ARIN Spring Caribbean Sector Meeting Draft Transcript - 11 February 2009 [Archived]

Note: This transcript may contain errors due to errors in transcription or in formatting it for posting. Therefore, the material is presented only to assist you, and is not an authoritative representation of discussion at the meeting.

Introduction

Policy discussions opened immediately following the IPv6 Workshop, due to the hands-on nature of the event, transcription was not available.

2008-3: Community Networks IPv6 Allocation

MR. JIMMERSON: First draft policy that we’re going to discuss today is 2008-3, Community Networks Allocation. We’re going to do this with an Advisory Council member presenting the proposal and then we’re going to have an open discussion on the floor about it. For this proposal, I think we have Paul ANDERSEN.

MR. ANDERSEN: For 2008-3, this is the community networks v6; I think it should say assignment. It was introduced into the community under the old system in March of 2008. It’s been presented at a few meetings, including the Denver meeting, the meeting in Los Angeles, Kingston, and Nassau last year. The AC shepherds are Lea Roberts and Stacy Hughes. It’s been sitting in the process for some time for a variety of reasons. There’s one other policy like it in the RR unit in APNIC and it’s in discussion. This policy would provide the ability for a community network to get an assignment of /48 or larger, and the community network is designed as a free or low cost network service mostly by volunteers with- sorry. An organization that is a not for profit with less than 250,000, with a minimum of 100 users, and these organizations are these communities across various parts of the region where a bunch of residences or other people have connected together to create their own sub network, and they want to connect to the global network. And they have a problem that they can’t qualify for address space or v4 due to size or resources. The problem is that - from the Advisory Council standpoint, we’ve been having a problem advancing this because- well, there has been a request or two made. There doesn’t seem to be a very large need for that. So basically, we’ve been trying to see if we can get more support from the community or if there is more support from the community to lower the threshold for these community networks to get address space. So that’s the policy in its simplicity. So the, I guess the question would be, would there be any support in this region for lowering the threshold for v6 space to allow this group to gain address space.

MR. CURRAN: Microphones are open. Please approach the microphones with your thoughts on this proposal. I’m imagining some people are for it and some people are against it. So I’d like to hear from both on that. Scott?

MR. BRADNER: Can you go into a little bit more detail on what opinions you’ve heard in the past on this topic?

MR. ANDERSEN: Well, there’s two- there’s a variety of concerns that we’ve had. There’s a concern from the operator community because this would be provider independent space. There’s a little concern about routing table growth since this would start to add more and more entries, and there’s been a concern from operators that we should be- these people should be taking the provided dependent space. The other concerns that we’ve heard is that, again, just there isn’t a lot of need for this. So why are we crafting policy for what seems to be a small set of users?

MR. DARTE: This is Bill from the Advisory Council. I remember some discussion in Kingston that there was such a need in the Caribbean, and I haven’t heard it here yet, but one of the problems that we discussed was that if these are very loose organizations, you know. That they don’t, you know, for whatever purposes, where do we get firm contacts, and shouldn’t they be organized into something more tangible than just this loose affiliation? That was one of the push backs that we’ve had from this, and the other is that just why would they need independent address space as opposed to getting something from one of their upstreams? So those were just two other bullet points of discussion that I recall.

MR. ANDERSEN: It really was the tradeoff between the routing table growth and the concerns you expressed about the fact that most of these organizations weren’t going to be able to qualify under current policy.

MS. LEWIS: Yes. Bernadette Lewis, from the CTU, I think I would like to support such a policy. I think there are mechanisms to put in the space to route even if it is a loose association or groups of people that there is some entity that is responsible for which you will have some sort of firm contact, an organization with a demonstrated life and personality and registered in whatever country you’re talking about. So I would like to add my support for such a proposal. It could be that the language specifies that there must be some sort of entity to which you would have a final recall in dealing with this group of community users.

MR. ANDERSEN: Well, it was definitely one of the early concerns from ARIN’s standpoint to make sure there was a legal entity that could enter into the RSA. The question is: do you know any organizations in this region that would benefit from this policy? Because that’s what we’ve been struggling with. We hear it might be a good idea, but we don’t see the entities that would benefit from it. Thus is the conundrum. Yes?

MR. THOMPSON: Hi. Andrew Thompson, University of the West Indies, I support this policy. I have a couple of questions. To answer that previous question, that question you just asked, can you give an example of other organizations that currently need this sort of policy?

MR. ANDERSEN: Well, that is our problem. There is one and only one organization that has identified itself that would meet this criteria and it would have a desire to get this address space. So from our standpoint, our concern is, is there going to be enough need to change the policies from that standpoint?

MR. THOMPSON: I can just give a suggestion. We have what you call non-government organizations and each can be a community by itself. For example, the Office of Society of Trinidad could be a group of people. But the next question, how do they get these devices? That eludes us.

MR. CURRAN: I am going to repeat what was said when they introduced this policy proposal. There are locations where highly technical people build their own community network and they may or may not have public internet access. Sometimes they’re doing it entirely for gaming purposes, for example. We’re going to play first-party shooting games and hunt things down and we have a wireless network that covers a community. Sometimes there’s a box or a repeater that is gatewaying them into the internet from someone’s existing internet connection. So a little bit of each, but they don’t want to have a situation where just because a business is sponsoring them sometimes or a not-for-profit is gatewaying them the internet, if it’s a different one six months later, you don’t want to renumber 53 homes. You want to have a set of address space that’s stable.

MR. ANDERSEN: One of the problems being, because they were operating on low to free cost, that they were having a necessity to switch their upstreams fairly frequently, which, of course, problematic for that reason. They would have to renumber if they went provider independent.

MS. LEWIS: I want to give an example perhaps. Campus space communities (inaudible), but campus space, do you have a lot of tech people, a lot of people with these sorts of interests that may want to experiment? Who knows? This is one of the examples that come to mind. I can’t think of a specific entity at this point in time. Maybe we will have some time to do a bit of research. I can come one a group of people that can say we have an interest in doing this.

MR. ANDERSEN: We will be more than happy if you think of it later for you to forward it on. It would help us. We are having deliberations. Right.

MR. THOMPSON: Andrew again. Back to the renumbering or the avoidance of renumbering your net works. This would mean that your ISPs would have to change their routing tables.

MR. ANDERSEN: Could you repeat that? I couldn’t hear you.

MR. THOMPSON: You talk about communities not having to renumber their network. This would mean that the ISPs would have to change their routing tables?

MR. ANDERSEN: The concern is, yes, with this assignment, there would be an extra entry for each community network in the global routing table, and there’s always a concern that as that table gets bigger and bigger, it’s harder for the equipment to manage the growth, so there’s always a desire and we have seen from operators a request that we try and minimize routing table growth wherever possible.

MR. THOMPSON: Will this mean that this policy would for the operators to renumber?

MR. ANDERSEN: They would not renumber, but they would have to hold an extra route in their cable for each community network.

MR. THOMPSON: By this policy, they are required to do that, yes?

MR. ANDERSEN: Not required but most likely would have to.

MR. DARTE: Bill Darte again from ARIN. One of the other issues is to the extent that these organizations might be ad hoc and insubstantial over time, there was some concern about, you know, even given the unlimited space of IPv4, the conservancy aspect, if these allocations were made and then the organizations just sort of petered out and were no longer viable or operational that that space, having been granted in large quantity, would just sort of sit out there and not be recovered and not be reallocated. So there was a concern for that, insubstantiability in the long term.

MR. CURRAN: That’s certainly a greater risk with ad hoc, very low finance organizations. So anyone else want to comment in favor or against this policy proposal? No? Because this is an active policy proposal, I am going to be asking for a show of hands of support so if anyone has any questions about it or would like to speak in favor or against it, now would be the time. I’m going to be asking your opinion on it very shortly.

MR. THOMPSON: This may have been stated already. Andrew Thompson again, so if I’m applying for this community network numbering, I’m supposed to meet certain criteria?

MR. ANDERSEN: I’m sorry?

MR. THOMPSON: If I’m applying from a community for a numbered network, are there specific criteria that I need to adhere to? Because I’m not seeing a specific- I mean, I can say I’m doing some software, free and open software development.

MR. ANDERSEN: So there has been a lot of issue and the criteria has actually gone through many cycles. The current one, that’s the high level, is that you are providing some degree of network services on a free or low cost, that you are a nonprofit or sponsored by a nonprofit organization, and you must have a minimum of 100 users. There’s also some details of growth that you actually if you are under 200 users, you have to have plans to expand to double that.

MR. THOMPSON: Great.

MR. JIMMERSON: I just want to put out a reminder. If you did not pick up one of the packets that’s entitled “policy proposals” that we discussed earlier, there’s still some on the back table there if you need them. It has the text of all of the policy proposals that we’re discussing.

MR. CURRAN: Again, we’re going to be looking for indications from this community of either show of support in favor or against this particular policy proposal, and that will be considered by the Advisory Council in deciding whether to move forward. So it’s fairly important you familiarize yourself with the proposal. Any other questions on it or anybody else want to speak in favor or against this policy proposal?
Okay. So seeing no further discussion, the internet Advisory Council takes the indication of support in these policy meetings and uses them in determining whether or not a policy proposal is worth advancing and has support of the community. While it is only an indication, this is not a formal vote; it’s taken very seriously because we want to make sure we only work on policies that the community actively wants. So on the matter of policy proposal 2008-3; I’m going to ask for a show of hands. I’m first going to ask for everyone in favor of this policy proposal and then I’m going to ask everyone against this policy proposal. Any questions? No? Okay. Show of hands, do I have my tabulator?

