Archives
NRO/RIR reports
Friday, 15th of May, 2015, at 9 a.m.:
NICK HYRKA: Good morning, everyone. It's a nice little collection of people this morning, I am the communications manager at the RIPE NCC, this is the early bird special, day five, RIPE 70, Amsterdam. And welcome you all.
This is the NRO/RIR session. Before I start, I want to give a quick shout out to my support team here and at the base down on ‑‑ you guys have been great, and I also want to send a shout out to the participants here, if you weren't for you, this event wouldn't have been as special as it has been, so we are very thankful. I want to tip the hat to our stenographers and to Lynn for allowing us Rob again for this meeting.
So without further ado, we have first up, from AfriNIC, from quite a long way, Arthur ‑‑ Arthur he is the head of member services.
ARTHUR NGUESSAN: I am from AfriNIC. This morning, I am going to give you an update of AfriNIC activities.
As all of you may know, AfriNIC has been accredited in 2005 as the fifth RIR. This year we are celebrating our ten years anniversary, and AfriNIC has currently 36 full‑time dedicated staff from Africa, Europe and USA. We have of more than 1200 organisations and recently, AfriNIC appointed a new CEO, Alan Barrett, to replace Adele. In terms of training last year, we contacted eleven IPv6 in training across nine countries in Africa, and this year we plan 17 training.
Regarding the IPv4 and IPv6 address issuance, since 2005, AfriNIC has issued more than 75 million of IP ‑‑ IPv4 addresses, and for the first four month of this year, we distribute more than 3 million of IPv4. And our IPv4 pool address contain 2 .71 /8. In terms offist issue arranges more than 1,000 has been issued since AfriNIC beginning.
We have, 36% of our members that received IPv6 prefix and we are happy to know that 91% of countries has received at least one IPv6 prefix.
Recently, created two departments, one for research and innovation managed by IANA; the Second Defendant created is capacity building and community development. And this year, strategies focusing more on the members so we created a new unit, customer services unit, separate from registration service. And that unit is managed by /RA*D da.
Concerning the global infrastructures, we are still working on our RPKI services, and so far, more than 20 ccTLDs are using our service DNS Anycast. And concerning the DNSSEC, we sign all our zones and we are providing that service to our members. And recently, DAR he is Salam /A*B damage and /K*EUGly, has now deployed their route server copy.
Concerning the project/initiatives, we revamp our Whois, based now on the RIPE Java code. We revamp as well myAfriNIC, that is now integrated with the billing platform. We release recently our new member registration portal that will facilitate on line registration. We also release our Internet routing onlyistry now open to our members and we are assisting our members to migrate from RIPE IRR, we are corroborating as well with RIPE NCC on the RIPE Atlas project by deploying probes and shows within AfriNIC region.
In terms of policy update, we have four policies under discussion, out of region use, of AfriNIC Internet number resources. Resource reservation for Internet Exchange points and after forensic service /TKPAOEUDly and Anycast resource assignments in the AfriNIC region.
We have also some election ahead. Two that will take place in June; election of AfriNIC board of director, two seats, and one for the policy development Working Group of co‑chair and the last selection will take place end of this year ‑‑ this year, in November, for one AfriNIC representative at NRO‑NC.
Concerning the global and regional engagement, we are still involved with our cooperation within NRO. We are still working with ITU, supporting them in regional event, the world society for ‑‑ Internet society preparation. We are as well supporting IGF meeting. In terms of capacity building and community engagement, we are conducting training for governments, policy makers and managers and we have Africa union concerning different projects such as access.
Before ending my presentation, I would like to invite you to our next meeting that will take place in Tunis, Africa Internet submit from 24th of May to 5th of June and during that meeting we will celebrate our ten years anniversary and this is is an opportunity to invite you all to come to Africa to celebrate that event and we want to make it memorable for all of us, and many of you since the creation of AfriNIC, come and so we can sell rate everything you have done for us. Thank you very much and merci beaucoup.
(Applause)
NICK HYRKA: So no questions? Good. Thank you. And congratulations to AfriNIC.
Next up we have got Paul Wilson who isAPNIC director general, also coming a far place.
PAUL WILSON: Good morning, I am Paul from APNIC. Like Nick, I will give a shout out to all the participants here at this early hour; without you here, I wouldn't need to be here, either.
So that's nice.
I am here to give an update from APNIC. Starting with APNIC's vision statement which is of a global open stable and secure Internet that serves the entire Asia Pacific region. We split our reporting these days into these three areas, serving our members, supporting Internet development in the region and collaborating more broadly in the work that we do.
So, under serving our members, there is a few charts here, fairly unremarkable, generally. The IPv6 delegations are going steadily, as you see year by year we are trying to spice it up a bit with a few more interesting graphs here, showing, for instance, the size of the delegations that we are making, how many are allocations and how many are assignments, and we have got something called the one click process for allocating IPv6 and we allocate about a quarter of our allocations through that mechanism.
Moving on to IPv4, it's a little different because we have run out of IPv4 address space as of quite a few years ago and so we are making two types of delegations of IPv4 space; one is the rationed allocations from the last /8 of anything between a /24 and 22 and we are also running a second pool of addresses under the same policy that allows a second allocation like that from returned IANA space. So for some reason, we had a huge burst of that activity mid‑last year, we got up to 800 allocations in the month of August last year. Which was, somehow, a result of some very effective publicity, I guess, that we did at the time, but it settled back down a few 100 of those allocations per month, and again, there is a few pie charts here which show the break‑up of those things.
IPv4 transfers, they are not very active in the APNIC region, I think RIPE NCC is doing a few 100 of these a month; we are doing something like a dozen or so. We are doing intra‑RIR transfers so half, three‑quarters of our IPv4 transfers are coming from the ARIN region. We have got a pre‑approval process, so if you want to receive a transfer at APNIC you go through a request process, just like the old allocation request process and if you get approved then you go on to a pre‑approval list, and so most of our transfers go in that mode. And we also have a listing service so if you want to have your pre‑approval listed so that other people can see that you are able to receive it, a transfer, then you can do that as well.
