ICANN Brussels
GAC Plenary
Meeting with NRO
Tuesday, 22 June 2010


>>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Good morning.  Welcome to the GAC plenary meeting.
Before starting, before the start of the session, let me walk you
through today's program.

We will have this first hour meeting with representatives from RIRs.
Then one hour will be devoted to our internal discussion on new gTLDs
and mainly to the question of morality and public order.

After that, we will go into the session with ALAC after the lunch,
meeting with the ccNSO, which will be succeeded by the preparation
session for the meeting with the board, and then meeting with the
board itself.

For those folks who would like to listen update on developments in dot
Asia, please be aware that dot Asia managers will come to the GAC room
after the meeting with the board at 6:00.  And for those who are
interested, they will give update.

Now I have the pleasure to greet Axel Pawlik, chairman of NCC RIPE,
and John, chairman of -- CEO of ARIN.

And so I -- without further delay, I will give floor to a Axel, sorry,
Raul, CEO of LACNIC.

Without further delay, I will turn the mike to Axel to brief us on the
developments on the IPv6 front.

>>AXEL PAWLIK:   Good morning.  Axel Pawlik, the general manager of
the RIPE NCC and the Number Resource Organization, which is the RIRs
working together, as you probably know.

I've been asked to bring their regards also from Adiel Akplogan, who
couldn't be here.

I've asked Janis what we should be talking about today.  And,
basically, the idea is to talk about IPv6 and the rest of the lifetime
of IPv4 and some of the developments in the area.

I have distributed the current NRO statistics presentation, which,
unfortunately is a little bit outdated.  It was done in March of this
year, and the new one, we do them quarterly, will come out over the
next couple of weeks.

Overall, the news is exciting.  You might see on the NRO Web site or
in the file that it says that we have 22 /8s left.  /8s are the big
address blocks that the RIRs receive from IANA.  Now, this is slightly
outdated.  As I say, we have since received six more of those blocks,
so there are 16 of them left, which might stand in the room.  We are
looking at the runout date, as we see it, for IANA that is currently
estimated to be August next year.  That sounds more interesting.  And
the RIRs are supposed to run on their set of numbers, then, until
probably April 2012.  And as we all know, these are predictions that
might be inaccurate and might be changed by.

' change in the consumption rate.  Speaking of consumption rate, we do
see significant increase in the -- roughly, the APNIC region, in the
big Asian countries, which is natural, and a good sign, I think.

So, yes, we will carry a couple of years further with IPv4.  All the
RIRs have policies in place and under development also dealing with
those last numbers that we'll get.  And the good news is that IPv6 is
being adopted.

We do see also a relatively strong increase in the adoption rate
there.  So that's the good news.  And the numbers that you will see on
the NRO Web site say there are about 3,000 -- about 3,000 allocations
have been done.  That also is slight outdated, I can tell you that
4,330 allocations have been done among the RIRs to their members, to
the local Internet registries or the ISPs.  And -- well, being in the
RIPE NCC service region, I'm happy to say that the biggest part of
that has been done by RIPE NCC.  About 2,000 of them.  About 1,000
have been done by both APNIC and ARIN.  And AfriNIC and LACNIC are
sharing the balance.  We do see interest, we do see regular updates by
the operators at the RIR meetings in terms of which equipment is
available.  So it looks as if the message is getting through.  Now,
the bad news here, of course, is that the IPv6 rollout will not be
sufficient by the end of the IPv4 lifetime.  So there will be some
last-minute, hectic that we see coming.

But, again, we are talking about it.  We do quite a lot of outreach
there.  We are happy to see this increase.  There are articles in the
newspapers, we are all talking to the journalists where we can just to
get the news out.  And, of course, to governments in our regions.

Talking about further outreach, you might be aware that the ITU has
set up a working group on IPv6 basically to make sure that all the
countries in the world get equitable access or have equitable access
to number resources, with a specific emphasis on developing countries.

The first meeting of this IPv6 group took place in March, 15th and
16th of March.  The idea there was basically -- or there was some
consensus that it should be to promote the deployment of IPv6 to make
the deployment a success of migration before success and then to look
particularly at the developing countries for this.

There I'm quite happy to say was a very strong feeling in the room,
and it was also put into words, that people were not really sure about
any problems then.  We heard an undercurrent and sometimes was said
also that some developing countries have difficulties getting their
addresses.

We as the RIRs don't see this and don't know about this.  And there
was, as I say, a strong feeling in the room, strong sentiment that
before we should start devising any solutions for this, we should at
least define the problem and find it.