Tabulators are here, very good. On the matter of policy proposal 2008-3, all those in favor of this policy proposal, please raise your hands now. Nice and high. You’re being counted. Okay. On the matter of policy proposal 2008-3, all those against this proposal please raise your hand. Nice and high. Okay. The tabulation is going on. The numbers will be coming up here in a moment. Okay. Total people in the room, excluding those of us who don’t vote, is 34. In the matter of 2008-3 Community Networks IPv6 Allocation, for 11, against 2. Thank you very much. This will be provided to the Council for consideration.

2008-7: Whois Integrity Policy Proposal

MR. JIMMERSON: Okay. The next policy proposal that we’re going to discuss, if you can turn in your handout to policy proposal 2008-7 Integrity Policy Proposal.

MR. ANDERSEN: So 2008-7 is actually a tale of several policies, and even though this applies to the last policy, something to be aware of here is this policy was introduced previous to the changes that occurred in the PDP process that were explained yesterday which changed significantly how the policies were handled where the AC was working with authors who submitted policies and then would then work with them with text and trying to get them to merge or work together,and the Advisory Council has become the author once it comes into the process. And the reason I mention that is to give some historical background. Just before the Los Angeles meeting, we did get the policy, 2008-7, which was WHIOIS Integrity Policy and WHOIS Authentication Alternative, WHOIS pc cleanup, WHOIS POC Validation, and those last three came in a hair after the deadline that was for the meeting. So WHOIS Integrity Policy went to Los Angeles and the other ones, it was too late to discuss them. At the meeting, the Council said these policies were trying to do one of two things. Either establish a system to try to identify contact information in ARIN WHOIS database that was defunct, no longer valid, the content was invalid and trying to validate that and the other one was trying to—

MR. BRADNER: Can I suggest that you expand acronyms like POC?

MR. ANDERSEN: My apologies. POC being a Point of Contact or effectively to look for e-mail addresses in ARIN’s database. The other policy which was the text that you have in the actual meeting packet dealt with more trying to authenticate who ARIN was dealing with, and there was a concern with a lot of the legacy blocks that were registered a long time ago that the contact information wasn’t so good. It had been out of date and there was basically a desire that anyone who wanted to update contact information had to register with an agreement or register into an agreement with ARIN. So that was kind of the history of those policies. Where it stands today is after the Los Angeles meeting, -yes, after the Los Angeles meeting, the Advisory Council started a working group which was with two shepherds, Marla and Lea, and they have drafted text and that will be effective shortly and they will move in the concept of basically dealing with identifying bad POCs, or Point of Contact. Anyone who doesn’t respond, like a human doesn’t respond by saying, yes, I’m still here and still a valid contact, and it will be updated to reflect that so people can know whether or not information is valid or not. Which is useful when operators are dealing with an announcement to make sure that there is hijacking or any kind of fraud. That is where the policy stands a bit, which is unfortunate because the text in front of you doesn’t reflect the text that is now under discussion in the AC. So that ends the discussion or introduction.

MR. JIMMERSON: I have a question. So the draft policy that the Advisory Council will be issuing back out to the community, does it remove the requirement that resource holders have to sign a Registration Services Agreement with ARIN to update their records?

MR. ANDERSEN: To be clear, so there will be a conference call which John, if you can keep me straight, will be next Thursday? Within the next two weeks, the Advisory Council will be meeting and at that point, the text will be in front of us and it will not involve signing a RSA and if that text is approved, it will go out to the PPML community for input.

MR. JIMMERSON: okay.

MR. ANDERSEN: ARIN staff will review.

MR. JIMMERSON: Do you think it would be useful to describe what a resource user is in the database for folks? Basically, the text that’s in front of us, there are what we call legacy resource holders of the ARIN database. Those are all registrations that were made before ARIN’s inception of December of 1997. Everything issued after December of 1997 requires the signature of a registration services agreement with ARIN that laid out the terms, the relationship between ARIN and the resource holder. Anything registered before December of 1997 is considered a legacy resource and there is not in all cases a registration services agreement between ARIN and the registrant.

And the development of the legacy services agreement is a bit of an ongoing process with the community. It’s been a lengthy discussion.

MR. CURRAN: On the matter of this policy proposal, anyone want to speak in favor or against it? Does anyone have any questions about it? This is particularly important now because with our revised policy development process, feedback can be incorporated by the AC in literally real time into this policy proposal.

MR. ANDERSEN: In particular, is there a concern now that we’re potentially going to remove the requirement to sign a Legacy RSA in order to be able to update legacy records?

MR. CURRAN: Microphones remain open.

MR. BRADNER: This is Scott. Out of curiosity, how much legacy address space is in the Caribbean?

MR. CURRAN: Leslie, do we know if there are any legacy holdings in the Caribbean region? We don’t have numbers offhand.

MR. BRADNER: But it doesn’t seem like a significant chunk of space.

MR. CURRAN: We haven’t tabulated it by regional sector, so we literally don’t have an accounting of it. Not broken down that way.

MR. BRADNER: Does anybody in the room know of legacy space, space which doesn’t have an RSA, service agreement signed on it?

MR. CURRAN: This would be an assignment made probably before 1998, potentially before 1993. If any of you are operating really old college network for example—

MR. BRADNER: So it may not be whether an RSA is needed or not may not be a particularly relevant issue?

MR. ANDERSEN: This isn’t true. I believe a lot of it was centered in the U.S. portion of the region.

MR. THOMPSON: Internet was not available until the end of 1995 and just before that, the only internet connection I knew, connection, and I’m not talking about who it is, but the University of West in December, just one or two years before that. Anything before 1993, I don’t know if it existed.

MR. CURRAN: You wouldn’t expect many things. Understood. Any further discussion on this policy proposal? Okay. Thank you. Once again, we come to that point in time where it’s important to provide feedback to the community, and the Advisory Council in doing their job so I’m going to ask for a show of- yes.

MR. BRADNER: Might I suggest to ask don’t care?

MR. CURRAN: Last time we had 11-2 out of 34. Which means a lot of don’t care.

MR. BRADNER: It could be asleep, too.

AUDIENCE: laughter

MR. CURRAN: I will make sure no one is asleep. If you see a sleeping neighbor, push them awake, okay. I would rather not have forced numbers for the sake of the counters. On the policy proposal 2008-7, WHOIS Integrity Policy proposal, I’m going to ask for a show of hands. I’m going to ask –

MR. ANDERSEN: Quick clarification, this will be on the text as in the meeting packet?

MR. CURRAN: On the text as in the meeting packet. I’m going to ask for a show of hands for those in favor and I will ask for a show of hands for all those opposed. If you don’t raise your hand in favor or opposed, you’ll be presumed to be not interested or uncaring or abstaining. So first, people raising your hands in favor on the matter of policy proposal 2008-7, all those in favor raise your hand now, nice and high. Okay. Thank you. On the matter of policy proposal 2008-7, all those opposed raise your hand now. If you are opposed to this proposal. Okay. They are tabulating the results. Okay. On the matter of policy proposal 2008-7, who is integrity, number of people in the room, 34. In favor of text as it is in the meeting packet, 7. Against, zero. This will be provided to the Advisory Council for their consideration. Thank you.

Policy Proposal 80: IPv4 Recovery Fund

MR. JIMMERSON: Okay, the next policy proposal that will be discussed is IPv4 Recovery Fund. You can turn to that page. And this proposal is going to be introduced by Bill, who is from the Advisory Council.

MR. DARTE: Hi, there. By way of background related to this policy, we’ve heard a lot of concerns already yesterday and today about the issue of IPv4 address space exhaustion and the timeliness of people adopting an alternative like IPv6, and clearly there’s issues of the availability of the protocol or business need as defined by users and consumers of IPv4 addresses today, et cetera. So looking out toward this exhaustion point, the Advisory Council and the ARIN community, in general, have been very keen to try to find ways to mitigate any downside repercussion for this exhaustion, and so there has been a lot of talk about enhanced transfer policy. Current transfer policy is if addresses are unneeded or unused, they will return to ARIN in this community and it will be reallocated. If there’s a transfer of ownership of company, it may well be that those addresses would come back to ARIN and then be reissued to the acquiring company, et cetera. So one of the discussion points has been an augmented transfer policy that would allow individuals to transfer amongst themselves outside of that current policy. So IPv4 Recovery is a particular- a particular proposal that tries to allow people to transfer addresses that are unneeded or under-needed in their own environment to others but retains ARIN as the intermediary for that transaction, so having said that, the IPv4 Recovery Fund proposal was introduced on the PPML November 21st of 2008. It was revised in our last meeting of January 8 of 2009. It was accepted onto our AC’s docket on the 24th of January, and its current status is that it’s under development by the Advisory Council. Cathy and I are the shepherds for this proposal. There are no similar proposals known to us at this time in any of the other Regional Internet Registry. This, being very brief, would summarize what it’s about. This would allow approved requesters, that is, entities that can show need to place binding bids. Those are financial bids for address space. ARIN would use the money from both bids to incent the return of unused or unneeded address space to fulfill those requests. There’s a bit more to it than that, of course. The problem, again, is that IPv4, once it becomes scarce, may still be part of the business plan of certain entities. This policy tries to motivate that return, okay. The trigger would be when ARIN cannot fulfill a legitimate request. In other words, a request comes in from someone who shows need and there isn’t sufficient space in the free pool of ARIN address space to fulfill that request. That’s when this policy would be triggered. The philosophy is that ARIN encourages voluntary return. It’s not trying to create a market, but ARIN would be willing to pay, okay, for returns or facilitate compensation from requesters to get address space freed up to compensate those that would renumber out of that space. ARIN remains the source for all of those allocations and returns in transactions. The process then is once a requester is approved, ARIN asks for a binding bid. Within 60 days if there are addresses made available through ARIN to fulfill that request, then those bids would be transacted. That money would be transferred. There would be no partial bills. In other words, if someone came in requesting a /16 and there was only a /18 worth of space coming in then that would request would not be filled in the partial requirement. ARIN might receive a large block of address space beyond the needs of an individual requester and at that discretion; this policy would allow ARIN to make a decision to break the larger block into the minimum of smaller blocks that would be needed to accomplish the allocation requests of those who had legitimate and approved needs. This would be done, again, in the conservative sense. ARIN does not want to deaggregate large blocks if necessary. The other requirement upon this deaggregation is there would be sufficient number of allocation requesters to consume the entire block that was returned and would be deaggregated. The policy further stipulates that this would become a very transparent process, meaning that all transactions would be logged. All bids and compensations would be recorded. These would be recorded and made available on the ARIN website. ARIN may, according to this policy, actually decide to offer a bid, itself, for recovered addresses without demand if the community thought that was a good idea and the whole idea would be not for ARIN to make any kind of money on this, but to operate this program on a cost-recovery basis. So that’s the- that’s the policy in something more than the nutshell. I’m certainly interested, as are the rest of my colleagues on the Advisory Council, about your comments, issues of statement for or against this proposal.

