Welcome to the United Nations | Department of Economic and Social Affairs

The following are the outputs of the real-time captioning taken during the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in João Pessoa, Brazil, from 10 to 13 November 2015. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the event, but should not be treated as an authoritative record. 


     >> SUSAN CHALMERS Good morning, everyone.  If we could take our seats, we'll begin.  Please feel free to come closer, if you'd like.  We'd like to have for the session to have a collaborative feel, so please, please do feel free to come to the table.

     My name is Susan Chalmers, and I'm happy to welcome you to the workshop session for the Best Practice Forum for Creating an Enabling Environment for IPv6 Adoption.  Very happy to see you here today.

     So I, along with our colleague, Izumi Okutani, who will be joining us as well, and Wim Degezelle, we're the leaders of this Best Practice Forum, and we're very happy to present -- to welcome our presenters as well, so I was hoping that we could just go down the line, if you wouldn't mind introducing yourselves, and where -- just explaining where you're from, and your interest in the Best Practice Forum.  Thank you.  Aaron, would you like to start? 

     >> AARON HUGHES: Hi.  Aaron Hughes.  I'm on the board of the American Registry of Internet Members and also the CEO of 6connect.  I've been participating with this Best Practices Forum for some time and have about, oh, 20-plus years of experience in Internet architecture and have started working with the 6 and various size networks and various types well over ten years ago and have experienced quite a lot of challenges and positive benefits from that transition, so I've been contributing here as a subject-matter expert on v6, and that's that. 

     >> SUSAN CHALMERS: Thanks, Aaron.  Silvia. 

     >> SILVIA HAGEN: Good morning, everybody.  I'm Silvia Hagen.  I'm coming from Switzerland.  In Switzerland I have a consulting company since more than 20 years, so I'm engaged in consulting from enterprises based in Switzerland but also in other countries and continents.  I got into the IPv6 field by writing the first book for O'Reilly "IPv6 Essentials," back in the year 2000, andhas since been updated and I am the chair of the Swiss IPv6 Council in Switzerland, so I'm here as a subject-matter expert for this discussion.

     >> SUSAN CHALMERS: Bob. 

     >> BOB HINDEN: I'm Bob Hinden.  I have a number of roles, I chair the ISOC Board.  I've been involved in IPv6 in the ITF when we sort of realized that IPv4 addresses were going to run out,and we started working on initiatives that resulted in the development of IPv6, so I've sort of been here from the -- before the beginning, I guess, so I'll talk a little more about this when my time to talk is. 

     >> CONSTANZE BUERGER: Hello.  Good morning.  My name is Constanze Buerger, I'm from the German Government, and we're going to deploy IPv6 in the whole public administration of Germany.  We have to be prepared, and if you need information, I prepared a small bag, and it lays on the right side on the chair, and you can grab one of the presentations inside. 

     >> MARCO HOGEWONING:  Good morning.  I'm Marco Hogewoning.  I work for the RIPE NCC, one of the regional Internet registries.  We cover Europe, the Middle East, and parts of Central Asia.  We distribute, obviously, IPv6and I'm also one of the principal coauthors of the Best Practices document.

     >> WIM DEGEZELLE: And good morning.  I'm Wim Degezelle.  I'm working for the IGF Secretariat to help support this Best Practice Forum. 

     >> SUSAN CHALMERS: Thanks, everyone.  So before we begin the substance of the session, which will be introduced by Bob, I'd like to just go over the agenda and also explain a little bit about the process of the Best Practice Forum and how -- and our goal, which is ultimately to produce an outcome document, so in terms of the process, we have been working together over several months to develop an outcome document that explains not only the importance of IPv6 adoption but also presents examples of best practices for IPv6 adoption around the world.

     And so in this process, we had -- we've held several calls and we have also worked together to draft -- to draft the content for this document, and I'd like to let everybody know that this is open for comment on the IGF review platform, and if you'd like to make a comment, and we'd encourage you to do so, this will be open until Friday, so comments will close on Friday, and then after that happens, we will publish the final outcome document within November. 

     So today what we're going to do is we're going to begin with scene setting by Bob on IPv6 adoption, and then we're going to move into two case studies, so I'm happy to say that Constanze will present a case study from Germany, and then after that, we will be -- we will see a case study from Venezuela, presented by Alejandro Acosta, who is actually presenting remotely, so we hope you're online, Alejandro.

     After the case study, we're going to take a look at the outcome document and have just general discussion, so please feel free to contribute and collaborate and engage. 

     And following that, we will have a summary and then determine main messages we would like to present during the main session on intersessional work, and Constance, if you'd like to say a few words about that, right now, please. 

     >> CONSTANCE BOMMELAER: Thank you, everyone.  I'm Constance Bommelaer from the Internet Society, and I've been coordinating on behalf of the MAG some of the intersessional activities, best practices, and policy options for connecting the next billion.  This afternoon at 2:00 p.m. will be held the main session where the six best practices and the policy options for connecting the next billion will come together, present their work, the output document, make sure that people see it and have an opportunity to take it back home and share it, spread the work, and also, with regards to the best practices, what will be very interesting is to highlight why your specific topic -- why your work overall supports the goal of connecting the next billion, and I think for the case of IPv6 and scaling issues, it will be very easy for this group.  Thank you. 

     >> SUSAN CHALMERS: Thanks, Constance.  All right.  With that said, does anybody have any question point?  No? 

     Okay.  Well, let's dive right in.  Of Bob, over to you.

     >> BOB HINDEN: Thank you very much.  So let me just talk a little bit about, you know, why IPv got developed, and this all happened in, like, the early '90s, so it's been a long road to get where we are now, and we're not done.

     We, in the ITF, clearly saw that IPv4 addresses were starting to look like they would run out, particularly like then what was called Class B.  I think in hindsight, it turned out that were correct that they would run out, but I think we were optimistic about our pessimistic, I'm not sure which it is, when that would happen, but it has happened now.  The majority of the registry -- well, the INran out some years ago, so they don't have anymore v4 addresses to give to the RIRs, and the largest RIRs have basically exhausted the IP addresses -- IPv4 addresses they could give to large IPs or large-end users.

     They're still -- they're never going to give out the last one.  They still have some under very limited circumstances, but the days when you can get large blocks of v4 addresses for large new mobile deployments or counter deployments, that's -- country deployments, that's gone, and there is no alternative for widespread new deployments than IPv6.  I mean, this is particularly obvious, you know, when we talk about, you know, the next billions of users, things like the Internet of Things where, you know, there's going to be more and more devices on the Internet.