So an outcome of this IPv6 Working Group was that two correspondence
groups were set up, one basically to identify mechanisms to collect
regional needs related to IPv6 deployment and looking at other bodies,
seeing what they are doing, and then setting up a project helping
countries from within the ITU, which is a nice one.

The other one, the other correspondence group is a little bit closer
to my heart personally.  That is to identify concerns and issues with
the current IPv6 address management system, and particularly those
highlighted by developing countries.  This is very important for me.
I really want to find out what those issues are so that we can address
them as the RIRs.

Now, there's quite a limited activity on those correspondence groups
so far, but it's also relatively early.  The next meeting of the IPv6
group will be in September, the 1st and 2nd of September.

And I think the reports from the correspondence should be prepared
three weeks in advance.  So I hope there will be a little bit more
traffic on that list.

Also, I would ask all of you to -- if you know of any such -- such
issues, to let us know, personally, of course.  Also, as you, as the
GAC, supposedly know other people in your local governments who do go
to ITU meetings, and I would call on you to liaise with those people
and to make sure that they know where you are standing.  And also, I
would like you to know and I would like you to tell your colleagues
that the RIRs, in general, the Internet technical community, does need
some support in those ITU circles.

As I said, currently, it's looking rather good, but I don't know what
the developments will be.  And all support that we can get there to
improve and also to speak about the ways that we are currently working
is very welcome.

And that, basically, is my little speech for today.

If my colleagues have something to say, I would invite them.
Otherwise, questions.

Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you, Axel.

John (saying name), do you have something to add to that?

No.  So let me start with one question.

You mentioned, Axel, the runout date of IPv4 will be August 2011, or
projected date, and you see some kind of rush coming around that time
for IPv6.  Or demands for IPv6.

What would be your suggestion if you see a crisis coming?  What should
be done to avoid that this crisis hits and creates problems which may
sort of caution some image problems for ICANN and to prevent that,
what would be your advice?

>>AXEL PAWLIK:   Speak about it some more and make sure that it's
documented.

Basically, what I think will happen is that some people -- basically,
we are talking about the big ISPs, they know what is coming.  They
have taken their share of IPv6 numbers already, and they are at least
preparing for it.  And some have done some rollout already.

I think who will be hit are the smaller ISPs, smaller companies.  So
might not be following this too closely, and they have their share of
IPv4 addresses still.  When they come in in three years' time and want
some more, they will find that there are no more for them, quite
likely.  And then they will scratch their heads a bit.  And then they
will have to roll out.  And that will probably delay the development
of their businesses quite a bit.  And that might cost them some
customers.

Overall, you know and I know that the Internet will continue to work.
There will be probably a dip in the growth in some parts of it for
people who wake up a little bit too late.

So what we should do, talk about it some more, talk to the media, talk
to the trade associations, talk to the general public, ask the general
public -- and your own ISP -- to provide you with IPv6 service.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Okay.  Thank you.

I have Germany on my list.  Hubert.

>>GERMANY:   Yes.  Thank you, Chairman.  And thank you for this
presentation.

Being also a representative of our country in the ITU, I am -- I very
much appreciate the activities of RIPE NCC and the participation in
these working groups, because it helps us very, very much.  And we
also managed to open up this group, which is not used every time
within ITU.  And I hope there is a productive discussion and clear up,
yes, problems which are discussed but may not really exist.  And that
is really a positive approach.

I also wanted to inform you that we have our big plenipotentiary
conference in October this year.  And not only in the working groups,
but also in this event, there might come up a discussion on IPv6
allocation.  And I also want to observe that the running out of IPv4
next year, this also may be a reason for new discussion within ITU.

Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you.  Nigeria.  Sorry.  John, please.  And
then Raul.  And then Nigeria.

>>

>>JOHN CURRAN:  Thank you very much.  I do agree, we need to pay
careful attention to the upcoming ITU plenipot.  We will have staff
there to help with education or questions, information sources
throughout the two-and-a-half-week event, I believe, in Guadalajara.

I recognize that the IPv6 Study Group isn't the only source of
potential material that could go to the plenipot, we are tracking some
of the other working groups working with the members of our regions,
the ITU members that we have, both sector and national members.  But
it is an ongoing situation to be watched it is possible that something
will come up at any time.

I do think that to the extent that anyone is aware, either now or in
any of the groups that you participate in the ITU of an IPv6
discussion that comes up, it would be great if you could bring it to
your regional registry and let us know.  We probably have someone in
there, but we may not.