MR. CURRAN: Microphones are open. Anyone have any questions about the policy or would like to speak in favor or against it?

SPEAKER: Hi. I probably might have missed this, but did this recovery of IPv4 addresses include- it might have already- for businesses going out of business, organizations going out of business, closing down?
Does ARIN presently recover that?

MR. CURRAN: ARIN presently participates in when organizations shut down or go into bankruptcy or receivership, we participate in reclaiming of IP addresses already and we work with the courts to help them understand because an organization that no longer has operations or computing assets doesn’t need IP addresses. So this is not seen as a replacement for that. This is seen as a way to incent an operational organization that might have extra to return something.

SPEAKER: Yes, I understand that. What is the initial size of the recovery fund?

MR. CURRAN: As far as I know, zero. That would need to be determined by the Board upon adoption.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. CURRAN: I guess I’ll ask since you came up, are you in favor or opposed given those answers?
Okay. Anyone else have any questions about the proposal or would like to speak on it?
If you think this is a great idea, you should come up to the mic and talk about it and people who think this is a bad idea, this microphone is available for that, too. Yes. Go to the microphone.

SPEAKER: I was just wondering if individuals might see that as an opportunity to exploit supply-demand kind of situation where one person might bid for the IP address and the demand is not so great and then when it gets really tight, then they want to resell it as it works so I don’t know if it creates that kind of possible environment where people will start to exploit the initiative?

MR. DARTE: I think exploitation is dampened by the fact that as with all allocations made by ARIN that there has to be justified need, okay. So if there’s not demonstrable need then there would not be an allocation request that could be fulfilled regardless of whether addresses were available to be given to them or not. So I think that’s part of the issue of why this proposal has been offered is that it keeps ARIN in the loop and dampens that kind of speculative buying and selling or transferring for monetary compensation address space that can’t be bought or sold.

SPEAKER: okay.

MR. CURRAN: Other people like to comment? This is sort of interesting. This particular policy or proposal I don’t think has been before the floor of any meeting.

MR. DARTE: This is the first time.

MR. CURRAN: You are actually getting a chance to comment and show your support for or against a proposal before it’s happened in any other sector.

MR. DARTE: We look for your leadership.

MR. CURRAN: So thoughts on this policy proposal?

MS. LEWIS: Bernadette Lewis from the CTU. I think I would support such a move. Is this something that could be possibly returned that is not being utilized?

MR. CURRAN: That’s a great question. So this comes up quite a bit over the last ten years. The challenges that address space that is not routed to the public Internet is not necessarily unused. A larger organization can have tens of thousands of systems all uniquely numbered but not routed to the public Internet. So there’s no way to see was going on in those organizations because they may only have three addresses announced on a separate network. We can’t see the internal assignments and in fact, in particular if they don’t come back for more address space, they’re never asked per se about their utilization about their existing address space holdings. So it makes it very difficult to know what is actually available out there. There are some estimates that have been done by the community that say we could have the equivalent of 5 /8 address blocks, five Class A equivalents that could be readily recovered if there was incentive to do so. That was a number bantered around by folks at APNIC. Obviously, if there’s a strong incentive, people will find address space to give up. That’s a somewhat susceptible as to what the incentive is. We do suspect there’s a substantial percent, probably 5% of the address space out there, that could be reclaimed if those are responding to incentives.

MR. DARTE: To the extent that an organization would move substantially into the IPv6 then perhaps a large measure of their IPv4 could be returned.

MR. DARTE: Yes? Rear a microphone.

SPEAKER: Right. To me, this seems to- this policy might actually linger transitioning to IPv6 because once you give back IPv4, nobody will want IPv6 much. You will be pulling this adoption for IPv6 addresses.

MR. CURRAN: So the interesting- let’s be generous. Let’s say that some very large amount of address space could be reclaim, like 10 /8s, at present, the RIRs collectively, historically have assigned 10 /8s each year to the community based on their requests. In 2007, that was 12 and in 2008, it looks like it was 14 /8s. So if you somehow found the equivalent of 10, you’ve just added a year. So there’s no doubt it would slow down the migration to v6, but compared to the problem that we have, it’s a very small band-aid. More comments on the policy proposal?

Okay. On the policy proposal IPv4 recovery fund, I’m going to ask for a show of hands of all those in favor and all those opposed, and this is your opportunity to provide some input while the ac is looking at this fresh. On the matter of IPv4 recovery fund, all those in favor raise your hand. Nice and high. Okay. All those opposed to IPv4 recovery fund, raise your hand. Nice and high. Thank you. The tabulation is going on in the back of the room. We should have the soundtrack of a computer computing the voting, a little clicking. On the matter of IPv4 Recovery Fund, the number of people in the room 34, in favor 10, against 2. Thank you. This will be provided to the AC for their consideration.

Open Microphone (Morning Session)

MR. JIMMERSON: Okay. What we’re going to do now is move into an open microphone portion of this meeting before we go to lunch and let me just give a little bit of background of what we do in open microphone. Open microphone is an opportunity for you to come to the microphone and bring up any topic related to ARIN policy that you would like to discuss that’s not already on the docket for discussion today. So if there’s a policy proposal that’s already on the docket for discussion, there’s two more left, we will discuss those later. If there is any other topic about ARIN policy or the ARIN organization that you would like to bring up at the microphone this is the time for to you do that and we strongly encourage you if you do have questions that you do bring that to the microphone. Okay.

MS. LEWIS: I want to go back to the WHOIS Integrity policy proposal. You said that, I think someone asked about companies, for example, organizations going into bankruptcy or becoming defunct for one reason or another and you said that ARIN does get involved.

MR. CURRAN: Generally, ARIN ends up getting involved when an organization that- an organization is dissolved and has a list of creditors. Those creditors go to court to get assets because the company is bankrupt. If the list of assets, somehow someone determines it includes IP addresses, we have to show up and point out that they’re not property and they’re not assets, and you can’t have them go independently to some creditor. Generally, if the assets like the computers, the network and the systems are transferred in the proceeding to a party, then we’ll facilitate a transfer of the IP addresses to whoever has the computer systems because they have the systems that need that. But if some reason that doesn’t happen and everything is broken up and dissolved completely, the IP addresses are not transferable. They are reclaimed by ARIN.

MS. LEWIS: That clarifies it. Thank you.

MR. CURRAN: Go ahead, Leslie.

MS. NOBILE: A little add-on to that. During the course of a transfer when someone does come to ARIN to transfer resources because they’ve been bought or sold or whatever, there’s many times that there are IP addresses and the number is not in use and if they’re not in use, we ask for those back. If we recover IPv4 addresses during the course of the transfer if they’re not needed, and that’s one way to get resources back. We still have good net citizens that comment that I have this extra /24, extra /22, I don’t need it. We don’t use it. Take it back. There are several ways that Internet resources are coming back to ARIN presently, one via transfer, net citizens and bankruptcies. Just for clarification.

MR. CURRAN: Thanks.

MR. DAVIS: Just to follow up on your question. John alluded to what ARIN’s procedures are with regard to bankruptcy, in the U.S. courts. There’s two types; disillusion, and that’s when the company is dissolving and in those cases we will get those IP addresses back through the court and in conjunction with the process there. With regard to the protection, ARIN may or may not see those IP addresses. If the company recovers through bankruptcy and is able to become a profitable entity again, they have to pay their bills, once again, to ARIN, they will not lose those IP addresses. Sometimes the opposite takes affect which is ARIN does recover those IP addresses. I just want to make that distinction clear.

MR. CURRAN: Good to know. Microphones remain open. Open for questions. Yes, Leslie.

MS. NOBILE: We had some follow-up questions from yesterday. They’re not related to policy, but I did get data that people had asked me yesterday. There were two things that needed clarification that they asked me about this morning. One thing was IPv6 fee waivers and who pays in which region. I wanted to clarify in the LACNIC region there is a fee waiver for IPv6 addresses. Right now, they’re not charging fees for IPv6 addresses until a new Board resolution comes through, until that time, but there is no fee right now. In the ARIN region we had a fee waiver for IPv6 for several years. But starting in 2008, we started an incremental increase of the fee waiver. In 2008, people who had no- organizations who have just IPv6 addresses from ARIN, they started paying just 10% of the total fee. So if you got a /32 from ARIN and the fee is $2250, I think, you’re just paying $225 the first year. The next year, it’s going to be a 25% fee and the next year 50% until 2012, it goes effect of a full fee. So we actually have a fee waiver, but it’s incremental increase and LACNIC has no IPv6 right now. If you have IPv6 you don’t pay. If you have v4 subscription fees, you don’t pay for v6. You get v6 in addition. That was one part of it. Second part, I think Beverly asked about IPv4 allocations in the Caribbean region, how much space is issued here in the Caribbean region, and we went back and checked all the way back through the ’90s and there’s actually 4,785 /24s issued here in the Caribbean region in IPv4 space, so 4,785. Okay?