     I mean, I like to think of the growth -- most of the growth that first happened on the Internet was making it wider, and we're still doing that, sort of to reach everyone around the world, but at the same time with things like the Internet of Things, that it's also getting denser, more devices in any space are going to be connected to the Internet.

     And we can sort of -- you know, I found some old slides I had produced in the '90s when I was working for Sun Microsystems.  I realized that many of the companies I was working for don't exist anymore, but I guess that's evolution, but I found some slides which basically predicted at a high level where we are now, you know, seeing new applications that were coming and things like, you know, connecting devices, and, you know, I think also the growth of mobile devices, you know, will continue to grow in very large scale, and many of the mobile operators today are deploying IPv6 because it's hard to deploy new large networks without any addresses or, you know, using private v4 addresses over and over again makes your network very complicated and fragile.

     So this is -- you know, I think most people understand that this is important, but there still is a long way to go.  I'm pleased to report that IPv6 is running on the IGF network here, so you're probably using it now even if you're not aware of it.  So that's one of the things I check when I'm on a new network.  My hotel network doesn't have it, and that's part of the challenge that we face.  There are a lot of places where v6 is available, but there's still a lot of places -- you know, a lot of banks, you know, eCommerce sites and stuff do not do it, and we need to sort of cross that divide.

     But deployment is happening now.  It's -- it's well implemented on most production products, you know, routers, host operating systems, which is -- et cetera, et cetera, not everything, but it's becoming more -- much more common, and I think it's maybe getting to the point where it's an exception that they don't support it, but that doesn't mean it's actually turned on everywhere.

     We're seeing lots of growth of IPv6 in, you know, large content providers like Facebook and Google.  They're all doing native IPv6 services.  You know, I think seeing, like around 8% of their total access over IPv6, and I don't -- you know, they don't talk about how much traffic they see, but 8% of that number is a really big number, so this is, I think now, a very mature technology.  People are running their business on it.  So it's not something you have to worry about.

     Again, there's still lots more to do.  I'm very encouraged by, you know, this IGF activity for writing down, you know, a best practice for IPv6, so this is -- we need to do things like this and get the word out to everyone.

     And lastly, I'm not a -- I don't usually talk about human rights and the Internet too much because it's -- I find it sort of a complicated topic, but it seems to me clearly having enough address space for everyone in the world, you know, I won't go as far as calling it a human right, but it's really essential.  You know, if Internet addresses are a limited thing that are controlled by a few people, that's not the world we want to live in, and IPv6 is definitely the solution to keeping that from becoming a problem.  So thank you. 

     >> SUSAN CHALMERS: Excellent.  Thank you, Bob.

     So with that in mind, does -- would anybody like to contribute any thoughts on what Bob has said?  Any ideas?  No?  Okay.

     Oh, yeah, Constance

     >> CONSTANCE BOMMELAER: Thank you, Susan.  Maybe a session for a concluding part of the session today, but one of the things in the main session this afternoon we would be looking for are suggestions for work going into IGF 2016, so whether the theme of this Best Practice Forum needs to be tweaked, preserved as it is, or should we be looking at the theme through a completely different angle, so please, on the basis of today's discussion, this morning's discussion, think about that, and this afternoon we will really be looking forward to hearing your thoughts for the future.  Thank you, Susan. 

     >> SUSAN CHALMERS: Okay.  Thank you.  Let's go over to our remote moderator, Michael, who is an ISOC ambassador.  Michael, do we have any remote comments. 

     >> MICHAEL OGHIA: Yeah.  One from Alejandro.  He says I like the way Bob expressed IPv6 -- that IPv6 is the solution from a social perspective and not from a technical approach. 

     >> SUSAN CHALMERS: Yes.  Thank you for making that comment, Bob.  Constanze. 

     >> CONSTANZE BUERGER:  One response, we shouldn't forget we need addresses to talk about Internet governance, so on this forum, talking about people having higher layers, upper than eight, but not on the basic structure, and perhaps we should think about the protocol stack, all that environment, we can do and we can work on it to make it safer, secure, all that, and in my opinions, we have to bring in more intention -- attention to this space. 

     >> SUSAN CHALMERS: So in a sense, I guess, what we're discussing today, it's pretty foundational given the Internet Governance Forum, so -- and the underpinning of all of the issues that we're discussing elsewhere during this event.

     Okay.  Well, after that introduction, thank you.  Shall we move into case studies?  Constanze, are you ready for -- to prepare the case study?  Great.  Thank you. 

     >> Susan. 

     >> CONSTANZE BUERGER: Thank you.  Thank you for the possibility to talk and to be here, and thank you for the support from RIPE NCC as well.  I wanted to introduce first my key message.  We implemented in Germany LIR in the same way ISPs does, and this is, in my opinion, a new feature, and it's not easy to implement an LIR in the public administration, and so we did this, the first a key message, and the second one is we offer a lot of documents, experiences, specifications, and all these papers we offer for public and we can share our experiences, and we would be happy to do this in the future.  So let's start first slide.  We have a lot of activities in Germany, and I want to introduce two of them.  The first one is to implement the structure of government LIR.  That's our name.  And the second one is the experience from our research project.  I try.

     Yeah.  I think you see the structure of our LIR.  We implemented a new thing in the community.  It's called Sub LIR, because the idea was in our constitutional rights to hand out and to give over the self-confidence and responsibility to each country, municipality, and other organizations to handle their own address space, and the advantage is we bundle all that by our LIR, the top LIRde.government, and all Sub LIRs are aggregated in our.

     We set up the structure, and in our opinion, we have a lot of advantages.  We can handle the know-how, we have an IPv6 working group, we have a lot of experiences, and all experiences could be shared.  These are often recommendations, but on the other hand, we are able to set mandatory things for security issues, for crisis communication, for net gateways and all that stuff, and we have it in our hand to decide how to handle it.

     All this we wrote down in a document, and also this document is available in English.  This issue we brought also in the Euro Commission, and we hope a project in the next year.  In the ISA project, it's called Interoperability Solution for European Public Administration, and we hope to be present as a project there, and we want to offer a framework for all member states in the same way we structured our LIR de.government.  This is the structure.  On the other hand, to have IPv6 structures is not the same as running IPv6 addresses, and so we started research and development project for our customers, and we offer a lot of papers and can share and you can follow.  For instance, for procurement support, we have IPv6 profile, we have the description of them, we have migration support, we have a transition guide, we have workshop slides, and we have a lot of things you can use, and all these information where you can find these documents and questions you can ask for you find on this slide, and I hope you can use it, share it, and I'm thankful for the attention. 

     >> SUSAN CHALMERS: Thanks so much.  Yes, round of applause. 