So particularly between now and, say, September, while the agenda's
being set, it's particularly important to know of action items that
might come out of any ITU study group related to IPv6.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you.  Raul.

>>RAUL ECHEBERRIA:   Yes, I just want to point out that it is all the
RIRs that are participating actively in all the ITU, IPv6, IPv6
activities in which we are invited to participate.

We have had these -- had this attitude of collaboration since many
years ago.  In fact, I was thinking now that it is -- right now, it is
exactly four years ago in Marrakech when we addressed the GAC for the
first time about the IPv6 -- IPv4 depletion and more concrete ideas
about IPv6 deployment.

Since 2006, we have been trying to give updates to the GAC at almost
every ICANN meeting.  And it is important to remember that, because
the RIRs are working with governments in different fields.  As we
coordinate with governments at the local, regional, and lower level.
So we coordinate with governments through the ITU, we coordinate with
governments through the GAC, we coordinate with governments through
regional organizations, like CITEL, for example, in the Americas
region as also we work with many governments in activities as well
with local communities.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you.

Nigeria is the next speaker.

>>NIGERIA:   Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Before the meeting of March, my organization, we took it upon
ourselves to look at what are the issues on IPv6.  And we realized
that it is lack of knowledge that was the problem.  So what I want to
encourage that we do more is education and inform operators and
countries.

In ICANN level, there is the GAC.  But at regional registry level, I
don't know what such subgroup is established that you discuss.  Let us
know.  But I think it's something to be encouraged.

Apart from this, we have a concern, even when I was coming, I was
asked to find out how the -- that regional or ICANN who help -- okay,
the NRO could help us trace IPs that are used for criminal and --
criminal activities and terrorist -- cyberterrorism or cybersecurity
issues.  So because our law enforcement agents -- I made.

So because our law enforcement agents have made the statement before
when we are meeting with the registries that our law enforcement
agents do call on us as regulators of the ICT industry, or sector in
my country, to help trace IP addresses at most times, the IPs that are
in question may be traced to Europe or other countries.

So we are really concerned on how to go about that.

And I think we would also want that area of constant to be taking note
of as developing country we have that area of concern of how we put --
we trace where an IP.  Because my country, I have said it before, that
we have an image problem, and we are trying to solve that image
problem.

So how do we trace the IP?  Because it doesn't always come from the --
the IP does not relate to the operator in Nigeria.

So those are issues that we have.

It is not per se the IPv6, but as a general issue.  Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Sorry, John will respond to Mary's comments.

>>JOHN CURRAN:  So this is John Curran.  The RIRs have spent quite a
bit of time looking at the problem of identifying and facilitating law
enforcement through tracing back Internet addresses.

The difficulty, of course, is that the system that we have, allocation
of IP addresses, is hierarchical, so we provide allocations to local
Internet registries which might be, in many cases, ISPs.  In some
regions of the globe they will be other Internet registries that in
turn provide allocations.

ISPs provide allocations.  We don't have a comprehensive framework
that requires information to be made available.

We do have practices in each of the regions that says that allocations
are to be in WHOIS, are to be maintained current, and are to be
publicly available, but that's predominantly for the purposes of
facilitating network operations and management as opposed to the
purposes of law enforcement.

So the rigor of the data that we have on allocations is only
sufficient for the task it was designed for, which is network
operation.

One of the questions that sort of the community as a whole faces is,
as we go to IPv6, what level of rigor do we want?  Because that will
be very quickly the dominant address model, and it would be possible
to set something up that was more rigorous so that we were getting
better with the future and able to better address this problem for law
enforcement.

But that's something that really needs to come.  The community is
unlikely to address that through enlightened self-governance.  That's
probably something that needs facilitation by people like the members
of the GAC.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS: Axel, yes, go ahead.

>>AXEL PAWLIK:  May I quickly add to that.  As Janis said, yes, we
need liaison with law enforcement and similar parties, and we know
that for quite some time and we have made quite a bit of progress in
talking to those folks.  Among others, also, at ICANN meetings.

But the last event that sticks to my mind is a rather large meeting
with about, I think, 80, roughly, relatively high-level law
enforcement officers from all around the world, basically, from all
continents.  We had a meeting, besides one of the law enforcement
meetings, in London in March, and all of the RIRs were present.  Like
I say, law enforcement from all the continents was there.  And I am
happy to say there is a growing and by now becoming quite, quite
regular liaison going on between the RIRs and the law enforcement
parties.  And I would invite you to contact us if you have any
specifics in mind, any cards to exchange, we would be happy to follow
up on this because we see this as crucial for our community as well.

Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you.

And now India.

>>INDIA:   Thank you, Chair.

I would like to thank the various RIRs for having made a succinct
presentation.

Having said that, I would like to mention that within the ICANN
system, since we have both the domain name and IP numbers, on domain
name issues, the GAC provides the very convenient forum for
interaction on public-policy issues.

The absence of similar mechanism new RIR -- specifically, I am
speaking for my region's RIR -- sort of does not enable the government
perspective to come in the functioning of the RIRs.

The IPv4/IPv6 issues have gripped governments, and governments have
been working towards facilitating the process of transition from IPv4
to IPv6.

Notwithstanding that, we need to have a fair degree of interaction
between RIRs and the governments.

I would like to draw an analogy.  When the IDN ccTLDs were to be put
into place, the CEO of ICANN addressed the Ministers of the respective
governments.  At least in my country, my minister received the letter
which subsequently came down to me, saying that ICANN intends to
pursue the path of IDN ccTLDs, and we would like to have your
government's response in this regard.

We have not had the benefit of a similar correspondence, if I may say
so, from the RIR chief on issues of IPv4 to IPv6 transition in the
format that ICANN has pursued.

I would, therefore, urge ICANN, we have delegated the responsibility
of the IP address mechanism to the RIRs, to try and work out a
mechanism to see that a GAC is also established within the fold of the
RIR.  Those who represent the countries at the GAC here could perhaps
play the role of representative of their respective countries within
the RIRs.

I thought that becomes an important instrumentality of government RIR
interaction.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you.

Raul.

>>RAUL ECHEBERRIA:  This is an example of sharing resources.
Cooperation between governments and RIR.  I think what you are saying
is very important.  As I was saying before, we have many different
kinds of interactions with government.  One of them has been the
direct contact with the GAC.

I think that's, since 2006 to now, in the last four years, we have not
given report to the GAC only in two meetings, and it was not because
our lack of willingness.  It was just because you were busy with other
issues in the agenda.  Maybe we didn't have any important thing to
report.

So it means at least we have reported more than 12 times -- or more
than ten times in the last four years to the GAC.

But beside that, we have interaction with governments in many other
fields.  Probably, it is becoming a bit complicated because we need
some government officers in ITU and others in GAC and others in CITEL
or APEC Tel or all the spaces in which we are participating.

I think we are very open, very, very open to find what are the best
ways to communicate with you through ICANN, through the chair of the
GAC or any other mechanism that you think that it is appropriate.

So in this regards, just you can be sure that we will do our best in
order to give you all the information in the timely and in the way
that you prefer.

I think I speak on behalf of the NRO on this point.

Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you, Raul.

I have UK and Canada on my list, and I want to know whether there are
other members who want to intervene.  Norway.

So that ends -- that will be, then, our speaker list.  And that is
Indonesia.  No.  Mexico.  Sorry.

UK, Canada, Norway, and Mexico, in that order, please.

>>UNITED KINGDOM:  Thank you, Chair, and thanks also to Axel and his
colleagues for coming here to brief us today on this crucial issue.
And I echo Germany's comments that we very much support NRO's
involvement in the ITU discussions, and we will certainly play our
part in supporting your initiatives on -- in those discussions.

And I heard the ITU respond to you in recognition of your crucial
global role.  And hopefully that will head off any moves within
certain quarters of the ITU to move into this whole area of activity.
And we've heard talk about ITU becoming an RIR themselves and so on.
So hopefully that idea is going to be put to one side.  And through
the correspondence groups that you mentioned, these issues can be
fully explored.  And we will certainly track those correspondence
groups and intervene where appropriate to contribute to the
discussions there.

Communication is a vital issue, as has already been touched on, and I
wonder if perhaps you could say a bit more about your strategy, both
as NRO and as coordinating for the RIRs and how their statements are
going to mesh with what you are saying and the frequency of that flow
of communication.  It's vitally important.  You have already indicated
that this is a fast-moving area.  So the clarity and frequency of
reporting I think is vitally crucial here.

So I don't know if you have anything more to say about your strategy
for that head of the plenipot.  And beyond, as you say, there's going
to be this kind of rush of scrutiny and activity ahead of August 2011.

So a little bit more comment on the strategy I would find valuable.

I wonder also if in this session you could indicate whether the RIRs
have any contribution to make to the reviews on the ICANN AoC reviews
on security and stability.  And the business case for DNS CERT.