MR. CURRAN: Okay. Thank you. Microphones remain open, open microphone session. Any other questions or comments, thoughts for the organization?

Okay. I will turn it back over to Richard.

MR. JIMMERSON: Okay. What we’re going to do at this point is we’re going to take an extended lunch. The lunch was intended go from 12:30 to 1:30. We will go 12:00 to 1:30. Lunch will begin at 12:30 in the room next door to us and we will begin promptly again at 1:30 p.m. and of course, some updates and go into the other policy proposal discussions. 12:30, lunch will be ready and see you back at 1:30. See you after lunch.

AUDIENCE: APPLAUSE

Advisory Council Activities Reports

MR. JIMMERSON: Next up on the agenda we have the ARIN Advisory Council report. And the Chairman John Sweeting will give that report.

MR. SWEETING: Good afternoon everyone. I trust everyone had a good lunch and very happy to be back for the meeting. I’m John Sweeting. I am the current Chair of the Advisory Council. I’m very honored to be here representing the Council and going through what we’ve done over the, what they’ve done over the last year and what we’re going to be doing over the next year.

With us here for this meeting we have Bill Darte, Dan Alexander and Paul Andersen. And then the rest of the crew you can see up here on the picture. This picture was taken last month at our face-to-face and our workshop meeting held in beautiful Reston, Virginia.

Okay. So one of the main functions of the Advisory Council is the role we play in the Policy Development Process, which is a brand new process that’s recently been put into effect, and you’ve seen a few policies that have got caught up in the whole migration or transition from the old process to this new process.

A real quick summary of what the new Policy Development Process is that a proposal can come into ARIN from anywhere, anyone, at any time. ARIN will then take that proposal and send it off to the AC requesting that we assign shepherd for the proposal and at the same time they will go back to the proposer and ask for clarification questions on the actual proposal that they provide to the AC within 10 days, so we have a better idea what the actual proposal is trying to do.

Once that’s done, then we have I believe it’s 30 days to decide what to do with the proposal. We can either get rid of it or turn it into a draft policy and start working it.

Einar has already gone through that whole process. So I’m not going to hit every little part of it.

Once we accept it, if we accept it on the docket, we develop it. We get it evaluated again by the staff and legal and also have it posted to PPML for comments as in the old process.

Once that’s all done, we then - the one major change with this process is the AC actually takes ownership of the proposals and the process of turning them into policy, where in the past the ownership usually remains with the author.

So that’s basically the major change. And so some of the other things we continue to do is determine the community consensus on what to do with the proposal and the policy and then we recommend the draft policy if we support it to the Board of Trustees for adoption.

So that’s really about all I have to say about that. So some of the other functions that the Advisory Council participates in is we attend all the ARIN meetings, all the members that are available to attend, attend those meetings.

For other meetings, there’s one representative from the AC who represents the Advisory Council and the interests of the ARIN community. Last year there were four ARIN meetings attended.

Well, just clarification. So the four ARIN meetings, two of those were Caribbean sector meetings. So the full AC did not participate in those. There was only I believe it was three and the chair at that time.

But outside of that, there were two NANOG events and seven other Internet registry meetings attended and there were volunteers that supported Richard and his outreach, the ARIN outreach programs at several events during the year. Proposal activities; proposed seven and abandon two. What I understand there was a great deal of effort put into the transfer proposal last year. There was a lot of extra meetings, a lot of extra time and intensity put into developing a transfer policy. [Indiscernible].

So I guess all that hard work, adopted and tweaked so we have to review it. That’s the one we have to revisit. So it looks like all that hard work and effort paid off.

For the year ahead, 2009, currently we’re working on five proposals, four of them are in the ARIN region proposal and there’s one global proposal.

I believe that three have already been presented. We have two others left to be presented, the global proposal being one of those. Meetings that are currently scheduled, three ARIN meetings, we have San Antonio and Dearborn in the fall with NANOG.

Also we’ll continue to send AC representatives to each of the RIR and NANOG meetings. Right now, I believe we have 12 to 13 events lined up to send an AC Council member to support the outreach, the ARIN outreach program.

There’s a new program this year, I believe the ARIN Fellowship Program that is new this year. And basically the Advisory Council’s participation in that is we have one member that sits on the selection Board, and then we have three other members that will act as mentors for the three selectees that are lucky enough to receive the fellowship and attend the ARIN meetings.

That’s about all I have. So do we have any questions? If no questions, I will turn it back over to Richard.

AUDIENCE: Applause

SPEAKER: I’ve also asked Richard to take a minute and describe that fellowship program.

MR. JIMMERSON: Just to describe the ARIN fellowship program. We have a fellowship program that is going to sponsor a person from each of the sectors of the ARIN region to go to each one of the ARIN Public Policy Meetings. So for the next public policy meeting that we have in San Antonio, Texas, we will be taking applications for a member to come from the Caribbean and North Atlantic island sector to go to the meeting. We will sponsor their travel and their stay at that meeting to participate.

Also for one person from the United States and one person from Canada, to go to the meeting. We’ll be doing this for every meeting. And there is a selection committee to review the applications that do come across as part of this program and it involves members of the ARIN Board, ARIN Advisory Council and a member of the ARIN staff to take a look at those applications.

The deadline for applications as it happens, I believe is tomorrow. Go to the ARIN website. On the front page you can see that we have the program available. If you’re interested in applying, go ahead and fill that out and get something submitted. I do believe we have several applications already from the Caribbean for that sponsorship program.

I’d also like to add a couple of comments about the ARIN Advisory Council and the ARIN Board of Trustees. So you know that all of the ARIN Advisory Council and Board of Trustees members at the meeting they all go to the regular public policy meetings and we talk about all the things they do. John stated this, I wanted to reiterate this, the Advisory Council and the Board of Trustees are all volunteers. They volunteer their time. They do not get compensated for the work that they do on behalf of the community inside this process. And they do an awful lot of work.

We would love to have some volunteers from the Caribbean region, to be on the ARIN Advisory Council and to be on the ARIN Board of Trustees, to express some interest there. Let me talk about what that entails when you’re on the Advisory Council or on the Board. You heard about the work they do already. But if you are on the Advisory Council or on the Board of Trustees when you do go to these meetings, ARIN funds your travel to these meetings. So if you’re required to go to the ARIN meeting for support and outreach events, or travel to one of the other IRR meetings, or go to a NANOG meeting, we arrange for your air travel, we arrange your hotel at the place where you’re going to be staying, and we pay you a per diem rate to cover your meals and incidentals while you’re at those events.

If you are working strictly as a volunteer but we do allow you to recover your costs for travel to these events and work at these events. We actually set that up for you. So that is there. That is in place and it always has been. If there’s any interest at all on the Advisory Council or the ARIN Board of Trustees from the Caribbean, please have yourself nominated.

We have nominations in the second quarter of each year. We get those started. Second, third quarter of each year. We get those started. You’ll see an announcement on the website about a nominations process. You do not have to be a member of ARIN or pay ARIN any type of fees to be nominated as a candidate for the ARIN Board of Trustees or ARIN Advisory Council. You do however have to be nominated by an ARIN member. There are over 3,000 ARIN members. It is not difficult for you to find a member that would be willing to nominate you if you are interested. All you have to do is let folks know about it.

So if you are interested, please do have yourself nominated. Now, what the election process is like is once you’re nominated, we take your nomination information and we post it up to the ARIN website with a bio, your statement of interest in serving on that body, and you’ll have a page just like everyone else that is a nominee or that is a candidate for this office. And that will all be posted to the website. And ARIN membership will be looking at all of this information that’s available to them there. And you will also be invited to attend the ARIN meeting in the fall so you can give a short speech in front of the membership about your candidacy and have them vote for you. That, by the way, first time out is at your own expense to go to the meeting. If you can’t physically go to the meeting as a candidate we’ll submit your bio and a statement from you during the speeches and we will allow that to happen, absolutely. So that’s where it’s at. That’s where it goes, the information gets posted. The membership sees it. You give a speech or have a bio posted or statement of interest posted at the meeting. The membership goes away and they vote. Every member has a vote for the Advisory Council and for the ARIN Board of Trustees. If you’re able to persuade them that you’re a favorite candidate and they vote you in, you win the election. You’re identified, we confirm with you that you do want to serve, you get a three-year term. You would either be on the ARIN Advisory Council or Board of Trustees for three years. And ARIN will support your travel to our events and all of these things where we ask for your support for those three years. I wanted to let you know that was available. And ask you to please show your interest and become nominated if you have any interest at all in the process and being on those bodies. So with that I’m going to go ahead and get started with the next policy proposal. Next one on the docket is depleted IPv4 reserves. And Dan Alexander of the Advisory Council is going to present this proposal.

Policy Proposal 81: Depleted IPv4 reserves

MR. ALEXANDER: ARIN works like a lot of organizations in the room. When ARIN runs out of space they go to IANA to get more and they have the reserve that they hand out to all of us to work in our network.

When IANA no longer has any more IPs to handled out, ARIN will get into a situation where the reserves to hand out to the organization will run low eventually to the point where they have no free space to allocate.

The situation is going to present itself where, when you reach that bottom point, it’s a very large organization who has higher demands than smaller ones comes in and takes that last large chunk and depletes the reserves much faster than anybody anticipated, you run into that situation where it’s not so much a question of fairness, because it’s growing the Internet for a good thing, but there’s an element of predictability that’s missing from everybody making their plans to migrate to v6.

So that primarily, is one of the reasons why the proposal was written to kind of allow for an element of predictability that organizations can plan towards to allow for them to get possibly a small allocation of v4 addresses for a continued amount of time so that they can work with.