     Thanks kindly.  Constanze, would you mind explaining a little bit about what the IPv6 profiles are and how they operate for the audience? 

     >> CONSTANZE BUERGER: Oh, it's really technical detail, and there is a description about the RFCs, and we looked at the RFCs and we described the necessary to have one bit introduced or to set, and on more detailed question, I have to hand over to my colleague.  He's sitting there.  Tahar, perhaps you can give more information. 

     >> TAHAR SCHAA: Thank you.  I'm a consultant for German government.  In Germany we made the experience that we would like to have IPv6, but IPv6 is only a small description, it is not very detailed, so we gathered products and services.  They are called IPv6 ready, but they weren't, so we had to task to define in more detail what does it mean to be IPv6 ready for German government usage, and therefore, we made this profile where detailed specification is documented, which RFC has to be implemented because there are hundreds of which are related to IPv6, and within this document it's a table and description document for the table, every option and every issue we would like to have for IPv6 and productand services for German government is documented, and we not only documented our own opinion, but we set it in comparison to all the other profiles which are existing.  For example, from the German -- from the U.S. government, from the RIPE NCC, and so there is an overview over several profiles in our own, and it's free and you can use it, you can download it and use it.  It's under Creative Commons.

     >> SUSAN CHALMERS: Excellent.  Thank you.  I think that -- so it's my understanding that the IPv6 profiles really help assist the whole of government to understand how they can better procure IPv6 hardware and equipment, and so that's -- that was identified as a best practice, and as Tahar mentioned, other countries have used that as well.

     So with that said, I'd like to turn it over to our subject-matter experts to see if they have any comments, and then we'll have discussion on the German case, so everybody, please, please feel free to contribute and ask any questions if you'd like.

     So I'd like to turn it over to Silvia.  Do you have any reflections on Constanze's case study? 

     >> SILVIA HAGEN: Yes, I do.  So I have been familiar with the process because we have worked together before, and I was also involved in similar steps in Switzerland, mainly when it came to finding a national addressing concept, and I think the Germans are quite a bit ahead of the Swiss in that case because they have a much clearer picture of how they want to move along, and what I really like about the concept is especially if you work out these profiles.

     So because creating general concepts for addressing for security and for operation of an IPv6 network, there are some big tasks that you need to do in advance in order to prepare for the operationfor the deployment and the operation, and it doesn't make sense, like in a country like Switzerland with many different contones that would have the same task, that everybody does their own work, so I like the framework as Constanze outlined, that they are going to develop the concepts and make them available to all the nations which are part of the EU, and I hope the Swiss will learn and do that too. 

     >> SUSAN CHALMERS: Cheers.  Thanks, Silvia.  Aaron, do you have any reflections? 

     >> AARON HUGHES: The only thing that I would really add, first, is thank you for contributing to this and exposing it to the public.  This is very helpful information for those out there looking at their transitions.  I think that the more of these we see out there, it can lead us to a path where we start to templatize our network architecture and implementations, as today this may seem overwhelming and somewhat challenging because there's so little information about people's documented experiences, so I would encourage others who are doing the same with both successes and failures to publish documents like this in order to enable others to follow in their footsteps with far more ease. 

     >> SUSAN CHALMERS: Cheers.  Constanze. 

     >> CONSTANZE BUERGER: I have to add something more.  It's not done with that work, so we realized in the context there, as a new age comes up, apparently a change in policy development, so all the EU states or Switzerland is coming to RIPE NCC, and they're going to ask for the same model that German does, and so the community has to open up to learn from new needs and from a new perspective, and so we turned -- I think, in the new age in this policy development process, we have to adapt to all that rules from RIPE NCC, and we'll have to fulfill all the rules and we have to learn from the community, but on the other hand, the community has or should see new customers, and this is very interesting.

     And the last success we had, we -- together we could change one policy to access to IPv6 addresses, and this is a very good message for all people who join the process and the RIPE NCC, and this was very good for us to learn as well.

     >> SILVIA HAGEN: Yes, I agree with what Constanze has said, and I'd like to add something which I see a lot in my consulting experience.  So when she talks about the paradigm shift, thismainly comes from the fact that the IPv6 has a bit of different addressing architecture than IPv4 has, so many customers don't understand that yet.  Some customers think, well, IPv6 is just a newer version of IPv4 with a lot larger address space, and that is not true.  It has a new architecture, and I see in my consultings that when I say to customers, they nod and say okay, let's do an IPv6 address plan, and only while we're in the process of trying to find new ways to create an address plan, they start to understand how different the architecture is.  That is not to shy anybody away, but it really takes time to get into the thinking and to understand what new options IPv6, and then use that in our concepts, and so I think that's part of this paradigm shift that we need to be able to make.

     So we need to make some education and studies and understand the new technology, and then we can create our base concepts, and that's where the paradigm shift happens. 

     >> MARCO HOGEWONING: Thank you, Silvia.  Before we move to -- Marco Hogewoning -- remote participationI would like to point out to the audience members, you are invited to comment as well.  I've got a handheld microphone, so please raise your hands or walk up to the other wireless microphone and contribute, or find an empty seat in the table.  I see one comment in the room.  Yes, sir.  Please introduce yourself. 

     >> KINOSHITA TSUYOSHI Should I stand up?  Hi.  My name's Kinoshita.  I'm from Japan.  I'm associated with the Internet Association Japan, also been part of the Japanese Government IPv6Promotional Study Group.  Thanks for sharing the great initiative from Germany.  I really enjoyed it.

     One question, if I -- if you could kindly elaborate, is do you have the process or mechanism installed how to track adoption of that profile or the resources you have developed because in Japan we have kind of embarked on a similar initiative almost five, six years ago.  The challenge we have is while there are good resources are being developed out of the community, how are the government agencies actually adopting it?  The tracking mechanism is one of the difficult aspects of what we are contemplating with because the IPv6 adoption talks not only the network but also the content and all the systems aspect so that we are actually interested in that you have also thinking of how to track the adoption IPv6 by the development agencies based upon the profile you have developed.

     >> CONSTANZE BUERGER: I think there's a political and technical answer.  We have in Germany the possibility after constitutional rights that municipalities, countries can do their own things, so they have to decide when and in which way they shall do it.

     What we offer is recommendation, technical know-how, and to be there to help to support this, and this is a way we do it.  We don't make political pressure, we don't make technical pressure.  Sometimes in security issues we make pressure, yes, could be, but not from our side, from our agency of security -- security technical environment.