ASN assignments are also fairly study and always quite slow in our region. 50 a month or so. But the vast majority these days are 4 byte ASNs and we get very few of those returned back to us; had he generally end up in the routing table, which is a very nice thing to see, of course.
Our membership has been accelerating in the last couple of years because of the fact that downstream or enterprises can't get addresses from their up‑streams any more so they join APNIC directly for those last /8 blocks. I can show you also that in APNIC's NIRs, the national registries, we have had a big acceleration in growth there as well for the same reason, but if you add those two charts together you get our total not membership but the total number of organisations served by APNIC, which is up to about close to 8,000, these days.
All right. A few other service announcements here. The Whois service has been distributed across four servers, as of this year. So we have got Whois service in Brisbane, Tokyo, London and California. And that is for the sake of distributing the request load and you can see how effective that is in terms of re/S*EUGS sort of attacks that we have had (resisting) and I guess RIPE NCC does as well; we are able to sync any attack traffic in the ‑‑ at the server where it's closest, and so you can see that fairly effectively here and here. We have got up to about 6,000 queries a second in one of these attacks and that all got sunk into one of the servers, the US server, rather than coming back to the master in ‑‑ at APNIC.
We are doing some work on the systems architecture, so we are in the process now of redesigning our basic systems architecture based on a message bus, trendy message bus kind of platform and so that is something that is underway and will be going on for the next year or so.
Supporting infrastructure, we have also recently managed to virtualise all of the servers that we have been running, it's more than 175 different distinct machines, all being configured with puppet for kind of centralised update and so on. Along those lines, too, we have got a disaster recovery programme which is being audited and exercised on a regular basis so we are doing scenario test to go make sure that our infrastructure is able to keep going under different disaster scenarios.
And sort of on the same lines, the general accountability and transparency of the organisation is something that we are focusing on a fair bit these days. That comes partly from the time that is we are in the fact that organisations like ICANN and the other RIRs are being asked to demonstrate our accountability, our transparency, the sort of ‑‑ the systems by which our organisations are being run in an appropriate way, so we have got that stuff well‑documented and also, with the other RIRs across the accountability matrix which compares all of us together. A few other things to do with ISO 9001 which we passed a couple of years ago and we have having a regular annual audit of that as well.
Also on the transparency sort of topic, we have rejigged our budgeting and planning so it's now activity‑based and so what you see here is that across those three areas of serving members and supporting the regional development, global collaboration, we can show how the budget for the coming year is being allocated, within each of those categories also a number of subcategories as well, and the bottom line there is the corporate support or the administrative overheads which go into the organisation.
OK. Moving on to supporting development in the region, we put our policy development process into that area, this is our chart of policy development, where we have put some work into the consensus process that is sort of behind the whole system. The sort of ‑‑ number of minor policy developments over the last ‑‑ policy implementations over the last few months, including the distribution of the returned IANA space as additional allocations to members who have already received the last /8 block. On the consensus measurement we have got this nifty consensus tool called confer, which is a realtime kind of monitor of how the room feels about a particular discussion so people in the room and remotely can tell us whether they strongly oppose or support or how they feel about a particular process a particular proposal, sorry. So, that is ‑‑ that is something which is nicer to see in realtime because it moves around as the discussion goes on.
A lot of different events around our region, we are having like RIPE NCC, we are holding regional meetings as well as the major conferences twice a year, so we are moving the regional events around the year with things like training and APNIC help desk and so on. We are continuing training as well in a pretty active way. We count 2,300 people trained, this is last year, trained in face‑to‑face trainings, that is. We have managed to hold 76 courses last year in 29 different locations. We have got a video archive of 63 videos and I don't know where the views are all coming from but they were viewed 178,000 times last year, so someone is enjoying APNIC on line training, which is really nice to see.
The NOGs, the network operators group of the region, we are paying more and more attention to them because in fact, we have a new spate of NOGs being established on a national basis around the region, so we attend the NOGs, we support where we can, we again, it's training, it's outreach and Hostmaster and member services that we provide there.
IPv6, again, this is a sort of a view of the number of different IPv6 events that have been going on, again a lot of training there, but there is also outreach, work with ITU, different governments and the Asia Pacific IPv6 task force which we host as well.
Security is a new thing, relatively new at APNIC in that we have had increasing demand for support for security outreach, training liaison and so forth so re‑hired adly last year who has come from cert community and he is very busy with outreach, to the C certs and LEAs and so forth. He sits on the first board as well, so he is ‑‑ he is really sort of trying to fulfil the need that we have in the region. That is an area that is going to keep growing, I'm sure.
And here is our RPKI campaign. We are all getting ready to ROA, that is the idea of promoting our members, both certifying their resources and registering their ROAs in the RPKI.
Finally, collaborating: There is a lot of corporation that goes on across the RIRs, across the ICANN system, of course, this covers the WSIS and other inter‑governmental and more global outreach that goes on. And if you put all of those maps together you get a pretty busy time for the APNIC crew in the last year or so across a lot of different types of activities.
Last year, we established a new blog, it's kind of the centre point of our website, these days, Tony Smith, the communications director as of a year or so ago, has implemented this strategy and it's really going well, we have got guest posts and staff blogers putting stuff up, so if you haven't seen that, have a look at that. It's going pretty well and it's going to continue this year, of course.
We are also after guest posts so anything who has got an article that you'd' be prepared to let us publish on your behalf we would be very happy. Generally improving communications is something that we have had to put some focus on last year, I think as APNIC's activities and our focus sort of diversifies, we have been doing a lot of work, for instance, in Internet governance and that needs to be communicated fairly carefully around our region to make sure that members actually understand, so we have put a lot more effort into comes with providing reports from all of the events that we go to, that we attend or participate in on a regular basis. And all of that sort of stuff.