The text of the proposal is in the packet. And one of the things to point out is this changes the model in which IP space is allocated from the way things have been done in the past. IP space has been allocated based on justified need. This policy proposal in a sense switches to a rationing mode where, regardless of what you need, you can get a block of IPs for X amount of time and even if you need more you can’t come back for six months.

This is in a sense it’s a good thing for some, because if you’re getting - if you don’t need more than a /20 every six months, you’re going to be okay. And you’re going to continue to get allocation as long as the reserve pool holds out. If you need a larger need you’re going to run into a wall and really need to move to v6 faster than some.

But the primary intent is to, when we reach a certain point at that end state, to provide a measurable amount of time predictability before ARIN can no longer fill any requests.

So the gist of the proposal is when ARIN’s reserves drop below the equivalent of a /9 worth of IP space, any IP requests coming in, that organization would be allocated up to a /20 worth of IP space. And once they get that allocation they could not make an additional request for another six months.

So one of the questions I offer to the floor here is /20 a reasonable size? Is six months a reasonable window of time given a /9 of reserve space, and if anyone is for or against this proposal to begin with.

SPEAKER: Might also ask whether people think this is a rational approach, rather than just running it out.

MR. ALEXANDER: True. This is a rationing approach. And it comes with its advantages and disadvantages. So the floor’s open for comments. This would affect you all, whether you’re asking for a larger or smaller than a /20, this would limit the number of times you could come back for more address space. So this could have a direct impact. So what do you think? Any comments here?

SPEAKER: Just to make a quick comment a /20 is the equivalent of approximately 4,000 IP addresses. So one provider would not be able to receive more than 4,000 IP addresses in a six-month period, according to this proposal.

MR. HOLFORD: Good afternoon, Mark from AF networks. I’m not sure if /20 is too big or too small a size. I guess it would depend on the need of the particular organization. But I do think six months is a reasonable time to want for every six months.

And I also want to address something I read here where you said the policy would refer to the IANA, the pool of the IANA not covered by monetary means. I wanted to find out why it would only apply to the IANA pool and not those recovered through the incentives, the monetary incentives.

MR. BRADNER: That’s a good question. One of the things that’s certainly clear from reading these policies is they overlap. They interact in various ways. And that’s what you bring out is exactly one of those interactions; that the one policy talks about allocating separately out of any returned addresses versus the IANA’s current pool, which happens to include addresses that were returned once upon a time.

So that’s just a little confusing. And this one doesn’t make the differentiation. So it’s a very good question. Any comment on that? It seems to read when ARIN can’t get any more addresses and if pool goes below a /9, then, but it’s not clear that that’s what it means.

SPEAKER: Part of the reason that was put in there was kind of the limbo situation we’re in right now where we’re still sorting out this paid transfer situation. So it’s entirely possible that that could change if the v4 recovery fund was an example of a proposal where that space was being reclaimed should that be used to facilitate a policy like this, or does it need to be available for - I hate to use the word resale -, to recover costs, but that’s the main reason the two pools of address space were differentiated.

If that policy doesn’t pass and it doesn’t exist, then there would be no differentiation.

MR. BRADNER: One could also read this with a strict constructionalist point of view of exactly the words that are said here which is when ARIN’s reserve of unallocated space drop below a certain point - however ARIN is getting the space is irrelevant, if one were just to be a strict constructionalist here, it would be irrelevant to how ARIN is filling that pool but once the pool gets to a certain space, then this would take effect?

MR. ALEXANDER: Right.

MR. BRADNER: Any other discussions? This seems to be something that could affect you rather dramatically. So you might want to talk about it.

MR. WOODING: Bevil Wooding, CTU. Before we get to the /20 and six months, the process of rationing the resources seems to be the bigger issue at hand, could you go into some more about the advantages and disadvantages and some of the considerations that have gone into what seems to be a fundamental rethink of the way the resources are being allocated or will be allocated?

MR. BRADNER: Sure. So currently what happens - currently is you come and get what you need and can justify. The assumption has been in the past when ARIN and the IANA run out, then you stop getting assignments. So this is going into a very different regime, one where explicitly people are not getting what they can justify. So why is this better than running full tilt into the brick wall? It’s become very obvious the last couple of years that complete v6 uptake isn’t going to happen until we run into the depletion scenario. I know a lot of people would like v6 to work seamlessly and never run out of v4, but we all kind of remember high school. Nobody studies until the night before the test.

And when it all comes down to it, the primary factors that people are using and planning are financial and business. And I think everybody here typically gets that question from their business people, how long do I have before I have to deal with it? How long can I put it off?

This issue that this policy discusses is the one where when we do reach that end and ARIN has an equivalent nine left which could supply the majority of the member organizations for six to 12 months worth of requests, a large carrier who uses a lot more address space can come in with one request come in and deplete that and where the majority of the community is at that point stuck in a stuck situation, where they may have been hoping for another six months to finish their deployment, they’re now really under the gun.

So the switch to the rationing was more along the lines of at what point would this change affect the fewest numbers of the community and at the same time provide an amount of predictability for the largest, for the community as a whole. So that’s part of the motivation behind it. I don’t know if that really answered the question. Partially, because I can see a scenario where the few would be likely to be most significantly impacted by denials.

MR. BRADNER: So the lack of planning isn’t really anybody else’s problem but one issue here is it’s pushing the conflict of who should get addresses squarely into the ISP and if the ISP cannot get the addresses that it needs, then it has to decide with its own processes which one of its customers it’s going to screw. If it can’t get anymore, and it just runs out, that’s a short-term issue, but if it’s something where they get a dribble every six months, then it’s an ongoing, going to be an ongoing cancer. And some ISPs might find that to be an unfortunate circumstance to be in.

SPEAKER: The flip side of that is if somebody comes along and takes that last nine overnight, then they don’t even get a dribble. They’re left with nothing. There’s not anything necessarily wrong with that.

MR. BRADNER: Life isn’t fair.

SPEAKER: At a certain point we do have to get on with it. But if this policy, if the community as a whole knows we’ve reached this point and this policy is now in effect and it’s pretty much a given, we have X months where you can get a small chunk to accommodate any NAT or transitions or migrations that you might want, but after that you’re stuck, provides a certain element of predictability.

Instead of seeing a posting on ARIN’s web page saying “Guess what? We’re out”.

MR. BRADNER: I hope you’ve been following it a little closer than that.

MR. DARTE: Bill Darte, Advisory Council. One of the things about the proposal like this, it’s just one more signal to the community that things are changing. It’s not going to be business as usual in the end game of the IPv4 exhaustion. This puts a clear and pretty precise expectation on organizations, both big and small. They can look at this and say hmm, you know, I’ll be able to go a little longer if you’re a small organization who regularly requests less than /20. But if you’re a big organization, it says pretty clearly you might be able to get some, but you’re not going to be able to get all you need.

So you need to make your way to some alternative. And that happens sooner, because it’s a new policy implementation. Even if the policy hasn’t been implemented, it’s still a signal to the community that things are changing and they ought to pay attention to it.

So I think there’s a value to proposals like this. I’m not advocating this policy, but I think there’s a value in just keeping people aware that things are changing.

MR. BRADNER: More discussion?

MR. THOMPSON: Andre Thompson, University of West Indies. Similar to what Bill said. I agree. This is probably one of the best ways of telling your customers, hey, we are running out of stuff here and why - and they’re going to ask questions, why are we running out of stuff? Why is ARIN not giving me all that I need anymore? And it’s because we’re running out of these addresses and therefore we should go to IPv6. We have plenty of those.

And this, I think, is probably one of the best answers to going to IPv6, instead of you can get all you want or we have no more.

MR. BRADNER: So it’s a nondestructive shot across the bow?

MR. THOMPSON: Yes, this is a gentle way of saying we’re running out here, look for an alternative.

MR. BRADNER: And the big guys will be hurt more than the small guys, which the small guys don’t mind.

MR. THOMPSON: The only concern may be is this /20 a good number or /9, is that a good number to choose. I guess that’s the only thing. I guess we’ll know eventually. I have no idea.

MR. BRADNER: So just to channel John, would you support this proposal or not?

MR. THOMPSON: I support the proposal.

MR. BRADNER: Any other comments? Anybody else want to discuss this?

SPEAKER: (Off microphone)

MR. BRADNER: Would you like to address that?

MR. JIMMERSON: With Leslie’s help perhaps she can whip me into shape here. I haven’t said anything yet, don’t worry you haven’t missed anything. If you can track here with me Leslie and let me know if I’m saying anything that’s incorrect and help me.

But to help people understand the amounts of address space we allocate to organizations and different sizes of organizations to help you determine if a /20 is the right place to put this or not in your own mind, generally a smaller organization that’s able to meet the criteria at ARIN to come in the first time, they will get somewhere between a /22 and a /20. Is that correct? /22 and /20. Somewhere in there is what they’ll generally receive. A /20 is approximately 4,000 IP addresses. A medium sized organization that comes in regularly to get additional address space to continue growing their network, will generally get more than a /20, anywhere from a /19 down to /18 of address space. That /18 is four times more than a /20, for instance.

If a large provider comes in to get additional address space, they’re usually getting a /16 or more of address space. Each time they come in to get additional address space, anywhere from a period of three months to six months they’ll come and they’ll get a /16 more of address space. Extra large providers, our largest providers that come to the registry that are growing the largest networks, they may even receive more than that, a /14 or more, enormous amount of address space regularly.

So this would definitely hit, if something like this was put in place it would hit the larger providers first but leave the address space available for the smaller providers or first time providers coming in. But medium sized to larger size ARIN subscribers would get hit with this right away and they would not be getting as much address space as they need on a regular ongoing basis of IPv4.