     And we learned that all the industry implemented v6 already, so we haven't to care about v6 in the devices, it's in, so all the organizations have to care themselves to adopt it, and they come from -- alone and they ask for -- and the pressure from the municipalities, and so it would be much more, and we see it's going to run now for themselves. 

     >> MARCO HOGEWONING: Thank you, Constanze.  Ask you one more question? 

     >> AUDIENCE:  Thank you.  My name is (Inaudible), and I'm from Ethiopia.  I have two questions.  The first question is there may be a challenge for the deployment of IPv6, maybe customers believe that IPv6 takes much more space, but that is the reverse.  Is there any other challenge, like device compatibility and software compatibility and the like?  So the question is just for the data because in developing country, for example, in Ethiopia, still the different structure is in infant stage where they're putting IPv4 with many millions and billions of dollars of ITproject, but we're still using IPv4, and so it's time to deploy IPv6 in those countries because they're starting network from scratch.  The IGF Forum gives attention for developing country to giving input on this data from the scratch instead of, again, after ten years or five years.

     >> MARCO HOGEWONING: Aaron, you want to give a quick answer to that?

     >> AARON HUGHES: So the short answer to the first part of that question is, yes, of course, there are going to be challenges.  There will be challenges with software, there will be challenges with hardware.  The protocol is not in its infancy, but interoperability and feature parity and new features are still in progress.  I think the biggest challenge that we see globally is that service providers tend to look at this as effectively an end-to-end pipe.  We implement a v6 solution and other people can then just use it and transport across a network, but the activities that are happening on the edges, in developing countries, in smaller regions, in enterprises, all of the unknowns on the edge are really still not well documented, and we don't have all of the use cases, so I think this is really something that we'll see very clearly very quickly over time and need to be in documents exactly like this so that others can say, oh, I look like this and this is probably the guideline and here's what I should expect to see as both successes and challenges, and the more of these that we get in front of vendors and, you know, hardware and software, the better to help them create solutions for what become operational best practices. 

     >> MARCO HOGEWONING: Thank you, Aaron.  I see more questions at the table.  I'll remind you that we have some room left at the end of this session to further discuss also the conclusions ofthe document, so I want to quickly pass it on to Michael for remote participation and then we'll take more questions later on.

     >> MICHAEL OGHIA: Thank you, Marco.  There are three questions, but two of them are related to this case study, so if it's okay with the chair, I will table one and keep -- and read the other two.

     The first -- the first question was from Mr. Roman (Inaudible) from Benin, and his question was that I learned not long ago that the German Telecommunication operator offers the IPv6 service to all its customers.  How does this experience -- how has this experience been managed, and if you can elaborate about any -- if you have any information that could elaborate on thatI can re-read the question if needed.

     I also have a question from Alejandro Acosta from Venezuela, who said -- who is specifically asking Constanze if you can -- if there's any economic perspective of the project in Germany, and was that a big investment? 

     >> MARCO HOGEWONING: Constanze, quickly. 

     >> CONSTANZE BUERGER: Okay.  We have to remark.  We use this address space to -- for the possibility to choose the operator, the officers and organizations once, so we are not dependent from telecom.  That's the first.

     Otherwise, we are also a customer from telecom, and we are going to use this protocol, yes, in our new services.  And could you repeat the second question? 

     >> MICHAEL OGHIA: Sure.  The second question was regarding the economic perspective of the IPv6 project in Germany.  Was there a big investment that went into this, and I think Alejandro was trying to ask if -- whether -- just about the economic implications of this deployment. 

     >> CONSTANZE BUERGER: Yes.  Many people ask about, but in this way, we do this.  It's in an innovation cycle, and every organization can choose the way for a long-term perspective, and so every organization is self-responsible, and so we don't have or I don't -- I can't answer the question in detail.  I'm sorry.  So we have to -- perhaps we have to figure out the next -- in the next years.  I don't know.

     >> TAHAR SCHAA: Perhaps an addition to my side to answer the questions, we are in touch with the technical guys from German Telecom, and they said they fear that would become very many problems with switching on IPv6, but there weren't.  They were surprised that there was almost no problem with it.  This is for the first question.

     And the economic thing is what we try to do in Germany is to start very, very early for the public administration that we -- because the more time you have to introduce IPv6, the less money you have to spend because you have a long road map where you can change the devices at times where you have to change them anyhow because they're old.  If you have to introduce IPv6 very fast, then you have to spend extra money.  If you do it with a long road map, you don't have to spend extra money. 

     >> SUSAN CHALMERS: Thanks, Tahar.  I think that's a very powerful point to make, so I'm glad you expressed that.

     I think now having -- thank you for your presentation, Constanze, Tahar. 

     I think now we're going to turn to Alejandro for a presentation on IPv6 task forces, and this is a completely different type of best practice, which is why we picked it for its contrast.  But Alejandro is going to explain how the Venezuelan IPv6 task force developed public policy recommendations and presented these recommendations for IPv6 to policymakers, to the government.  So hopefully we're all set up.  So Alejandro, are you there?  Can -- can you say something? 

     It seems that Alejandro is speaking, but we cannot hear you, so can I -- can I ask if perhaps -- I'm sure you don't have the mute on. 


     >> SUSAN CHALMERS: Alejandro, Alejandro, can you turn up the volume, please.  Sorry, Alejandro, not you.  Okay.  Can you -- can you speak? 

     >> ALEJANDRO ACOSTA: Yeah, hello. 

     >> SUSAN CHALMERS: Can we turn up the volume a bit more, please in the room.  All right.  Sorry, Alejandro, go ahead.  Over to you. 

     >> ALEJANDRO ACOSTA: Well -- hello, and good morning.  First, I want to thank the IGF and Susan for coordinating this.  I know that there is a lot of work behind this, and from my point of view, I believe that you have done a terrific job. 

     Well, in this moment, I -- my name is Alejandro Acosta.  I work as an engineer for innovation and development, but in this moment, I'm going to talk on behalf of the IPv6 task force in Venezuela.  As you can see in the first slide, there is also the name of Gregorio Manzano, who is friend of mine who is a very active member of the IPv6 Task Force in Venezuela, so we pulled together this presentation.  The agenda of this small presentation will be a very quick talk about the history of the IPv6 in Venezuela.  Then I'm going to talk a little bit about the Venezuelan IPv6 Task Force, and I'm going to talk about the Venezuelan IPv6 Task Forcesince the Venezuelan IPv6 Task Force was the one who created the legal framework to encourage the government to deploy and to implement v6.  And then at the end, there are -- we've supplied a couple of references in case you want to go differ.