So, finally, you are invited to the next APNIC which is in Jakarta in September, so please come along. That is our 40th meeting and it will be ‑‑ you are all welcome. That is what I would like to say. So thank you very much. Any questions, I am happy to answer, Nick is winding me up, so maybe best not.
NICK HYRKA: Any questions for Paul? Thank you, Paul.
(Applause)
Next up, we have got Aaron Hughes to give the ARIN update, Aaron is from the ARIN board of trustees.
AARON HUGHES: Good morning. I am from the ARIN board of trustees. And this is the ARIN RIR report. So the 2015 focus has not changed much, we are still increased focus on customer service, primarily based on survey had a we did last year and collected data from the community, refocused the support efforts of the ARIN operations. We are continuing on v4, v6 transition awareness, lots of outreach, slightly shifted the focus but it's primarily still targeted on ISPs and content providers.
There is ‑‑ and there has been some marketing there on PR and their websites to get them v6 enabled, it's all about the get 6 campaign.
There is continued participation in Internet governance. This is all about maintaining community based multi take holder community development model. We are participating in planning discussions for the transition of the stewardship of IANA to encourage responsible oversight of critical Internet resources and continue development and integration of web‑based functionality. This is really been a lot of feature development, there was a heavy request from the community to get the backlog of development lists executed within the ARIN community and we have really accelerated that.
So not so surprising trend, there are many new customers making use of /24 minimum policy so a lot of first time people coming directly to ARIN for requests, and we have actually validate that had a few ISPs are sending people to ARIN directly. And of course, there are more transfers.
Operational improvements. As I said we are increasing work based on results from customer satisfaction survey. And lots of work on the website to try and make transfers really simple.
The current IPv4 inventory, actually as of this morning this is.19 of a /8 left, we are down to a single/11, 13, 14 and 16, and the rest is ‑‑ are /21s or smaller. So the pool is going very fast, and it's been kind of an interesting discussion within the ARIN community, say when are we actually out, I would say we are already out, right, it's a question of the first time you start to say no versus you are saying no every time, I don't know. It's never going to quite to 0 but we are pretty close to that point where it's an all transfer market.
The quarantine time has updated to 60 days, so we are getting rather crufty in that return pool and going back out to the free pool, so that is something to be aware of.
And of course, everybody sees this trend, our members that have both v4 and v6 are getting closer to the same, and certainly we expect to see that number start to move above or equal for v4.
RPKI usage, this is growing, actually, it seems to be increasing in pace, so this is lovely, lots of increased RPKI and ROAs. And we even have one up down delegated, I am not sure it's actually in use but somebody registered for one. And of course there is lots of v4 transfers. We have seen transfers to specified recipients, 232 prefixes ranging from a /24 all the way up to /12, 19 ASNs and the transactions are often arranged through v4 brokers. Inter‑RIR transfers, currently at 157 prefixes from a /24 all the way up to/13 and these are all from ARIN to APNIC, thus far.
Policy proposals, in discussion on the ARIN region. Nothing surprising in there right now. There were a few there were abandoned that had a great deal of discussion, including out of region use, as we had in this region a couple of days ago, always an interesting topic. And of course, you can participate in the ARIN policy meetings remotely or in person, we have our next meeting coming up at the policy consultation in NANOG 64 in June, and we have our ARIN 36 meeting in Montreal in October, 8 and 9, following NANOG as well. And that is for the ARIN update. Are there any questions? All right.
NICK HYRKA: No questions. Thank you, Aaron.
(Applause)
And let's go to another continent, from LACNIC, we have got Gianina Pensky. Welcome.
GIANINA PENSKY: Hi, I am from LACNIC and I am going to update the report.
Well, LACNIC is one of the five world's RIRs. We have coverage area of 33 territories. We have two NIRs also Co. founders of LACNIC. One is in Brazil and the other one is in Mexico. We have over 4,500 members and we have 41 full staff from nine countries and we have our new CEO who is Oscar, since February. Here, we can see our membership growth, we are now 4,530 members, most of them are category small micro ISP and we can see our growth since 2002 that is when we started, and now. Here we are.
About the IPv4 exhaustion, we have two/11 blocks that are reserved, someone for soft landing and the other one is for new members only and we have ‑‑ for both blocks our maximum allocation are /22 and our minimum is /24. And resources allocated by IANA to LACNIC will only be allocated or assigned, in this case, under the guidelines set forth on new members only, which we have three phases, that I will explain in the next slide.
We are currently in Phase Two in which organisations may request additional resources every six months. This process will be implemented until the/11 reserved for gradual exhaustion is finally exhausted. There is the link where you can see more detail about this process. And there is the numbers that are on our website that update every day about the IPv4 free addresses.
Well, this is the current state of the/11 block that is reserved for this Phase Two. We have, now, 45% of IPv4 addresses available, and there were assigned 3% to a end users and 52% to Internet providers.
Here, we measure a modelling exhaustion based on our data, and we estimate that our IP availables will be exhausted on February 2016. And here, you can see the IPv4 and IPv6 allocations per month in the last two months. You can see, here, that the quantity of IPv4 and IPv6 allocation have similar behaviour. This is because in our ‑‑ in the phase we are now, LACNIC demands that when you request to ‑‑ for IPv4 members, must also request for IPv6. This is the explanation for the similar behaviour.
Here, you can see also the IPv4 rate. You can appreciate this high decrease, in June 2014, this is the date when we changed phases.
About our policies, we have now ‑‑ we have recently implemented the 20142, that it's modifications to the next text describe AS number requirements and we have (ASN) in the discussion three proposals, one of them is an update to the policy development process and two of them are about transfers. The last one is the Inter‑RIR transfers that is going to be ‑‑ the three of them are going to be discussed in our next meeting, that is next week.