Do you have anything on to say on that at this stage?  Do you have any
concerns about the ICANN proposals?

And also, if I could just table another sort of invitation for you to
comment on DNSSEC deployment in the root.  What is the NRO view on
that?  I would appreciate.  Thanks very much.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you.

John.

>>JOHN CURRAN:  Quite a list of items there.  Let me pick up some of
them that readily come to mind and then I will leave it to my
colleagues to pick up the others.

First, with regards to strategy regarding ITU and plenipot
coordination, the RIRs do get together, we have a communications group
that's ably led that works on common messaging and informational
documents.  These are reference documents that describe deployment of
IPv6, how well it's taken up over time, factual information that's
available.

So you can go to any of the RIRs, and we all have access to the same
common messaging and briefing documents for that purpose.

In terms of outreach, we have actually actively done outreach to ITU
members in our reasons.  I have done quite a bit, both with some of
the larger members within the ARIN region, such as Canada, United
States, but also to the Caribbean Islands that are in the ARIN region.

I know the other RIRs have also done the same to try to brief those
representatives who attend as member representatives of the ITU.

At the end of the day, though, given the way ITU makes decisions on
such things, it's a war of numbers that we probably won't fair well in
if it actually comes down to a vote matter.  We'd much rather provide
the education to people and work on the days up to the agenda setting
to try to avoid having IPv6 items that are sort of specious make it
onto a plenipot agenda which is a fairly significant meeting.

So that's been our strategy, but we will be there in case something
arises to help support informationally.  I just don't know how quickly
we can get information out to 180-plus delegates if something does
make it on the agenda.  It will be a challenge.

With respect to DNSSEC, I will say, in general, the RIR community has
-- one of the reasons we have been successful is we focus very much on
working on the Internet number registry issues, and we don't
necessarily move into areas of other views on other topics.  DNS is a
very rich field with a lot of very interesting policy issues.  If we
commented on every one of them, we would be very busy, as you are.

But it is true, DNSSEC actually has impacts and has a relationship
between the Internet number system and the DNS that people may not be
aware of.

There's a DNS domain called n-addr.arpa which is used.  It is within
DNS.  It's used to map from numbers back to computer names.  So we
know how to go from a computer name to an IP address, but if you have
an IP address, this is a way the computer can map backwards.

The n-addr.arpa domain is built by the RIRs.  ARIN does a little bit
of the coordination there, and it's actually installed by VeriSign in
the root name servers so people can do backwards lookup of numbers.

With the signing of the root, we also would like to have the n-
addr.arpa zone signed at some point.  We have been in discussions with
ICANN.  ICANN has been very cooperative on this, the IANA team.  We
actually are looking to move the function of generating the n-
addr.arpa zone file out of ARIN, where it has been predominantly for
historical reasons, to the IANA team at ICANN and have them generate
it  and sign it there.

So it's -- We're paying attention to the DNSSEC, and with the signing
of the root we will make sure our little piece of the DNS hierarchy
also gets appropriately signed.  Hopefully that will be done by the
ICANN team.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you.  Canada.

>>CANADA:   Thank you, Janis.  And thank you to the RIRs that are here
today to present to us on these recent and important issues of
interest to governments.

I certainly agree with others that have welcomed and appreciated your
contributions to the discussions that are taking place at the ITU.  I
think it is really critical that we have factual information around
how the RIR system works and the impacts of making adjustments or --
and as Axel identified for the working group, that we focus on what
the problems are within the system and then focus on finding solutions
within that system.

So I wanted to speak in particular to the concerns raised by Mary.

One of the things that we have been doing at ARIN as governments is
working with ARIN in a working group format to look at particularly
law enforcement concerns related to numbers.  And as someone rightly
pointed out, v6 does provide an opportunity, and this is one of the
things that the working group is looking at with regard to v6, how can
we ensure that WHOIS databases are reflecting appropriate information,
and in a way that's useful for legitimate uses of it.  Our Ministry of
Industry participates there as well, of course, because we are
interested in all kinds of addressing issues, not only WHOIS
databases.

So that's an example of what's happening at ARIN.  There may be other
examples amongst the RIRs as well.  But we have found that to be quite
a useful way for governments to become familiar with the policy
discussions that are taking place in the community and to review what
are the impacts of those potential new policies being put in place.
And it gives us an opportunity then to contribute to that discussion.

And this has really been quite a positive experience so far.  And I
can point to some specific policies, if there is interest in that,
where we have had a good exchange between the community and
governments.

So I just wanted to flag that for those governments that are looking
for ways to engage better with the RIRs.

Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you, Heather.

Norway.

>>NORWAY:   Thank you, Janis.  And I would also like to join in and
thank the Axel and all the other RIRs for information and the activity
in the dialogue.

I just also wanted to say I think it's important that we work
together, and I think also the RIRs would expect to be willing to
share expertise and knowledge, as we have a good relationship working
with the RIPE NCC, and we are going to have a national IPv6 meeting in
October and have a positive response from RIPE NCC to participate and
share their experience and knowledge during that meeting.

And I would expect all the other RIRs to be willing to help the
government side on awareness activities towards their ISPs and to get
the attention from the CEO level at the ISPs to have this as a
political issue and not only focus on the technical issues, but have
it at a political level so we have the awareness of the necessities to
start planning strategically and not to have this dip in deployment
but to have a continuous sort of possibility to be able to deploy for
new services and new customers to have the addresses available.

So thanks again, and I think it's a very good thing to have this brief
update from the RIRs to be informed and to have a baseline so we can
sort of share and be in contact and get the knowledge transferred.

Thanks.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you, Ørnulf.

Now Mexico.

>>MEXICO:   Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to join to the other speakers about the supported
presentation of the RIRs, and represent to the Ministry of
Communication and Transport in the ITU and in the GAC and in the
CITEL.

We are very happy experience with our RIR, LACNIC, because we can work
together about the transition of IPv6 and other related issues.

We are very happy, too, because in the ITU have put the intervention
of the RIRs.  In the last one in May was held the WTDC in the ITU and
have adopt one resolution about the IPv6 transition, and consider the
participation of the RIRs and the IETF and other relevant
organizations.

We are concerned about the confidence and security in the Internet,
and for that reason, I would like to ask to the RIRs, it is possible
that you can inform about the programs to the activities related to
the DNSSEC.

Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you, Mexico, for question.

Axel.

>>AXEL PAWLIK:   Thank you very much.

Now, we are for a long time, and this is basically speaking for all of
the RIRs engaged in security, and if I may speak for a short moment
about the RIPE NCC.  We have I think for more than eight years or so a
small working group in-house, we had a small working group in-house
that was pushing for DNSSEC deployment, and then trying to help the
operators to get grips on what is needed for that --

So I'm personally very happy that it actually is happening now,
deployment is happening.

More to the RIRs' area of responsibility.  The number resources.  You
might have heard that we are all working together very, very close and
urgently also to deploy a bit of a missing link here, what we call the
RPKI, the Resource Public Key Infrastructure, that is something that
we see as important for ourselves in one point, but in giving out
resources about the numbers that we have allocated ourselves
authoritatively.  But there are, of course, other bits in the
technical infrastructure of the Internet such as secure routing, for
instance, that would rely on such a system.  And I'm happy to say that
the RIRs are working very closely together and that we are committed
to roll a functional system out by the beginning of next year.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   So thank you.

I see no further questions.  Am I right?

Japan.

>>JAPAN:   Thank you very much for your very good comments about IPv4
exhaustion.  And from the government point of view, it will be
important to avoid consumer confusion.

So I think that the government should think about the situation.  And
we have to also provide appropriate information to all the players
involved in IPv4 transition to IPv6 transition.

And in case of Japan, the study group in the ministry provided a
report that it is very -- the publicity activity to the users and ISPs
and also content providers and system (inaudible), all the players.
So we are also encouraging the ISPs to disclose information about the
service they will provide in future for IPv4 exhaustion, IPv6
transition, that information.

In that regard, I appreciate your update information about the IPv4
and IPv6 situation.

Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you, Japan.

So in absence of further questions, it remains me to thank Axel, John
and Raul for taking time and coming to the GAC meeting, sharing your
knowledge with us and sharing information.

Of course we already circulated the documentation you provided to the
GAC list, and we would appreciate if in three weeks' time when the new
statistics will be available, if you could share that with us, just to
keep us updated on this.

Thank you very much, indeed.

And at one meeting, maybe next meeting or meeting after, we will
invite you again.

Thank you.

>> Thank you.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Raul, would you like to say something?

>>RAUL ECHEBERRIA:   May I propose that probably you can collect the
requirements, different requirements of information from different GAC
members before the next ICANN meeting.  And so probably we will have
time to fit all expectations of all the GAC members and prepare a new
report for being presented in Cartagena.

>>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you.  We will think about it.

So let us move now to the next agenda item or let me propose three
minutes bio break, and then we will resume session on new gTLDs.

Three minutes break.

(Break.)