     Well, the slide in front of you has a lot of text, and we tried to go quick -- we'll try to go quick over this.  And in Venezuela, the IPv6 employment started back in 2004 when LACNIC assigned the first IPv6 prefixes for the country, and in that moment, as you would expect, initially what was called REACCIUN.  They deployed in their network v6, but I also want to mention BT LatAm in Latin America, because even though they are a private company, they also started the deployment of v6.  In 2008, in that moment they were able to offer v6 to their customer.  I believe this is something relevant because probably they became the first private ISP in Latin America to offer v6, something that I believe is quite important.

     And also in 2009 the first v6 between REACCIUN came up.  After that, a lot of other ISPs started to come.  Some of you have seen v6, some have not.  And then in 2012 we had something that we call the IPv6 where LACNIC came to Venezuela and they gave a couple of talks, framing, and in that moment the interest for v6 started to increase.  And then last year, in 2014, formally finished the creation of what we call the IPv6 -- the IPv6 Task Force. 

     And I just -- then the slide that you have in front of you, I just want to mention that we are serious, we have mailing list, we have a couple of meetings face-to-face, remotely, so we have been working quite hard on this.  We are based on a multistakeholder model, so different people from different sectors on the mailing list and people that long to the IPv6 Task Force, and what are our objectives?

     The first one, and there is a way we were created -- was to create a legal framework to encourage the deployment of IPv6.  That was our main object, but additionally of that, we have a space where v6 can be discussed.  This is a space where we can promote the participation of different sectors and people who want to push and to help us to implement v6.  We want to spread the word of v6, why this is important, why we should be moving there, and we want to get people to understand about v6.

     And this slide is probably the summary of what is this -- my presentation about.  It's what is in our public policy proposal.  And the public policy proposal is a paper that was given to the government, a paper that was given to the government where we want the government to do a couple of things, a few things.  The first one is that we believe that the government should put IPv6 as a mandatory item in their new bids and for every service that they ask for, new contracts, new equipment, new links, and, well, all -- everything should have or should be at least IPv6-ready.  On the other hand, we believe that in case the government wants to import new devices, equipment to the country, they should ask for IPv6 also.  It should be a must.

     And finally, we want CONATEL, which is the regulator or telecom Council in Venezuelato include us in somehow the ISPs to support IPv6.  We don't want the ISPs to be forced, but we want the CONATEL to include us in somehow the ISPs to support the IPv6 network.  Of course, these points are a short summary of what the document is about.  And this is a picture of -- when we deliver -- we gave the government to the director of CONATEL.  It was in last year, August 12th, 2014, it was our first local IGF.  We didn't use the name IGF, but it is the same, and this is and we have our second meeting.  Here you have the references, the IPv6 adoption and deployment, the link if you want to read the full document.  It's in Spanish, of course, and also the mailing list.

     And that's all that we have in this moment.  Feel free to ask whatever questions you have. 

     >> SUSAN CHALMERS: Excellent.  Thank you so much, Alejandro, for that presentation.  That's a very powerful case study, I think, and it's good to see that those recommendations were being made, and from the picture it looks like they were warmly received.

     I guess my -- well, my first question, Alejandro, is whether or not or how this has been received and if the -- if the government is considering this.  Like, are there any updates on that -- on that point that you could share? 

     I'm sorry, we're going to have to turn up the volume when Alejandro speaks. 

     Okay.  Perhaps we can -- you can share your responses in the chat, and for now, let's turn to our subject-matter experts and see if they have anything to say about the public policy recommendations from the IPv6 Task Force in Venezuela. 

     >> SILVIA HAGEN: Yes, I would like to add something, and I think this was a very interesting presentation and a great case, and just one comment that I want to do to the government base that have to require IPv6.  I think that's a very important point and very helpful, and I wish our Swiss government would go a little further in this direction also, but what I'd like to clarify here is that many people understand, like, okay, you just make this check box support IPv6 or in your bid you just say, well, we need IPv6 support, and that is by far not sufficient, so if anybody, government or enterprises, want to do IPv6 requirements and requests from their vendors to support IPv6, they have to be a lot more specific than that.

     And again, in order to be able to be more specific, you just need to understand quite a bit about IPv6 and how you want to do your transition before you can make your requests about IPv6 support.  As Tahar mentioned, you have to go to the RFC level and say what RFCs that you have to have implemented in order to do what you want to do, so thanks. 

     >> SUSAN CHALMERS: Excellent.  Aaron, any insights? 

     >> AARON HUGHES: Nothing really to add to that.  I think these are great, and, again, I think, you know, the more of these, the better to become a templatize process where effectively you can change the country name and the minor deltas between those needs, so I think these kind of efforts are fantastic and really appreciate them being done early on. 

     >> SUSAN CHALMERS: Thanks.  And Alejandro replied that the proposal was received warmly.  They are still working on this, and the task force has had a few meetings after they've delivered the document, so we'll stay tuned, Alejandro, and it will be excellent to see how this turns out.

     Oh, in fact, CONATEL in Venezuela implemented v6 after that happened, so that is great.  Constanze and then Marco. 

     >> CONSTANZE BUERGER: Thank you, Alejandro, for your report, and I think we can improve our work as well, and so we want to check your links and stay in touch, please.  Then we can work together. 

     >> MARCO HOGEWONING: Thank you, Constanze.  I want to take it back to the room, but not only about Alejandro's case study but also about, actually, the document we presented.  Did any of you have a chance to read the BPF, the output document that's open for comment, and does anybody have any questions or comments related to that that he wants to put on the table here in front of our expert, or maybe Aaron or Silvia, you two had a chance to look at the comments posted online.  Is there anything that stood out to you that you think this is something you think is worthwhile mentioning here? 

     >> AARON HUGHES: I don't feel that there were any particularly challenging comments, which was really nice, actually.  I think the majority of people were in overwhelming agreement, and really there were fairly minor things commented on the document for actual work that needs to be done from, you know, what we've put together so far, so I'm actually fairly encouraged and would love to see some more -- you know, particularly the challenging questions of what gaps are left and how we can enrich this to make it easier for people to follow.

     >> MARCO HOGEWONING: And I know that we specifically set out to not write a technical document, and I think this was one of my goals was to keep this high level.  One of the commenters I knowmentioned something about the use of technology, transitioning technology, so, like, MAP-T and others -- that's a lot of technical acronyms, and time is way too short to explain them all, but in terms of technologies that could help the transition, what's your opinion as a technical expert that has a lot of experience here? 

     >> AARON HUGHES: Yeah.  That was one of the more technical comments on the document, and, you know, it's certainly hard to say as a best practice don't use transition technologies that aren't dual stacking, but I will say that, you know, if you want to do this once, your best methodology for transitioning to, you know, eventually v6 only is to use dual stack as your option to transition.