About RPKI, we it has been increasing, this is the graphic of the IPv4 /24s. We have per country. And also, in the IPv6. And this is the ‑‑ we can see here in the usage, the RPKI ‑‑ the RPKI adoption rate, that has been very well.
And well, we have been doing some workshops, one of them in /TREUPB dad and to be /AEUG go, it was in March. Another one that was in Costa Rica, also March, and we have started the first IPv6 basic workshop on our campus, on line.
As I said before, our next meeting is in Liam ma, Peru, next week, you are all invited to come. And thank you. If you have any questions, I will be happy to answer.
NICK HYRKA: Any questions for Gianina Pensky? . Thank you.
(Applause)
We will change the channel a little bit and go to the NRO, we are examining to get an update from the NRO EC and we have got Axel Pawlik from the RIPE NCC, he is our managing director but also this Chair's of the NRO EC.
AXEL PAWLIK: Good morning. Now, the RIRs pride themselves of being neutral and impartial and treating all their members the same and the community as well. On this Friday morning when I am standing here, I have to confess that you people here in the room, on the Friday morning, have a special place in my heart.
(Applause)
So, I promise to make this short. The NRO update, probably you have seen this already. The NRO is number resource organisation, it is basically just the RIRs acting together, research together, many months ago (we sat) and said you need a vision statement, so basically what we have on the slide here, this is it, to be the flagship and global leader for collaborative as a central element in open and stable secure Internet, without stumbling and stuttering, very good.
So, what we do, what is the NRO, what are we doing, basically, these days. Like I said, it's the RIRs together, we have an MoU that we signed many years ago that says, we are not incorporated, we want to work together, we have EC, several coordination groups and the like so it's very lightweight.
Mission: Coordinated Internet number registry system, promote and protect the multi‑stakeholder model, bottom up policy development, coordinate support joint activities, and be focal point for ‑‑ to fulfil the role of the ICANN address supporting organisation. ASO.
Global collaboration and governance coordination, we do talk to our peers in this technical Internet world. We monitor and contribute to global Internet governance discussions and talk about that in a moment. We have an executive committee, this year I am the Chair, Oscar is session John as treasurer, Paul and Alan are on holidays in a way. That rotates the next year, and on we go. We have a small secretariat, basically run by Jerman Valdez, coordination groups for publications and public affairs and engineering and for the registration services people. Again, just sitting together thinking of what is going on in the region and what we can do, engineering of doing things together instead of five different times.
Finances, basically the expenses, we share some travel cost for the ASO address council and executive secretary, obviously. Communications, the travel for the coordination groups, some outreach. The contribution for the Internet governance forum. Contribution to ICANN, again it's 823,000 per year for the last 16 years, I think. And a little bit of staff costs there. Budget is generally shared among the RIRs on ‑‑ formerly derived from the registration services activities, so some of us do other things as well but we don't take that into account.
The Internet number status report, you will see that, we update that quarterly and present, it's important that we do this. We also have an overview that compares the policies within the regions with each other so again it's something that you can go to and other parties can go to and have a look and get a sort of one look impression of what is done in the RIRs and in which way.
Accountability, we have been working very hard for the last year or so on governance matrix, basically saying again comparing what the RIRs do in terms of corporate governance, make it very clear how things are run, the associations, how the policies are being made and things like that. It's quite important these days that we do this because of the IANA stewardship transition you have heard about that, there is quite a bit of focus on ICANN accountability and of course also the paths of ICANN, also the partners of ICANN, so the RIRs is under scrutiny there as well.
I won't talk about much IANA stewardship lest you don't want to hear about this anymore. It's important that we do this, we are positive that there will be a good outcome, we are looking forward to that, I think Athina will report on the cc W in a moment so I will spare you that for now.
Speaking about accountability, there is provision within ICANN to have all the ICANN cogs and bits and gears reviewed every so many years, we have done that for the ASO as well, quite some time ago there were a couple of recommendations out there, we have implemented them, most of them, and generally it's looking quite good.
Also, two years ago I think we came together and said very, very loudly and clearly that the focus for Internet governance work for the RIRs is the Internet governance forum. It is a great thing, it works, it's now through its second year, we have the 10th IGF in Brazil later this year and there will be decisions later on this year in the UN about the future of the IGF and how should it continue, should it be changed or continue at all. We are putting quite some effort into this forum because we believe in it, it is a good place to go and to talk about things.
And with that, you are relieved from me for this week and I will see you at the next meetings. And have a lovely Friday. Any questions, by the way?
NICK HYRKA: Any questions? No questions. Thank you, Axel.
(Applause)
And we need some numbers now from the NRO, and to give the statistics report is Ingrid Wijte from the RIPE NCC registration services. She is the assist manager.
INGRID WIJTE: Good morning. I will present this report from the ‑‑ we prepare this quarterly altogether, and make a comparison of what is happening in a different ‑‑ in the different regions. So the total IPv4 address space, as you can see IANA has no /8 left. They distributed address space that was returned to them on a regular basis to the different RIRs. 35 /8s are not available, have been reserved by the technical community for special purposes. 91 /8s were distributed before the RIR system, the central registry. And 130, the remaining ones have been distributed by the ‑‑ to the RIRs, and out of those APNIC has 45, RIPE NCC 35, ARIN 36, LACNIC 9 and AfriNIC five of those. And at this moment, AfriNIC still has almost 3 /8s from their inventory. APNIC a little less than one, and as we have seen before, ARIN and LACNIC are almost down to 0. RIPE NCC has a little bit more than a /8 and that is because we have received more address space like the others from IANA, and we are only issuing small chunks at this moment.
How does this look over time? As you can see, in 2010/11, APNIC was distributing most address space until the moment they reached their exhaustion phase, and then followed by RIPE NCC. At this moment, it's LACNIC and ARIN that are issuing most, LACNIC is the winner at the moment.