SPEAKER: To add to your statistics, there was some numbers put in the rationale that Leslie had provided. In 2006 and 2007 of the 1993 organizations that requested IP space, 41 percent of them received allocations, only 20 are left. So around half of the organizations that request IP space, this policy actually wouldn’t impact them. It would impact about half of the community.

MR. JIMMERSON: It should be noted to go along with that, it is true that the majority of ARIN subscribers are small to medium sized providers. Our large and extra large subscribers make up the smallest percentage of our subscriber base.

MR. DARTE: Bill Darte. Just to put a final point on that, Leslie’s numbers suggest there were 2,000 requests, right?

SPEAKER: There are 2,000 organizations.

MR. DARTE: 2,000 organizational requests. There are 2,000 /20s in a /9. So that’s one year and going forward.

SPEAKER: This doesn’t - one thing to point out, like Bill just said. This doesn’t stretch things out for years this provides a good 12 months maybe of predictability, but it doesn’t delay the inevitable.

MR. BRADNER: Any other comments? Microphones are still open. Close them soon. Any last thoughts? Okay. We’ll call the question. Thank you very much.

AUDIENCE: Applause

MR. BRADNER: So we’re going to ask the requisite questions of who is supporting this proposal and who does not support this proposal. So when the counters are in position, we will give it a shot here. We’re counted in the right place. Let’s try this. Who supports this proposal? Raise your hands high. Keep them up high. Counting going on here. Are we counted? Okay, we are counted. Who does not support this? Who is against this proposal? That can be counted quickly. So let’s see, they’ll bring up the results here.

Quickly adding everything up. Here we come. There are 30 people in the room. Some of which sat on their hands. 12 in favor and zero against. This information will be provided to the Advisory Council for their consideration. Thank you very much.

SPEAKER: Mr. Chair, any chance we can get a clarification or recount on the number in the room because I’m counting much less than 31. That’s important when we try to figure out -

MR. BRADNER: I think that’s important. That’s why I asked for that number. Want to give it a shot, our counters. You can stand up and count. He’s claiming to count humans. And there are 30 humans in the room. And that includes Advisory Council members, they’re human.

Okay. So the Advisory Council needs to take that into account and the staff and et cetera when they’re dealing with this. So it sounds like - can you just do a quick non-staff, non-Advisory Council, non-Board count. We claim they’re all humans, but still…apparently this is a hard thing to figure out. 17. Okay. Thank you very much.

Policy Proposal 82: Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries (Global)

MR. JIMMERSON: Okay, we have our final policy proposal discussion that’s getting ready to take place. We’re going to have this policy proposal discussion. Then we’re going to have an open microphone session where we’re going to encourage an open dialogue about any topic that you’d like to discuss with ARIN that’s not been covered under these policy discussions already. Then we’re going to take a short break and we’re going to come back and we’re going to do a final presentation today that has to do with an ARIN Government Working Group. So let me get these slides teed up. The next policy proposal is a global policy proposal, Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registry, and this is going to be presented by Bill Darte of ARIN’s Advisory Council.

MR. DARTE: Back again. As Richard says, this is a global policy. Now, be sure to understand that a global policy is one that’s coordinated - excuse me - across all five regional Internet registries. A global policy would be uniformly constructed and adopted so that everybody would play by the same rules. All right. So a global policy, all five Regional Internet Registries would sign on to and adopt and then ICANN would institute that as a global policy. This particular proposal, the allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries would be a policy that is all about changing the existing policy, because such a policy already exists.

So this is, again, another end game sort of exhaustion of IPv4 environment change policy. It aims to provide orderly change to IANA from the existing policy to this new proposal.
It would create a means to recover previously allocated IPv4 addresses from Regional Internet Registries back to IANA and reallocate those addresses again back to the Regional Internet Registry. So the registries would by one means or another which we’ll discuss in a moment would recover addresses that were underutilized, returned, reclaimed for various reasons, and they would be put into a queue for reallocation for a subsequent time.

So this policy was introduced on 13 January 2009. It was accepted onto the ACs docket, working docket, 24 January 2009. It was revised on 30 January 2009 and your handout includes that revision. The status is that it’s underdevelopment by us, on the AC. The shepherds are Scott Leibrand and Marla Azinger of the Advisory Council. There’s another policy, it would be the same, of course by definition if it was a global policy, in the APNIC proposal space. The other three registries of LACNIC and RIPE have not put this on their docket yet. So that’s the status where it was. A brief summary again. RIRs would return all recovered IPv4 space to the IANA to form a new free pool. This would be a free pool of recovered or previously allocated space. When the IANA’s/8s are gone, then the IANA to RIR allocation policy would change. RIRs would apply for one tenth of the IANA free pool every six months.

MR. BRADNER: Maximum. They wouldn’t apply for that. The maximum they could apply for is that; not that they would apply for that.

MR. DARTE: That’s correct. So if you read the entire description in your handout, which I hope you have, it’s a little complicated. So I drew a picture. Pictures always help me. I hope this helps you. What I’ve tried to depict here is the existing situation, center, up at the top now, under policy ASO 001-2, IANA allocates to Regional Internet Registries /8 of allocation. Basically when RIRs, as Dan said, come to the IANA and say I need more. The need more is when there’s less than 50 percent of their previous allocation is available to them. So that’s when they can come back and request another allocation, from this free pool of unallocated addresses. Policy 2007-23, John Curran had in his report for this past year’s work, 2007-23 said, again, for this end state of IPv4, the last five /8 would be allocated to each, one each, to the five Regional Internet Registries.

So we’d be moseying along, doing fine, allocating /8s on request as needed until we get to the last five available, at which time all those allocations would need to cease. The last five would be sent out, one each to the Regional Internet Registry and the free pool of unallocated addresses at IANA would be exhausted. What this proposal says, over on the right, is that there’s two phases. The first phase begins upon ICANN ratification of the policy. So under the best sort of circumstances, if this policy were to rapidly go through all Regional Internet Registries, all be adopted verbatim and sent through the NRO to ICANN asking them to adopt this as a global policy, as soon as they ratified it, phase one would go into effect. And what phase one says in this policy proposal is that on a quarterly basis, by whatever means that Regional Internet Registries do locally, to recover IPv4 addresses. Now, recovery might be based upon - excuse me here, I’ll go to my notes. They might be reclaimed for one reason or another. There might be voluntary returns just because good net citizens do that. There might be legal action based on fraud or something else that would allow the regional Internet registry to recover some addresses. There might be something associated with abuse, et cetera. So anything recovered by Regional Internet Registry by policies that exist in that region would then be directed to this new free pool of recovered addresses, at IANA. Quarterly, by whatever means, the Regional Internet Registries would get blocks returned and they would send them back to IANA.

MR. BRADNER: To be clear, Bill, so the returning of addresses to the IANA would start as soon as the policy was ratified?

MR. DARTE: That’s correct.

MR. BRADNER: But the allocation out of that pool would not occur until after exhaustion?

MR. DARTE: Correct. So phase one begins as soon as the policy is ratified. And the free pool of recovered addresses begins to grow. We’re still operating under current circumstances, ASO 001/2. When policy 2007-23 ended up being implemented, then it would, by definition, exhaust all of that unallocated free pool. And the only thing that would be there now is the free pool of recovered addresses that had been recovered from the time that this policy was ratified until that exhaustion point, if that’s clear.

At that time, going forward, phase two of this policy kicked in. It begins, again, upon the exhaustion of the unallocated free pool. Allocation from then on is associated with an allocation unit described in here as 1/10th of whatever that recovery free pool is. However many addresses are in there, the allocation unit at that time would be 1/10th of what exists in that pool. Regional Internet Registries could come to IANA and request one in any six-month period, twice per year, a 1/10th allocation, the allocation unit. And if they qualified, and this is the same qualification as in under existing policy, if they had 50 percent or less than 50 percent of that 1/10th allocation unit, then they would qualify and would receive an allocation of that allocation unit.

So going forward still, however, this process would continue. So as Regional Internet Registries on a quarterly basis, okay, recovered addresses from their regions, according to their own policies, they would be sending these back up to IANA to be repopulating this free pool of recovered addresses. At each six-month period, twice, the period of recovery from the Regional Internet Registry, every six months, then, this pool and this allocation unit would be redefined. 1/10th of whatever happened to be in that qualifying pool. And those having less than 50 percent, I presume, then current allocation unit could request another allocation from IANA.

Points to consider are that this changes to a global schedule the allocations. After a six-month period. In other words, when you need it, you don’t go get it. You can’t go get it before a six-month period exhausts. It presumes that Regional Internet Registries will continue to recover, by whatever means in local policies they do that, and return those recoveries to IANA. It also suggests - it doesn’t suggest; it’s explicit that every RIR receives the same allocation regardless of their needs or of their recovery success. That means that in the five Regional Internet Registries, one might be five times as effective at recovering addresses and placing them back in the IANA free pool of recovered addresses to be allocated a 1/10th measure of that pool upon their next request, just like everyone else. So those are just points that I think are at issue here that show up. And I hope this has made this policy a little more clear. I’m certain you’ll tell me if otherwise. And I ask you to.

MR. BRADNER: Microphones are open. Seems to me that there are a number of things twisted up in this. That there is the fact that recovered addresses go back to the IANA rather than staying within the region, is one thing. The size of the pool very much like the last proposal, is a fixed sized pool independent of what your needs are, what the RIR’s needs are.

MR. DARTE: Fixed size allocation.

MR. BRADNER: Yes, of the pool.

MR. DARTE: But that will vary by the -

MR. BRADNER: And Leslie, do you know how much space is being recovered these days?

MS. NOBILE: Like recovered by us personally or by IANA? I don’t know what’s gone on with IANA but with ARIN, we’ve been recovering somewhere around a /12 worth of space each year, which we then hold onto and if it’s legacy we never reissue it. But if it’s not legacy we’re reissuing it. We’re getting quite a bit of space returned to us, and that was returns not revoked. I think we’re closing to a /12 and a /14 with recommendations of reclamation.