     Certainly, evaluating other transition technologies and understanding the pros and cons or cost-benefit analysis is a prudent thing to do, and it is the fiscally responsible thing to do, but in terms of technology and best practice, you know, dual stacking is certainly the best option. 

     >> MICHAEL OGHIA: Thank you.  You want to comment? 

     >> BOB HINDEN: I'll second that.  In evaluating transition technologies, you know, I think dual stack is the one that has the most traction, but it's -- when you think about them, it's important to make sure you -- if you'd want to do something else that you have a way of later transitioning away from it because you don't want to be stuck with your -- with a transition technology that doesn't have a good forward path to IPv6 only, which is where we're going to end up, I think.  We'll -- I think sort of the end state in this is most networks will be IPv6, and there will be some translators to go from v6 to v4 for some Legacy systems, and, you know, so it's important to think about when looking at transition technologies where you're trying to -- what you're trying to transition to and think about it -- think about the whole picture and not just one incremental step. 

     >> SUSAN CHALMERS: Let's turn to the audience.  Does anybody have any experience with the transition technologies that they would like to share, and if they have an opinion on what has been said thus far. 

     >> MARCO HOGEWONING: Okay.  The lady over there first. 

     >> SUPRITA LNU Hi, everyone. 

     >> MARCO HOGEWONING: You had a question.

     >> SUPRITA LNU: Hi, everyone.  It's Suprita.  I am an ISOC ambassador.  I am working in India (Inaudible) and working towards IPv6 implementation, so I had a couple of comments, like we started with dual stack, but then we realized that for there were too many consumers, we were not going to achieve dual stack because we would run out and we wouldn't be able to serve our customer, so we started looking at the MAP-T technologies, as the document said, and when we started to look at the MAP-T later last year, we didn't have the technology, like approval, so there were issues with the vendor support and all that, so MAP-T, we got vendor support earlier this year, so we got support and we were able to implement it in our field.  That was my comment.  Thank you. 

     >> MARCO HOGEWONING: So to sum it up, it's about vendor support of technology and standardization.  You want to comment on the ITF process?  I know Silvia made some comments about the vendor support earlier on.  If you want to --

     >> SILVIA HAGEN: Well, not specifically on the vendor support question, but generally on the transition mechanisms ways, so working with large enterprises, I see that many that are going to passive deployment, they start out with a picture of doing dual stack, and then while they get into it, they reconsider this and plan for something that I wouldn't say an IPv6-only strategy, but maybe we call it IPv6-centric strategy, and I think we have to look that the a little more differentiated.  You can't say let's go dual stack, because finally if you could dual stack everything, you could turn IPv4 off, right?  So dual stack only works where we have IPv4 addresses available for all the clients that you'll also address with IPv6, so a real full dual stack doesn't exist.  You have certain parts of your network, your clients backbone dual stack, and you can run services on top, which may be IPv4 or IPv6, for instance.  That could be one scenario.

     So I know large enterprises and know more than one of them that actually look at IPv6 because they're running out of private tent space internally.  They can't dual stack.  I know one company that used, like, 90% of their IPv4 space, and they have  SLAP tool on, so they don't know what to do in that case.  So in one case, IPv4 doesn't work, and even though my design outline is go IPv6 wherever you can, you might have to use transition mechanisms with two aspects.  One of them is they should be transitional, meaning they are just to be in place for a specific time to bridge a gap.

     And so, for instance, I know a customer, he has now the plan to migrate his Backbone to IPv6 only using his next refresh cycle, and then he will use for -- for a certain time, he will usetransition technology in order to support IPv4 traffic only over his IPv6 Backbone, so in this respect, I think that's an acceptable transition technology.

     So you have to be a little specific.  If you make a choice or you say this is good or it's not good. 

     >> MARCO HOGEWONING: Anything to add to that?  No? 

     >> TAHAR SCHAA: Perhaps from my side, we saw in Germany also that we stuck with this -- all this transition technologies and no one has a clear overview what is good, what is bad, what should we do.  Therefore, we made an overview.  It's still in German, so we want to translate it in the beginning of the next year, and what we found out is to value a transition technology, you can't say it's good or it's bad because you have different stakeholders.  It's perhaps good for the ISP because it's good for his business model, but perhaps it's bad for the customer, so we made an evaluation of each transition technology existing between IPv4/IPv6 with three points of view, a government view, customer view, ISP view, and we will provide it on the same address in English in the mid of the next year. 

     >> MARCO HOGEWONING: Thank you, Tahar.  I think that would be helpful, in terms of time management because it's still ticking away.  I have a gentleman on the corner with a question.  I see Marco -- no.  I'll take -- Pablo.  Then I've got you on the queue, I've got the gentleman opposite on the queue, and Pablo on the queue, so please keep your intervention short because we've only got 25 minutes left now.  Thank you. 

     >> MWENDWA KIVUVA: My name is Mwendwa Kivuva.  I'm an Internet Society ambassador.  I've been the network administrator at the University of Nairobi in Kenya.  It is one of the biggest universities in the East African region.  We implemented IPv6 earlier this year, and we used the dual stack method.  Of course, there are challenges, and one of the biggest challenge we had was legacy devices are very old and we are actually working to replace them in some sites, and we have also been approached by several investors to probably help them in transitioning to IPv6, ands this document on the IPv6 best practice could not have come at a better time because they'll be used very well in our region, but I also feel that we need more advocacy in our region so that people can see the need to transition and they can also see that it's not rocket science, it's something that is doable, and probably we also need monetary and evaluation to know how effective the advocacy that we are doing in our communities -- how effective they are.  Thank you. 

     >> MARCO HOGEWONING: Okay.  Thank you.  The gentleman opposite of you, you had a question? 

     >> MARK SVANCAREK: I have a question and a comment.  I'm Mark from Microsoft, and so I have the opposite perspective because we're providing the services.  The first comment is I've noticed that, you know, we're saying it's not enough to have a check box or let's not make a requirement, let's be nice and encouraging, but at the other end, we have to also have these conversations and look at RFCs and decide what exactly do we need to implement, and I think I find that unless you have the check box, you won't be having the conversation with your vendors, it just won't happen.

     Second thing is that I think that there's a -- one of the reasons that people hold back from having the check box requirement is because they look at their own timelines and they say it's too early to have the check box, and the reality is you probably won't meet your own timelines.  The United States said that they would be ready in the public sector by 2012 and that all vendors would be obliged to support IPv6 at their customer-facing edge in 2013, so Microsoft was ready with Office 365 early in 2013, but the actual situation is that there aren't any U.S. government organizations that are ready to take advantage of it or even test it, and in case -- and in fact, there was one organization that gave an exception, said, Well, we don't really need it, we won't enforce it.