This is what it looks in number of /8s. And I will quickly move on to ASN assignments. Where RIPE NCC is typically the biggest distributor, and LACNIC and ARIN are following. And that trend has continued over the past years.
The general numbers, as I mentioned RIPE NCC issuing most, over 30,000, followed by ARIN, with 27,000 and APNIC 11,000 and AfriNIC and LACNIC below 10,000.
For 4 byte ASN, we see a similar picture. RIPE NCC is distributing most 4 byte AS number. But especially LACNIC is following quickly, because they have now distributed almost 2004 byte AS number out of the 4800 that they have distributed in total, so a big part of their distribution is 4 byte AS number.
IPv6, we are currently distributing from the /12s that the RIRs received from IANA, from the /3 that is now being used. So, we all have one /12 to distribute from and the miscellaneous one on the list is the first bits that we started out and for larger blocks of legacy v6.
Two RIRs stand out in highest numbers and that is LACNIC and RIPE NCC. As January in a pence key just mentioned ‑‑ hats policy in order to get address space from that last blocks they have, you already have to have v6. The same goes for the RIPE NCC, until a couple of months ago, so we will see if this trend continues in 2015 onwards, but as of now, v6 is no longer a requirement in the RIPE region to receive your last bit of v4. So this might slow things down a bit.
We will see that.
RIPE NCC has almost issued 10,000 allocations, which is almost half of the total allocations for the RIRs. And, yeah, LACNIC is second in line.
With regards to assignments, IPv6 PI assignments, the ‑‑ at this multi‑home, all RIRs have v6 PI to distribute, RIPE NCC started in 2009 when the policy was accepted, and took over the large role from ARIN, which at that ‑‑ until that time was issuing most.
The global picture. And then finally, the percentage of members that have both v4 and v6, in LACNIC and RIPE NCC it's 75%; and the other three are close to 50% so they are following the trend.
And that is it from me. The numbers are at these URLs and I will take questions if you have any.
SPEAKER: Can you bring up your first slides with the AS numbers please.
INGRID WIJTE: This one?
SPEAKER: No, the next one. So this is 31,000, 27,000, 11,000, that is about 75,000, but there are only 65,000 available, how is that possible for the 16‑bit ones?
INGRID WIJTE: There are still a few left ‑‑ sorry.
SPEAKER: Well the number here is larger than the number that exists, so how is this possible?
INGRID WIJTE: Because IANA and the unused are not in this picture. This is just what has been assigned.
SPEAKER: So this is both 16‑bit and 32‑bit?
INGRID WIJTE: Yes.
SPEAKER: Because the next slide says it says 32‑bit so I assumed this was 16 even though it didn't say, so that makes everything clear, thank you.
INGRID WIJTE: Thank you.
NICK HYRKA: Thank you, Ingrid.
(Applause)
Next up we have got the IANA update and for that we have got Jean‑Jacques Sahel, vice‑president Europe for ICANN, and come aboard.
JEAN‑JACQUES SAHEL: Good morning, everyone. Like Axel, I am very humbled to see so many of you on a Friday morning on fifth day of a conference and in Amsterdam. So thanks very much for being here and to pump you up a bit this morning an IANA update.
So, first, we will talk about the experience of global policy implementation before moving on to RD AP audits and performance reports. So first, in terms of policy implementation, we have just heard a little bit about this, IPv4 allocations, as per the global policy for post exhaustion at 4 allocation, we had events or we have events that take place twice a year, march and September, technically the first business day after ‑‑ falls on a weekend and the allocation happens using the software tool that is available at the link here for anyone to inspect.
Now, in March 2015, we had a further allocation under this policy and each RIR got about one thirteenth equivalent IP addresses, over half a million, as you can see here.
Another implementation concerns ASNs and we implemented the advice on in blocks 2 RIRs, you have got a link here that is, when the 16‑bit got down to 496 the AS advice was on how to handle the remaining pool of 16‑bit sends and the advice described how to handle the remaining pool. So, several allocations have been made since. And as you can see, at the bottom, IANA has got 19916‑bit AS numbers remaining and after that only 32 ASN will be allocated.
Now, on to registration data access protocols. And RFC 7484 which was published in March this year, IANA was called upon to create registries for RD AP entries, and for the RIRs that's free of the IANA number registries which we have got listed here. And we have got an example in the next slide. I will leave it on for a bit. Just so you can have a quick look, and then ‑‑ sorry ‑‑ we also ‑‑ IANA also completed its work to set up the JSON registries, this means IANA is now ready to receive entries from the RIRs to list in the registries, IANA staff met with some of the RIRs reps at the recent ARIN meeting in San Francisco and discussed preparations to receive requests from RIRs to update registries with their production RDAP links.
Now, moving on to audits. So this organisation control audits. ICANN recently completed its third party independent SOC audit for the year, DNSSEC root key signing key systems for the fifth year by PricewaterhouseCoopers. The second SOC2 audit of the IANA transaction procession functions was also recently completed, as you can see on the slide. And the audits are very important for us for the IANA kept, because they help us monitor the systems and identify improvements and we will see the subject of a lot of the discussion at the moment.
Now, leading on nicely to performance reports. Performance reports are published monthly by the IANA department, they are available as you can see, at IANA.org/performance, and look at a number of key aspects and key performance indicators. We have got detail here. And the thing to emphasise here is that the performance reports for all three of the IANA functions are regularly reported on on the IANA website for anyone in the community to see, so you can have a look at all this, at your leisure and regularly.
And that is it for us. Much more information, of corks on the IANA website and the ICANN website. (Of course) and thank you and let me know if there is any questions.
NICK HYRKA: Any questions? Thank you, Jean‑Jacques.
(Applause)
And we have final presentation this morning and that is from our colleague Athina Fragkouli. She is going to give a report from the CCWG on ICANN accountability.
