity about who is doing what and why. And maybe other things that we have to look at as well.
The way forward. We have asked our communities to comment on this report and give us ideas, whether their opinions have been properly reflected in there or whether there is anything else.
All of the RIRs are talking to the communities, right here, right now, other RIR meetings as well, we want to get that feedback.
We would ask you to send your input on this, your comments, if you have any, to the RIPE list before the end of November. Then, we can go on with those reports, with those comments, from the various regions and look at them, review them and decide what we want to do from there.
And there is a question slide, so if you have any questions, please. If not, I am here for the rest of the week. Thank you.
NICK HYRKA: Thank you very much, Axel.
Running tight now. We are going to invite Elise Gerich, President of the Public Identifiers Organisation up for her update. Welcome.
ELISE GERICH: I guess this is one of the more successful RIR update sessions because we have had a lot of questions, but that means they have told me to talk fast, but I don't know how to talk fast, so I will try to just be brief.
So I am Elise Gerich, and I am going to give you the IANA functions update for numbers.
This is the agenda, about the recovered pool, our monthly report, customer satisfaction survey, and there is a draft FY 19 PTI operating plan and budget so you will know how much money it costs to provide the IANA functions.
Another slide. Okay. So, in the recovered pool, as you know, we don't have any /8s but we have bits and pieces that the RIRs have returned to us, and there is a schedule based on Global Policy that we allocate them on this 1st of September and 1st of March. And 1st of September was not so long ago, so we allocated to each RIR an enormous number of 4,000 IP addresses as /20. And I know this says RIPE allocation, and it should say RIPE NCC allocation, but I consider it the RIPE community allocation.
So this is how much there is left in the allocation pool, the recovered allocation pool. Why are you laughing at me, Geoff? It makes me nervous.
Anyway, as you can see, we will be giving you smaller and smaller blocks until March 2019, and I have been told that there are people who are on a waiting list for these smaller and smaller blocks but this is all that the IANA has to hand out. So, don't depend on us to be getting IPv4 addresses.
Reporting. As you just heard from Axel, there is SLA with the IANA functions to provide a monthly report; we provide a monthly report every month, and this is for the month of September. Typically our reports have no allocations, except for autonomous system numbers. Those are about the only requests we have now. Obviously at some point someone may ask for a block of IPv6 addresses, otherwise you will just be seeing reports with ASN numbers and on March and in September you will see it for the allocation from the recovered pool.
Every year we do a Customer Satisfaction Survey. This year, we have made a little bit of a change, and I will just mention the change, you can read all the details about the survey here. The change has been that we have added more free form areas to give your input. In the past, what it was, is, there was just one big block at the end of the customer satisfaction survey and so all the IANA functions would put in their comments, and we didn't know if they were targeted towards the numbers community, the names community, or the protocol parameters community. So this way, there will be specified questions that are targeted to those of the folks within the numbers community that receive it and they can add additional comments throughout it.
So, this is the slide about the FY19 draft budget and planning cycle, and as with the new by‑laws that you heard about a bit ago from Axel, the by‑laws say that PTI, public technical identifiers, which is an affiliate of ICANN and part of the IANA stewardship transition requirement from the community, we have to prepare a budget nine months in advance of when the ICANN board adopts their budget. So we started our budget planning way back in August, actually we started a little sooner. We completed our budget planning in September. Now that budget is out for public comment to the whole community and the public comment period ends on November 26th. And the plan is that once we get the comments from the public comment, we will then put it in front of the PTI board, because since we are an affiliate we have our own Board. The Board will then adopt the budget based on the feedback from the public comment.
So just so you know how much money we are proposing ‑‑ and I am sure you will all go out right away and look up the public comment and read the detail and operating plan and budget and find out we have proposed a budget of 10.4 million ‑‑ I am going to be done in two minutes. He is giving me the five‑minute sign. I didn't mean to put you on the spot, Nick. Anyway, that is an increase of about 8% over last year's FY18, is the year budget I am in right now. Our budget runs from July through June. And this gives you a little bit of detail, there is a whole operating plan and budget posted for public comment so if you'd like far more detail or you can ask me questions.
And there is one other thing I did want to say, see, my next to last slide so I am very fast, but there is a very special secret Working Group, I've heard, that RIPE has, and I received a rogue contribution from, or for the very secret Working Group. Does everyone in this room know about the secret Working Group? No one knows it's so secret.
NICK HYRKA: We don't talk about it.
ELISE GERICH: Anyway, I would like to read this rogue contribution to the very secret Working Group.
"IANA's is my name. Internet registry is my game. I am moving on, so it won't be long before I am just a plain dame."
NICK HYRKA: I know what that meant, yeah. It's ban real pleasure having you with us. Focus. It's been quite a packed schedule, we are right on time, I think. So, I think all of the presenters, the room is almost full, my goodness, and all of you who decided to come and join us today. Thank you all very much and in a very short amount of time we will be having a GM announcement so stay tuned for that.
Thank you all very much and have some coffee.