     So my comment is that you should really consider, you know, in spite of your timelines and how far out they are, having those conversations with your vendors now and encouraging within your organizations to have those conversations, and if it takes a check-box requirement to make those conversations happen, you might consider doing that. 

     >> MARCO HOGEWONING: Thank you.  Last comment for this round, Pablo, you had something to add? 

     >> PABLO HINOJOSA:  Hello.  My name is Pablo.  I work for one of the (Inaudible).  We're very much involved in IPv6, but I was counting the people in the room.  There are around 44 people, and I don't know if all of you are actually quite involved in technical or the operational aspects of IPv6, and I just would like to address these to those that are not because it seems that this discussion was a little bit on the technical side, on the dry side, but the purpose of this document, which, by the way, I think it's fantastic, I think the idea was to make it in a way that was also appealing for those that are not very technical to bridge the gap -- I mean, the IRS, for example, have a lot of literature on IPv6, but the point of having this reference in IGF was because of that, to appeal to a wider audience, to the policymakers, to those that don't know very much about IPv6 but should know about IPv6 because that's the key of the future of the Internet, so the only thing that I would really like to stress is to invite all of you to read this document and provide comments.

     I don't know if the link is easily accessible, the IGF website is not the easiest to navigate on, but really, that document is not for technical people, it is for all of you, and I hope -- and you are very welcome to participate in commenting but also on reading because there's a lot to learn there. 

     >> SUSAN CHALMERS: Thanks, kindly, Pablo, and it's perfect timing because I was just about to say -- well, I've got a copy right here, and I wanted to go through the table of contents to let everybody know about what is in the document and maybe highlight some sections where we could really use some more contributions.

     So in this document -- it's an eight-part document -- we've begun with an introduction about IPv6, as Pablo mentioned.  This is not a technical document, it is designed for the nontechnical reader, but at the same time, we have worked extensively with a lot of technical experts to be able to translate this into a higher level, so it should be good reading for everyone. 

     But -- so in the introduction we just canvas the reasons why IPv6 is important, all these reasons I'm sure most people are familiar with, but in the case no, then you can review the document.

     We talk about IPv4 exhaustion, and then we kind of lead into the substance.

     So a big part of what we focused on during the discussion was the work of IPv6 Task Force, so that is quite a robust section.  After that, we move into capacity building and we describe the various efforts that are being made and capacity building on IPv6, both in terms of technical capacity building for -- in the technical side but also and equally as important capacity building for nontechnical people like CFOs and CEOs and the marketing departments of various institutions, so we addressed that as well.

     Then we have a big section on the private sector and some best practices that were shared there.

     After that we have a section on research and education networks and universities, so our colleague from Kenya might wish to contribute to that document.  That's Section 5.

     And then we have a section on government initiatives.  Of course, our case study from Germany is in that section along with a number of others that were received through our survey, which we did circulate, so we've got some good illustrations there, if you'd like to check that out government, folk.

     And then we have a section on the end user on IPv6 adoption, which we had a really interesting discussion online about identifying IPv6 as an element of a product and certification, so if you're interested in that, you might want to check that out.

     Then we have a brief section on measurements, and then the conclusion we have yet to write, so that is just a brief outline of the document, so if you'd like -- if anything there piques your interest, please go on to the public platform and contribute a comment.

     So with that said, we have just a few minutes left for open discussion before we're going to turn to Marco and he's going to wrap up, and we'll have a discussion on the summary.

     So let's open the floor to any other comments.  Does anybody -- would anybody like to make a comment?  Oh, Wim. 

     >> WIM DEGEZELLE: Thank you, Susan.  Just for some people in the room that haven't been involved in how we came to this I think 30-, 40-page document, I would just like to say, well, you have -- the people on the panel have contributed to that, but that's only a few of them because what has happened is that we have been working since I think the end of April, early May, working on a mailing list for everybody could comment and could participate, almost two weekly conference calls, and then built up that document with input from everywhere.

     I think it's very important -- Susan mentioned it also -- we had the survey running, and it's still open via the IGF website, where we really came from, those case studies from everywhere around the world, and all that information came together in the draft document, and I think that's also important to build further this week as it was mentioned.  The document is open on the IGF website to add additional comments, additional also examples, and it will only be closed at the end of this week, and then I think with the help of all the people on the panel and people that have worked also remotely, we will take those comments and come up with the final document that will only be I think at -- by the end of this month, but I really wanted to stress this is not the work of a few people, it's the work of a whole group of people that send in comments, ideas, and those were bundled, so thanks. 

     >> SUSAN CHALMERS: Cheers.  I will -- sorry.  Olivier. 

     >> OLIVIER CREPIN-LEBLOND: I'm just going to be very quick.  Olivier Crepin-Leblond, European-at-large organization.  It was mentioned it was difficult to find the document.  If you go to Best Practice Forum and you click on the one about IPv6 and then click on the review platform, that has got a direct link over to the document.  It has very few comments in there at the moment, and it needs a lot more comments.  I'm sure that there's a lot that we might have improved, and now is the time to actually bring those improvements forward, so please comment.  Thank you. 

     >> SUSAN CHALMERS: Thanks, Olivier.  Michael, any remote -- oh, is there -- we have a hand up in the back.  Please, there's a microphone right there, if you want to ...

     >> AUDIENCE:  Thank you.  So I'm from Japan.  I'm a rep (Inaudible) Communications.  We always promote the IPv works promotion, and we have a study -- multiple studies.  We have the -- all those studies from -- in the past, and several study group has been done, and we tried to introduce this IPv Works promotion, so it is now the report introduced of Japanese cases, so we -- there's more important issue, experiment of the IPv works promotion, so we -- after the -- after the conclusion of our study group, we always do -- did an experiment to test the IPv6 could we work with the application, so we should have to mention that the importance of the experiment to show that all people it works and it is meaningful, so I would like to show the importance of experiments to show the people to deploy the real system in the world, so please -- I'd like to add a sentence, various experiments as needed -- as needed, and we have to -- after the experiment, I -- we publish the result -- we have to publish the result such as guidelines as a result of the experiment and purchase -- experiment purchases specification for corporation, local government, and the IPv equipment which is to the people.  Thank you. 

     >> SUSAN CHALMERS: Thank you, kindly, for that intervention.

     So we're going to hear from Izumi, then to Constanze and then over to Marco. 