ATHINA FRAGKOULI: Thank you, Nick, and thank you all of you for being here on a Friday morning. This is dedicated to you. So, I am the legal counsel of RIPE NCC and I am going to give you an update on the ICANN accountability, cross community Working Group or as we call it CCWG.
Let me give you a little bit of background. The CCWG was established in December 2014, its purpose was to come up with proposals for the enhancement of ICANN's accountability. Its work was divided into work streams, work stream one would deal with accountability issues that can either be solved before the IANA transition or are identified as relevant to the IANA transition but will be committed to be solved later.
And work stream 2 is for broader accountability issues.
Members of the CCWG are from NA Cs, 225 from each SO, AC and individuals can also participate. Right now we have 155 registered individual participants.
From the ASO perspective, representatives of ASO to this group are four, myself, and these people participated in October 2014, in the drafting team for the charter of this group. So we were involved in pretty much an early stage of this work.
Since December, the group has conference calls every week, at least once a week, sometimes two times, three times, it really we live in this virtual world of the web ex and conference calls and we meet also physically, we have met times three times, Frankfurt, Singapore and Istanbul. The group has divided its work in four work party. One work party would look into the community empowerment, another to review and redress mechanisms. A third party would look into stress tests and contingencies, and a fourth party would be dedicated for the communication with the legal experts that support the work of this group.
And so far, the focus of this group is for work stream one issues that are relevant to and can be solved like before or committed to before the IANA transition.
The group is very proud to publish their report on May the 4th. It's available here and it's open on this link and it's open for comments.
Let me give you a bit of an insight of this report.
There have been some amendments ‑‑ some suggested amendments. The group revised the mission, commitments and core values, this includes the affirmation of commitments. What is that? For those that do not know. It was a paper that was signed between ICANN and the US Government that was ‑‑ that included very important commitments for the community. There were concerns that this affirmation of commitment could be terminated too easily, and so the commitments would be vanished. So the idea was to incorporate this commitments into the by‑laws so that it's more difficult for ‑‑ so that the ICANN would hold on to them. Also, the group introduced the status of fundamental by‑laws, which would require a higher threshold to be amended. Also, the group proposed some enhancement to the appealing procedures that already exist within ICANN. The independent review panel and their consideration process. Now, let me draw your attention to some issues that are interesting from a numbers perspective.
Within this revised mission commitments and core values, there is a description of ICANN's role with regards to numbers. And we would like you to review this description. Now, the second point has to do with the incorporation of the affirmation of commitments. Most of this commitments were so fundamental that the group felt they should be allocated the status of fundamental by‑laws. One of these commitments was requiring ICANN to remain in the US. This requirement already existed in by‑laws so we didn't have to introduce it. However, the group was wondering whether, as the other affirmation of commitment provisions that were incorporated were given the status of fundamental by‑laws, maybe they should also be given the status of fundamental by‑laws. So, this is up for you to consider. It's in the report.
When it comes to the appealing procedures, there might be some conflicts with the appealing procedures we have within our numbering procedures. So, there might be conflicts with arbitration procedures that is described in the ASO MoU and in the draft SLA which has been published the 1st of May. This is also for you to consider and comment on.
Next to the suggested amendments. The group suggested some powers that the community would have before ICANN. The powers are listed here: To reconsider the reject budget or strategy, reconsider changes to by‑laws, approve changes to fundamental by‑laws, to recall individual ICANN directors and to recall the entire ICANN board.
Now, how would these powers be exercised by the community: The group consider mainly two alternative solutions to that, two alternative mechanisms. The first solution would be that ICANN becomes a membership‑based organisation and so ACs will become members and would represent indeed the community. The other solution was that ASO and ACs would become designateers and again they would represent a community like that. We can see that in both mechanisms, the powers can indeed be exercised. However, the legal experts of the group expressed concerns on the enforceability of two of these powers. When it comes to the recall of the entire board, this could actually only be ‑‑ could be exercised via the recalling of individual ICANN directors, and when it comes to the first power that ‑‑ on which there were concerns, this power was required by the CWEG, which is the group that proposes that transition plan, IANA transition plan for the names community. So for both, actually, for both mechanisms, SOs and ACs would have to qualify as an incorporated association in order to participate. So, the group rather focused on the first structure, the membership structure, that seemed to provide like a complete solution for the exercise of this mechanisms.
Now, what is the ‑‑ what was our position so far as ASO representatives:
At ICANN 52 in Singapore, we made a statement that showed our red lines for any proposed solution. So any proposed solution should not be a delaying factor for the IANA transition should be simple and address the concerns in effective way with minimum changes, should not interfere with IANA numbering function, or with consensus based decisions.
Next to that, we really supported the identification of the requirements that would come from the CWG as important for their IANA stewardship transition proposal so that the readers can see what is required, indeed, by them, and it's very crucial for their transition plan, and what is suggested on the top of that. Also, we added a description for the role of ICANN in relation to numbers and we would like your feedback on that. We added a comment in the report, like, kind of a disclaimer that we would reconsider any possible implications of the appealing mechanisms with our own appealing mechanisms with regards to numbers. With regards to the issue of whether the US headquarters would be fundamental or not, we took the position that, well, we understand that other provisions of affirmation of commitment indeed have something fundamental in them because they give ‑‑ like they give a commitment towards the community. However, the US headquarters is a rather administrative issue and we don't see anything fundamental to that. And when ‑‑ finally, when it comes to the description of the two different mechanisms in order to help the community exercise their powers, we were of the opinion that a fair description of both structures should be given for the community to consider.
So what are the next steps: We are going to publish a short analysis on numbering issues. I hope to have this published today and sent to the mailing list. Otherwise, we will do it very shortly. We welcome you to comment on the report and the deadline is the 3rd of June. The comments will be discussed at the ICANN meeting at end of June. A new draft is meant to be published again for public consultation in August. And the aim is to deliver a final ‑‑ the final report to SO and ACs on 30th of September, and to the ICANN board on 22nd of October.