MR. BRADNER: You don’t reassign legacy space?

MS. NOBILE: We don’t assign it at the moment. There’s an agreement not to deal with legacy space at the moment. Not to reassign legacy.

MR. BRADNER: How much legacy space do you have that’s been recovered?

MS. NOBILE: I don’t have –

MR. BRADNER: Ballpark. Enough to worry about? Not enough to worry about?

MS. NOBILE: Not enough to worry about.

MR. BRADNER: That’s precise enough.

MR. DARTE: If there was a /12 recovered, let’s say, then on a quarterly basis there would be a /14, right, that would be returned to IANA for as long as recoveries continue before the exhaustion of the IANA free pool in which reallocations of that stuff came back out, because this is a separate pool as I read the proposal. This is not put back into the unallocated free pool, it’s put back into a separate pool which is the previously allocated pool, and that pool would not be tapped until the free pool of unallocated addresses were exhausted. And then this one tenth allocation every six months thing would happen.
By example, a /12 in a year’s time would go back into IANA, and 1/10th of whatever was in the pool would come back to ARIN on request.

MR. KOSTERS: So I was wondering if we have any idea what the status are for the RIRs on this recovery effort and whether or not they compare, they’re smaller, larger, whatever?

MR. BRADNER: Leslie, do you want to flail at that?

MS. NOBILE: We do talk about this on our list, and all of the RIRs are getting space back, particularly APNIC and RIPE. I don’t think it’s as much as we have. I don’t think they get as much back. But I do know that they have a reserve of space that’s suddenly returned. I can get the information but I don’t have it.

MR. JIMMERSON: Just a few comments. Didn’t the IANA receive back a /8 in the last two years for like 39 /8 something like that?

MR. BRADNER: IANA has received them historically. A number of years ago returned a /8.

MS. NOBILE: Level three is the one you’re talking about. It did go back to IANA. It was more of two years ago. It was a bookkeeping thing; it was updated and returned the year prior.

MR. JIMMERSON: And they properly reflected it on their list.

MR. BRADNER: They’ve received a number of them, some military contractors and the military returned some. But it was a number of years ago that the primary work was done.

MR. JIMMERSON: I don’t know if this is fully the case, but I think it’s important to note, and I’ve heard this from inside the regions -speaking to people inside the other regions, there might be quite a bit of notice and interest on the policy proposal in the other region, because it’s understood when you look at the access to legacy resources in the Internet Registry databases, the RIR that stands to reclaim the most address space when you only consider the legacy holding is ARIN, because the majority of the legacy registration of large size were made inside the ARIN religion, whatever was the ARIN region in the early days. There may be concern inside some of the other regions, if there’s some large scale reclamation that occurs, the region to gain the most from that is the ARIN region.
We have a larger pool of space to reclaim from.

MR. BRADNER: If we didn’t return it to the IANA.

MR. JIMMERSON: If we didn’t return it to the IANA, minus a policy like this.

MR. DARTE: There’s one nit that I don’t understand on this. I don’t know if the policy expresses it well. But there’s differentiation between terms in here. So as ARIN or the other Regional Internet Registries would recover addresses, it seems to me that they could use those addresses to meet their allocation needs until the quarterly return.

MR. BRADNER: I don’t think that’s the intent. The intent is it doesn’t stop here. It just migrates on to the IANA. That’s clearly the intent. Just a question of when you send the letter.

MR. JIMMERSON: Just one other note. If this global policy was to be adopted, it may conflict with other regional processes that have been passed. There’s one regional policy on the docket today, IPv4 Recovery Funds. That may be in direct conflict with this policy.

MR. BRADNER: I don’t think that’s a direct conflict. We pay money to give something to the IANA.

MR. JIMMERSON: Right. So it messes with the intent of our policy proposal.

MR. BRADNER: Perhaps, yes. That’s what I was referring to earlier. And it also might conflict with the expectations of government agencies who might be returning address space. They might expect it to be transferred out of region. Back microphone.

SPEAKER: I probably lost some attention span during the explanation of it but what length of time is the phase one taking place?

MR. DARTE: Phase one would take as long as it takes to run out of the unallocated free pool of IANA addresses.

SPEAKER: Now, in the previous policy, IPv4 Recovery Funds, you are recovering - you’re spending money to recover IP addresses to go back to IANA to give

MR. DARTE: If both of those proposals were to pass intact, that would be the case.

SPEAKER: So you guys are out of the goodness of your heart spending money to give back to IANA to give to the rest of the world.

MR. BRADNER: No, the proposals have not passed yet.

MR. DARTE: That would be out of the goodness of all of our hearts.

SPEAKER: All right. And so would this new proposal conflict with the depleted IPv4 proposal?

MR. BRADNER: Richard just pointed out that there are a number of conflicts and I pointed out earlier, there are a number of conflicts between these proposals and policies that exist that would have to be reconciled before something could be concretely passed. That’s for sure.

SPEAKER: I’m reading the rationale here, but I don’t know it sounds too red tapeish for me. Is that what are we trying to do here? Is that we’re just trying to just take all the excess stuff, put it up to IANA.

MR. BRADNER: Actually put it in the context, there’s a belief in the global community that the original allocation of v4 address space was uneven and what has been called a historical imbalance in the allocation of address space. This has been brought up as recently as last year in the ITU which specifically requested that any returned addresses would go back to the IANA and then be allocated on the global basis more fairly. Of course, as regional allocations were kind of silly because it was at a time when it didn’t look like we were going to have ever have more than 200 networks and so Class As went out to people who are likely to be one of those 200. A little later when things got tighter and we did other things other than Class A. People were getting address space that needed it. So those that didn’t have computers, didn’t have networks weren’t asking for it and so they weren’t getting it. So it was imbalanced. People who didn’t have the facilities at the time didn’t get the address space. At a time when we were being very profligate with address space. It wasn’t until FINER was adopted in node that we started doing a needs-based assignment rather than a come-and-ask-it process. So there’s a strong feeling for this historical imbalance. So there are people, mostly in the Far East but also other parts of the world who believe that it’s actually unfair that America, North America particularly, has got addresses so easy and it needs to be balanced out somehow. So that’s the genesis of a lot of pushing on this point.

SPEAKER: Well, in the interests of global equity, I support this proposal.

MR. BRADNER: Global equity is a nice thing to have, I suppose.

MR. ALEXANDER: Dan, ARIN AC. The thing I find interesting about this proposal is that it almost seems like other policies that have been being passed right now are in a sense defeating this, in a sense all the other RIRs including ARIN are looking towards this paid transfer model where, with this in place, the only recoveries that would really ever fund this pool are IP blocks that would be abandoned because no one is going to give up their space voluntarily because they would much rather sell it for a profit.

So the practicality of this proposal is diminished quite a bit by the other policies that we’ve had.

MR. BRADNER: That’s a very realistic observation. It’s certainly a factor. Any other comments. Microphones remain open. Any other comments?

MR. JIMMERSON: I’d like to ask a question, have we noted the process by which global policies are created up to the IANA, would it help to give an explanation of that?

MR. BRADNER: Bill mentioned that, but I’ll just say that each of the RIRs would have to pass an equivalent policy. It then passes up to the Address Advisory Council, whatever it’s called IANA function and then goes to the ICANN Board. The ICANN Board then evaluates and does a public evaluation process and approves it or doesn’t approve it. Doesn’t approve it, it kicks it back to the through the NRO to these bodies, to the individual RIRs for their review. But all of the global, each one of the five RIRs would have to pass the exact same policy in order for it to get to the front of the ICANN Board. So it’s not a fast process.

MR. SWEETING: John Sweeting with the AC. Scott, do we have any feel - I imagine it’s been submitted to every RIR.

MR. DARTE: No, just one at this point, in APNIC. Others haven’t taken it on, as far as we understand today.

MR. BRADNER: The historical trends on global policies are hard to follow since I think this one. We don’t have a long track record of this. It’s very, very easy for an RIR in their deliberations to tweak a few words. Something with as many words of this is guaranteed to be tweaked, and it would not ever coalesce. So something with this size is unlikely ever to become a global policy as it is, because it’s just going to get tweaked by every RIR and go back to each of the others and never get done.

MR. SWEETING: I remember, I think three years ago, when we did the global IPv6 policy and that was a pretty simple policy, and it took a long time.

MR. BRADNER: It took a long time and a lot of - I think I can do it better than you did kind of feeling. Any other comments? The microphones remain opened. They’re about to be closed. Going once, twice. I think that’s it. Thank you. I’m not sure why John started the process of getting up to do the vote. But I’ll do the vote. I’ll do a show of hands to provide input to the Advisory Council assuming all our team of counters is in place. How many think it should be adopted and how many believe it should not be adopted. So first how many think this proposal should be adopted? Put your hand up. Don’t take them down yet. You’ve got to admit to your preference. Keep them up until the count is done. The count is done. How many people do not support this proposal? There’s more than one there, two. All right. All right. Thank you. You can put your hand down now. Wait for the results to come in. Number of people in the room is still 30, number of humans. Five in favor and two against. This is less overwhelming than the last one. This will be passed on to the ARIN AC for their input to their discussion.

In general, as was pointed out earlier, this whole process, this public policy process is modeled after the IETF standards process, and one of the things that’s very important there is the IETF stands for rough consensus, that doesn’t mean perfection. That means not everybody has to agree to it for it to pass but you have to have a reasonable level of support. So the AC needs to take into account the level of support, not just the absolute ratio. So this is 5 to 2. If that were 500 to 200, that would be much more meaningful than 5 to 2. But the AC needs to take that into account as they do their consideration.