     >> IZUMI OKUTANI: Hi.  I'm conscious of time, but I wanted to add a little context of the earlier intervention from the Ministry of Information of -- of information and internal affairs.

     So I think there has been some discussions about getting -- well, when you think about the operation, there are issues that some products are not ready or some features are not ready, so what the Japanese government has done is they've actually outsourced experiments to private sectors, and then they've actually documented the result of this experiment, and they have published which product is ready and have gone through the checks of the experience, and then which has gone through the security experiments and they've published that, so I think that was sort of in the context of what was being discussed, and maybe it's one of the cases that's worth mentioning as a collaboration between the government and private sector.  Thanks. 

     >> SUSAN CHALMERS: Cheers.  Constance, do you have a brief comment?

     >> CONSTANCE BOMMELAER: Yeah, a question, actually.  One of the ways we cook these best practices is not to negotiate because we don't want to change the nature of the IGF while working towards tangible outputs for people, policymakers, Civil Society leaders back home, and one of the ways we cook these best practices is to compare the different approaches, experiences, and of course, sometimes people have different approaches, so I was wondering on this specific issue, because I know with the gender one, the gender best practice and other themes, sometimes there were quite different approaches on the way to tackle the issue on this specific topic, question, on what issues, approaches, when were the moments in the discussion this year did you sense that there were very different approaches?  Is I'd be really interested.  Thank you. 

     >> SUSAN CHALMERS: I don't think we saw very different approaches in this Best Practice Forum, but we do see some different approaches when it comes to transition es.  I think that would probably be the one that comes to mind.  So Marco. 

     >> MARCO HOGEWONING: Yes.  Thank you, Susan.  First, a very brief comment, as I know time is very limited, 90 minutes is certainly not enough to discuss this.  Please do find the NRO booth downstairs, the five regional entities are there, and they can help you to get in touch with local and regional IPv6 experts to answer any questions you might have, so we can take this further.

     And of course, regarding the document, I hope that the final document will be well -- it will be a PDF, and we will certainly do our best to be that as widely as possible, you can just take the PDF and forward it on to people, you don't have to go back to the Internet Governance Forum website, I hope.

     So wrapping this up and kind of answering part of Constanze's question is how to link this into this afternoon's discussion and policy options to connecting the best practices.

     As Constance pointed out, we don't want to change the IGF and its nature, and, yeah, we don't really negotiate or we don't have a formal process to this.  I've been asked to summarize some of the key points to take to this afternoon's session, and -- well, how to summarize a multistage, multipage document and months of discussion in four brief points.

     I think, and I hope that this workshop will support me in the conclusion that we all see that IPv6 task forces especially are a great way to exchange knowledge but would also -- I know this really came out of this discussion is the continuous need for alignment, alignment between vendors and the users, alignment between the different operators, between the service providers, internationally but especially in the local markets.  As Constanze pointed out, one of the things to incentivize is to actually deploy IPv6, and that why it gives the market so many initiatives to deploy IPv6 because there is a large party demanding IPv6.

     So as far as the takeaways, yes, IPv6 task forces are a great way to exchange knowledge and coordinate and align IPv6 deployment efforts.

     Addressing the policy options, I think the two main ones I think I would like to highlight is especially the role of government in stimulating IPv6 by essentially practicing what you preach, do it themselves and encourage vendors but encourage the local service providers to deploy IPv6 as well, and I think wherever that's done to discuss it here in the room, but it was brought up several times during the discussions while we were compiling the documents and discussing the best practices, there should be no regular barriers to IPv6 deployment, and I think again IPv6 task forces, especially local ones, are a great way to engage with all stakeholders, identify any regulatory or policy obstacles that might exist to deploy IPv6, and work with all stakeholders to remove such obstacles.

     And finally -- and that's answering directly to Constanze's question about furthering the work.  I think you share my conclusions that this was a useful exercise.  IPv6 adoption certainly won't be finished next year.  I hope to be proven wrong, but experience learned, we're probably back next year in 2016 discussing this again.

     My take would be to -- and I would like the group to acknowledge that too, continue to work with the Best Practices Forum, but discussing this with some of the key participants, one of the suggestions that we would like to make for the MAG is to focus next year's IPv6 BPF more on the economic aspects of IPv6 deployment.

     It certainly is not all technical.  If you operate a business, there are certain risks and there is a lot of financial gain or loss in deploying IPv6, and we feel that this year time was too short to really look into it.  There isn't much work done yet in those areas, so from the key contributors, our take away would be to continue this and look into those aspects for next year's round, and I hope this joint group will support us in those conclusions, so with 3 minutes and 40 seconds left, any comments on this summary? 

     >> MICHAEL OGHIA: I have a general comment on the overall process, if that's okay.  Okay.

     So I just really want to quickly echo what Pablo is saying.  I am not a technical person in any way, but I now have quite a lot of familiarity with this document, and I really have to underscore how phenomenal of the job the committee has done, the contributors have done, in creating this document.  It is robust, it is incredibly informative, and it also really -- it really illustrates why this is such an important part of the future of -- or the immediate future of technology, so thank you very much.

     >> SUSAN CHALMERS: Cheers.  Thank you so much, Michael.  And so we will polish up this document, and then also looking forward, I was wondering, Aaron, if you had anything to contribute to what Marco had said about focusing on the economic implications of IPv6 adoption for the next time that we have -- provided we have a Best Practice Forum on IPv6, then we would focus on that. 

     >> AARON HUGHES: Sure.  I've spent a great deal of time with a variety of different types of organizations, and one of the key aspects of challenges related to a transition plan or a long-term migration plan has been fiduciary responsibility, particularly around evaluating unknowns.

     It is a new challenge for people who are in positions like network architects or system architects or CTOs.  Approaching IPv6 transition is not the same as a five-year forklift upgrade, and there are some fiduciary impacts that are very different.

     As mentioned a little earlier, on the timeline the (Inaudible) is practically zero, but as this timeline gets shorter and we are forced to make decisions faster than we normally would to change the architecture, there is a heavy impact on finances, and those should be accounted for.  So I think it's definitely worth getting more data from as many folks as we can in that area. 

     >> SUSAN CHALMERS: Great.  Thank you.  Well -- and then also we noted that enterprise-wide deployment of IPv6 would also be a good thing to look at because it's -- there are just a few case studies out there, so that might be another area of focus for next year.

     Well, with that said, I'd like to thank everybody for joining us today.  I was very happy to see the population grow -- attendance grow as the session went on.  We're so happy to have you here, and please, please do check the document out on the IGF website, and please also join our session this afternoon on intersessional work.

     So thank you, everyone, and have an excellent day.