And if you have any questions, I will be happy to reply.
PAUL WILSON: Paul from APNIC. That issue of the membership model versus the delegateers ‑‑ designators' model, as I understand it, one of the features of the membership model is that the entire ICANN board could be rolled, could be withdrawn by a vote of the members of a simple majority vote of the members?
ATHINA FRAGKOULI: So, is this the question ‑‑
PAUL WILSON: Well provision of recalling the entire ICANN board is something that could be done under the membership structure model by a majority vote of the members, is that the case? If it is, it seems to be quite a risk to the stability of ICANN if the ma majority of the members which could well exclude numbers, can simply recall the entire ICANN board and have the organisation have to reappointment the board. Is that a concern?
ATHINA FRAGKOULI: The group understands that this is indeed a very delicate matter and recalling the entire board is indeed very crucial for the stability, absolutely. And would be risky. So, therefore, they suggest to have this as a last resort solution and to have a very high threshold for this to happen, and according to the analysis we got from the lawyers, this can indeed accomplished.
PAUL WILSON: Thanks.
SPEAKER: Good morning. Milton ARIN Advisory Council. I am curious, this distinction between work stream one and two is kind of a concern of mine, and I am wondering if all this stuff here we are seeing on slide 9 is work stream one, and if it is, can that really happen in the next six months?
ATHINA FRAGKOULI: Thank you very much for your question. Yes, we understand that this is ‑‑ well, it's very difficult to solve everything within six months. Therefore in the charter, we said that work stream one should be issues that either can be solved or identified as relevant for the IANA transition. So that the board will commit to the solutions, even though they can be delivered at a later stage.
SPEAKER: There was another issue that on the IANA stewardship issue, the ICG is independent of ICANN and we will make recommendations that the board cannot alter or reject. This is not true of the CCWG, is it not ‑‑ if the board of ICANN doesn't like what you propose, is it possible for them to hold it up?
ATHINA FRAGKOULI: It is, indeed very important that the Board commits to the suggestions proposed by the community. Today, we will have a call with the ICANN board at 13 UTC, I believe everyone is welcome to join this. Now, from my understanding if, a proposal has a community support, yes, I guess the board will then ‑‑ should have a very good reason not to consider it.
SPEAKER: This is Izumi Okutani working together with Athina on this and so there is ICANN board liaison to this CCWG so we occasionally see feedback from ICANN board members or some of the considerations that the group is making, plus I would expect ICANN board to make their comments on the public comment process which they have expressed that they will do that, so hopefully this kind of like close collaboration and feedback will mitigate the case where at the final stage the board does not approve.
ATHINA FRAGKOULI: Thank you for that.
SPEAKER: Paul here from the RIPE NCC. I have a question relating to how this is all fitting in, the work stream one with the IANA stewardship transition. Because what I don't see from the slides that you are presenting, of course you are talking about issues that need to be solved before the IANA stewardship transition. I understand that this is slightly snow balling, or from what I can see looking from the outside into the this process, I feel this is slightly know balling and I don't see a time line that the CCWG has published in order to actually work together with the rest of the IANA stewardship transition so can you give me some comments on where we are going to see the time line and is this going to come together and move with the rest of the time lines that ‑‑ deliverables that we see?
ATHINA FRAGKOULI: Yes, Paul, thank you for that. I haven't ‑‑ there is a time line and it has been published. I haven't included it in my slides, but it can be ‑‑ but it is publically available. And it's the ‑‑ they try to have a time line in consideration with the time lines of the CWG end of the ICG so you can see, let's say, the coordination of all work together. Now, as I said, there will be, in my last slide, the 22nd of October, the final draft will be delivered to the Board, and hopefully, if we have an approval from the Board, they can we can start on the implementation. Implementation will take some time. And there, indeed, we did like some more coordination with the other groups, which we have already, I must say.
PAUL RENDEK: If I can follow up on that. From your perspective as bag part of this group, you and use me, are you confident that you are going to meet these deadlines and you are going to be ready with the rest of the process? In your opinion?
ATHINA FRAGKOULI: I think Izumi wants to reply to that.
SPEAKER: Yes, excellent point, Paul so. Actually we sort of initially wanted to make it so that work stream one is strictly related to IANA stewardship transition issue. But the rest of the group felt very strongly that they want to make sure they have some kind of like ‑‑ this is the opportunity for them to actually persuade ICANN to empower the community so it was ‑‑ it didn't sound reasonable for us to just ignore all their needs and only position. So, we thought, OK, as long as the group says that work stream one issue doesn't delay the overall stewardship transition, then maybe it can be like acceptable compromise, so some of the issues such as like reconsideration of the board decisions and things like that, it might take time so what we have already expressed within the group is that OK, it's good to put it as a requirement but let's just like it as a place holder, and in case it's like likely to take time to consider solution, as long as we have assurance of the board that the board will address those issues once the group comes up, then let's give room to ‑‑ not to make it a must to come up with a perfect solution. So that is what we have expressed so far. We haven't really reached a proper consensus on this, but so it would be really helpful if you, like us, during the public comment to, make this kind of comment then it would make it easier for us to drive the group in that direction.
ATHINA FRAGKOULI: Thank you.