Open Microphone (Afternoon Session)

MR. BRADNER: We’re going to do a little bit of housekeeping here and then open microphones.

MR. JIMMERSON: So what we have on the schedule for the rest of the day is we’re going to do a little bit of open microphone now. Then we’ll go through a couple of announcements, have one final presentation today by Robert Flaim from the Department of Justice. We have a couple other people coming in that are not in here that want to attend that presentation. We’ll start that at 3:15. We’ll start the open microphone discussion. Just a quick bit about participation. If you talk about per capita participation at a meeting like this. Just look at it, just like that. I just did a quick search on populations on the Internet here. The estimated Caribbean population is 39 million people. The estimated ARIN region population of those Caribbean nations is nine million people because of course Cuba and Haiti and the Dominican Republic are not in the region. The population in the ARIN region portion of the Caribbean is approximately nine million people. Just did a quick count yesterday on the people that were participating in the meeting that were not ARIN staff, that were not ARIN Advisory Council or ARIN Board of Trustees, just in the quick count I did at the time there were 20 people in the room that were not part of, already part of the ARIN organization.

So the estimated population in the United States is 303 million people. A meeting in the United States would require 660 people or 660 attendees to match the Caribbean per capita participation at this meeting. Approximately 125 people participate in ARIN meetings in the United States when we hold them there that are not ARIN Board that are not ARIN staff that are not ARIN Advisory Council. The per capita participation in the Caribbean is much higher than it is in the United States. Just a quick little note.

AUDIENCE: Applause

MR. BRADNER: Congratulations to us all. Actually getting good turnout relative to population. We didn’t do it relative to unfair allocated IP. It would have been interesting. Open microphone, tell us what you think, bring up any topic you want to discuss about this meeting or future meetings. Let us know. The microphones are open. Anybody want to bring up any topics?

MR. BARROW: My name is Kimano Barrow from Belize I have a quick question. We’re trying to determine how it is that our country is not a part of ARIN, we’re a part of LACNIC but we don’t speak Spanish; they only hold a meeting once every year. I don’t think they have a newsletter that anybody actually reads. They don’t - the level of participation is quite lower than with ARIN. We’re part of the Caribbean community. So we are members of the CTU. So why was it determined that we should be a part of LACNIC and not a part of ARIN which covers the Caribbean? How was that decision made?

MR. BRADNER: The decision was made - first of all, it was all part of the ARIN region, once upon a time. And when LACNIC was formed, there was discussions held with the folks that were putting together LACNIC as to how to split up the environment. But in particular that a critical part of that discussion was what the support was of the ISPs in the area. That the requirements to start a new registry such as LACNIC was that you and is today that you have to demonstrate to ICANN that you have support of the community that you’re going to serve. And LACNIC was able to demonstrate they had the support of the Continental South American community. And the decision was made in those discussions as to how to break things up. It was a bit capricious if you have Trinidad Tobago, what’s the real difference between that and here? I don’t know. I wasn’t a fly on that wall. But I know that it was long and detailed discussions at the time. And this was the conclusion that was reached.

It’s up in the air as to how that could be changed. I don’t think it’s easy to do. Because at this point the geographic regions are something that’s been defined within ICANN. So ICANN approved these particular geographic regions. But, please, speak up.

MR. BARROW: But at that point, in terms of a pool of ISPs in Belize at the time the decision was made there was only one ISP. That’s not a real good indicator of - I know that they didn’t speak to any of the Universities in Belize, for example. And we are part of the UWI facility. So if UWI, which is in the whole Caribbean, but Belize is in LACNIC, Trinidad Tobago is in LACNIC. Guyana.

MR. BRADNER: I’m here to report.

MR. BARROW: You said it would be difficult?

MR. BRADNER: I believe it would be because the geographic region has been adopted, the geographic region of LACNIC and ARIN has been adopted by ICANN, and it would have to be a vote of the ICANN Board to change that geographic region. The world isn’t impossible but it’s not necessarily easy. But I appreciate the implication of your question. As an ARIN Board member I appreciate that tremendously. Thank you.

MR. THOMPSON: Andrew Thompson, University of West Indies, like my Belize brother I share the same sentiment. I brought this up in the Caribbean sector meeting in Jamaica last year and I’ll also bring it up again. I think I’m participating more in ARIN than I’ve done in LACNIC, and I believe that our country should really fall under ARIN for the same reasons, English speaking, participation, et cetera.

MR. BRADNER: I think this is something that’s going to, a discussion which will continue. I don’t have any particular easy way to resolve it. It has always been, as I say a key criterion is the feelings of the community as to where the service should come from. If the community within a particular area believes that this should change, then that community can certainly initiate the discussions necessary to do that.

But it’s not necessarily going to be a terribly easy thing. Because it would have to go to the ICANN Board, and at that point ICANN is not a purely technical body. I think that’s a polite way to put it. It’s an entirely political body. And decisions are made there not by necessarily by what is geographically correct in terms of where the wires run or the fibers run or anything other than what is seen by the ICANN Board, with an input from their various constituencies, such as the government Advisory groups, as the right thing to do. And it could be easily that the right thing to do in their mind is to move all of the Caribbean to LACNIC. That’s been proposed. And so the discussion is not an easy one, and it’s done in an environment which is not technical. So I don’t have any words of positive feeling here. I’m sorry.

Anybody have a more upbeat comment they want to make? Anything else? Do you have any comments? You like the meeting so far? You would like to see changes next time? Want us to do something in a different way? Want to support what we’ve done? Your input, as Richard’s pointed out, per capita is far better than the rest of our regions in terms of participation in this process, and the meeting in Jamaica, of the people in the room here also, the people in the room, the non-staff, the non-Board member, the non-AC people in the room a far greater percentage of you are participating in expressing your opinion on proposals than happens in the meetings in the U.S. and Canada. And that’s very good. I like to see that kind of participation. We will have five to two votes with 100 people in the room in some places in the U.S. So five to two vote here where there’s 17, 18 people that don’t come with the territory, with the meeting, is very, very good and I appreciate that tremendously.

SPEAKER: Can the person who chose Barbados and the Barbados Hilton, you rock. Thank you. I enjoyed it a lot here.

AUDIENCE: Applause

MR. JIMMERSON: Actually the person that’s most responsible for that choice is Dé, and this is like the one minute that she wasn’t in the room to hear your comment there. So I’ll make sure I repeat that to her when I see her again, verbatim.

MR. BRADNER: That’s very good. Thank you very much. Anything else? Any other comments? Any suggestions for next time locale-wise, back microphone.

MR. DARTE: I just want to tag onto your comments about the participation here. I know that my colleagues on the Advisory Council and I all really, really appreciate your input. You’re part of this region and we want your voice to be heard and you do that mostly through your participation and being here at this meeting and voting your preferences by raising your hand is an important part. But don’t forget that there’s the public policy mailing list, we monitor that public policy mailing list we’d like to see you engaged in that sharing your perspective as well, because that counts just as much as does these meetings.

MR. BRADNER: Thank you, Bill. Any other comments?

MS. LEWIS: Bernadette Lewis from the CTU. I’d just like to register my appreciation for the opportunity to work with ARIN, that you’ve considered the Caribbean in such a way that you actually started having your policy meetings here. I think that’s very important. And I’m very pleased to see partnership the CTU enjoys with ARIN. I think it’s working extremely well. And I’m looking forward to really mobilizing the stakeholders in the Caribbean and getting things going as far as some of the issues that have been raised. And I just want to say thank you on behalf of all of us.

MR. BRADNER: And thank you. And on that very positive note, I think I’ll call the open mic session to an end.

NOTE: Transcription was not available for the ARIN Government Working Group session.

Closing

MR. JIMMERSON: Thank you. Now we’re going to move into some closing remarks here. One of the things I wanted to do in our close is just let you know if you have any questions after leaving the room today, after the meeting is closed, we are still available to you. You can contact us at any time. We’ll be happy to answer any questions you have. If you have a registration services-related question, you can send e-mails to [email protected]. Or call them on the telephone, this telephone line is open Monday through Friday in the U.S. and there’s an Analyst there that would be glad to answer questions you have about the registration process. If you have any member services-related or outreach-related requests you may have or general request for information you can send e-mails at [email protected]. If you have an event you’d like us to attend or support or if you’d like to collaborate with ARIN on some effort, you can go here and we’d be glad to talk to you about that.

Also, the meeting survey. Please go to this URL if you have a computer now please do that. If you don’t have one with you right now write this URL down so you can do it later. Fill out the survey. If you complete the survey you’re entered into a raffle to win accommodation and airfare for the ARIN meeting 26-29 April 2009. So the next Public Policy Meeting, if you’re in this room, you fill out this survey and you’re not ARIN Advisory Council member or not a Board of Trustees member or not an ARIN staff member, you have a chance of getting a trip to the ARIN public policy meeting. So chances are pretty high that you can win this. So please go out and fill out the survey we’ll take the raffle entries and we’ll take the winner and we’ll notify you if you have won a trip to the ARIN meeting in San Antonio. With that I’d like to thank you. I’d like to open up the floor for a few comments. If there are more.

MR. DAVIS: Nate Davis chief operating officer, the two slides that Richard presented I found myself having yesterday gone through this pretty quickly, and wanted to let everybody know that the information on Registration Services hours and contact information as well as the San Antonio meeting and the Member Services Help Desk information, that’s all available on ARIN’s website at www.ARIN.net you didn’t get a chance to copy it down or can’t remember like I can’t. Go to the website and you’ll be able to find all the content presented.

MR. JIMMERSON: Thanks, Nate. Any other comments from the microphone before we close the meeting? With that, I would like to thank you all very much for a very successful event. Your feedback is very important and very appreciated, and we hope to see you again very soon. Give yourselves a round of applause. Thank you very much.

AUDIENCE: Applause

Sponsor