PATRIK FALTSTROM: Speaking now as the Chairs of the security and stability advisory committee. I would like to point out that on your slide you said that the ASO and AC do have members in this group ‑‑ do not have members there because we did lack the resources, we are 35 members and my members of FSAC feel they have work on other things than bureaucracy but we trust the other ASO and ‑‑ that said, I would like to encourage to you really, really follow the rules that Izumi just pointed out, if it is the case that a discussion will take longer time for certain issues, that you thought were belonged to work stream one you should really push them to work stream 2. We have in SSAC got question regarding representation on members from the ASO and AC groups that are proposed, where SSAC is suggested to get two seats and others five. We do understand why that is happening, and of course we think it's good that we only have 272 instead of five, so that is a good thing. That said, to be able to do so, we strongly disagree with the reasoning behind it, OK? And the reasoning behind it, instead, has to do with the revised by‑laws and how the Board is tied to actually acknowledge specifically recommendations from the ACs. Now, that generic question on how to tie the ICANN board to recommendations from the ACs is something that will take absolutely longer than six months to resolve, which means that I felt, when I got those questions as an SSAC chair from the Chairs of the CCWG, my immediate reaction is that that must absolutely be work stream two issue and because of that, that whole thing need to be, as you just pointed out, worded differently so that work stream one can move forward. So, please, please, please, you must try to deliver within the time line that must be the primary goal.
ATHINA FRAGKOULI: Thank you very much, Patrik, this is exactly the feedback we are looking for. Thanks a lot.
NURANI NIMPUNO: Thank you very much to you and Izumi for doing this work. I know it might not be visible to do this group how much work you are putting into this, it's really appreciated. Although we identify for the number communities proposal for the IANA stewardship transition, the CCWG's work was not directly ‑‑ does mot directly affect our work, but obviously we are also on the same time line here so that is really important.
I just wanted to make a general comment, actually, about accountability because we have also heard both Axel and Paul speak about RIR accountability and I think it's really good to see that that work has started to, within the RIR communities in actually showing what accountability mechanism we have in this community. And I think, as this work progresses there will also be an increased focus on these communities. And my comment there is also that I think we need to be very clear about how different the structures are. I could certainly see that there will be efforts to try to apply the same type of accountability review to the RIRs, while the RIRs are very, very different in structures, when you look at where in very simple layman's terms, where the power sits, so to speak, in the RIR structures, it actually sits in the communities a lot further down. So, the same types of ‑‑ while it's really important to look at the whole structure, I don't think you can apply the same type of stress tests or other types of reviews when it comes to the RIR organisations. So it's just a general comment that I think we need to be clearer about how that accountability looks in the RIR.
ATHINA FRAGKOULI: You are absolutely right, thanks Nurani for that.
PAUL RENDEK: Can you /PRAOEZ comment on that because we have got some work ongoing that you are leading and it would be nice if you told us where you are on that because that is very nice point that Nurani raises.
ATHINA FRAGKOULI: Yes, actually, it's a good opportunity to have ‑‑ actually, that was in the presentation of Axel on the NRO update. So we have worked very hard with the other RIRs on listing our accountability mechanisms, not in comparison but in parallel on ‑‑ with each RIR, and so that ‑‑ so that to show to the community how we work, what our procedures, where the decisions are made for each decision, and so on. Paul you want to add something?
PAUL RENDEK: I wanted to ask you a further question: In the wider community or in the greater ICANN kind of space or what have you, out there, have there been any questions raised about RIR accountability or accountability of the communities of the RIRs, so far?
ATHINA FRAGKOULI: OK, when we first started working in the whole transition project and we show that ‑‑ and we show all these questions and ICANN accountability, we were a little bit concerned that such questions may be raised for us as well. Because, OK, when it comes to the RIR communities, we know each other and trust each other, we know how things work but out there, this structure may look bit funny and questions will be asked, and so, that's why we started working with all this work on the RIRs accountability matrix, accountability Q and As and so on. So, we were ready to address any concerns that might come from the community ‑‑ from the wider community, and we were positively surprised, that not only there were no questions, but the RIRs were seen as an example of accountability, so we were very proud of that. And I think, what is really matters here is the trust. If I can make a personal observation throughout this process, no matter how many mechanisms you have, if you don't trust in the end, an organisation, well, there is not much ‑‑ the mechanisms cannot do much, actually, they will add bureaucracy, rather than anything else. And I think Daniel has a comment here.
DANIEL KARRENBERG: Speaking for himself. Internet citizen. I think you made a very good point in your last sentence and I didn't want to interrupt that flow of thought, but one of the concerns I have, after hearing all this complexity that is going on, basically because the names community doesn't trust ICANN and that is, of course, my view, but it really appears like that. Isn't there really a risk for us who, as you just said, have our accountability and trust issues very well sorted, and the IETF, who are likewise, you know, in a different style but they have that sort of ‑‑ they have that sorted too, to be affected by those complexities, negatively affected by those complexities and the time this all takes? Let me be more specific: I am personally concerned that the politicians of this world may decide, and specifically those in the US, but also in other places, might decide that this whole self‑governance model is just totally flawed because we cannot agree on governing a very simple function, and it's basically from my point of view, the names who cannot agree; we can agree, the IETF has said what they want to do, and wouldn't it ‑‑ isn't there really a really, really big risk that if we ‑‑ unless we assert ourselves a little bit more, we might be drawn into a negative attitude towards self‑governance that we don't deserve?
ATHINA FRAGKOULI: Thank you, Daniel, for that. Are there any other comments or questions? No. Again, thank you very much for being here.
NICK HYRKA: Thank you, Athina.
(Applause)
OK. That was the last presentation and I really appreciate all the input. A lot of community effort going into this project, the CRISP efforts, well done. A couple of things before we wrap this up. At 10:45 this room will be open for everyone to hear the results of the RIPE NCC general results ‑‑ voting results. And also I would like to encourage everyone to provide feedback, we have a feedback forum for these meetings and we have people, colleagues from the RIRs coming from far and side and we would really appreciate the input, what you enjoy seeing in a session how we can enhance it, and it's not for this session it's for the whole meeting. Thank you all, enjoy the coffee break.
(Applause)
LIVE CAPTIONING BY AOIFE DOWNES RPR
DOYLE COURT REPORTERS LTD, DUBLIN IRELAND.
WWW.DCR.IE
