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.
>> AXEL PAWLIK: If you could all stay here for the community forum that would be wonderful. If I could ask my panelists to sit down. I think we have enough chairs for all of you. We have to expedite this a little bit because Aaron has to run away soon to his plane.
So do come in. Be seated. Lots of seats up front as well.
All right. And then we are slowly getting ready starting this open forum.
Thank you very much. Sorry Sandra for rushing you out.
So this is the open forum on the regional Internet registries communities. Without this time we would not do a forum on the organizations themselves. That's boring. We sort of know them. It might be a little bit more to the point to talk about the committees and what they have been doing and how they work. My name is Axel. I'm the managing director of the RIPE NCC, which is the area for the European areas. I'm standing here as a role in the chair of the NRO, which is basically all the areas working together doing things together like this.
In the interest of efficiency of time, I would have ask my panelists to just go around and introduce them shortly and just do their talk.
And I would like to start with Aaron, because you are slightly fidgety there.
>> AARON HUGHES: Good afternoon. I'd like to take a moment to introduce the Internet registry system as a whole. The Internet Registry System is composed of the five Internet registries. That is LACNIC for Latin America, ARIN for the North Americas region, RIPE for the European region, APNIC for Asia region, and AFRINIC for the African region.
Together with the five RIRs and IANA, we make up a single Internet Registry System as a whole.
Each of the registry systems were designed to support local language, time zones, support, and local regional developmental policies. There are some global policies. They are intended to tell IANA how to distribute number resources, that is IPv4 and 6, as well as to assist numbers to each of the five Internet registry systems. Those global policies are facilitated by a voluntary use of ICANN to use the ASO to take the exact same text around to each of the five regions and have a regional discussion about global policy. So by the time a global policy passes, a policy has been presented and discussed and come to consensus at dozens of meetings.
Outside of global policy, there's regional policy. And each of us are going to talk about the policy development process in their respective regions.
I'm Aaron Hughes. I'm one of the seven board members of the American registry of Internet members, or ARIN.
Our region consists of 24 countries. That is Canada, United States, and 22 of the 27 Caribbean islands.
Those are primarily chosen for local language. The other five are handled by LACNIC.
In the ARIN region there are seven board members, six of which are elected and the seventh is the CEO. Along with 15 advisory council members, all of which are elected and they are there to facilitate the policy development process with the community. They help author, shepherd, work with community members to get texts together to present within the region and will even bring up policies at time, realm policies to the community that they work with.
In the ARIN region we have two annual meetings along with occasionally a PPC which is consultancy meetings with the operator where we take input, as well as an ARIN on the road program where we send out small teams of people that otherwise might not be able to get community input.
The policy process is entirely open. You can participate on mailing lists or remotely attending meetings as well as in person at our regular meetings.
The next errand meeting will be held in Jamaica on April 17th and I certainly welcome you to participate in that either in person or remotely.
And there is also a program available through errand that will help facilitate getting you to a meeting to participate where you're welcome to request assistance in getting to the meeting and attending in person.
You're welcome to ask me any questions about the errand meeting. I'm going to pass to my colleagues.
>> AXEL PAWLIK: Next in line is Nicolas.
>> NICOLAS ANTONIELLO: Okay. Morning everyone. My name is Nicolas. I'm from Uruguay and I've been involved since a couple of years now in the policy development process and in the committee in general within the LACNIC region. I tell you the LACNIC involves all the countries that are between the frontier of Mexico and the U.S., including Mexico down up to including all the Caribbean countries down to the south end of Argentina, all Latin America and the Caribbean Island.
And what do we do regarding policy development in the region? Well, the policy development process, it's led by the community itself.
There is ‑‑ actually, the policy development process that it's a kind of document that has where it says all the administrative things and tasks on how to develop policy, how to present a new policy, how they are discussed, how they are elected or in favor or against and how they are deployed.
There's the policy manual which is a company of all the policies that are actually running in the region. Who is able to participate in this development process and that's one of the main things about this process. There's no group in charge of development, special group in charge of developing policies. Actually, in all five regions there's no such group. Whole community. I mean, it's not the members of the RIR. It's anyone. There are two things you need to participate in that development process, which are you have to have the desire to participate. That's one. And the second one is that you have to go to the RIR page, look for the policy page. Just click on the certain link that will lead you to a mailing list, which is the main field which policies are presented, proposed, and discussed. And that's all. That's all, desire, and a subscription to a mailing list. You can be anyone. No matter what you do, who you are, you can propose a new policy. You can discuss any policy. You can then vote against or in favor or argue against or argue in favor of any policy.
There are two kinds of policies we discuss. Normally we discuss the ones that are ‑‑ we call regional policies within the specific region and there are kinds of policies which are global. I'm going to mention an example of a global policy. Could be the one that ‑‑ or the ones that were developed regarding the exertion of IPv4 space, IANA, for example will give new addresses that were ‑‑ I don't know how to say it in English. I can't find the exact word, but when you have IPv4 space that you no longer need, you return it to the IANA. IANA with this returned space will give some blocks to the five different regions. That's a global policy that was developed a couple of years ago which actually tells the IANA how to manage that books that were given back to IANA. That is a policy which ‑‑ the processes have some differences. The process which are local and the processes which are global, mainly they challenge you with the global processes that you have to be in coordination with all five reels because the policy has to be approved in all five areas so goes to the IANA and might be approved. The actual policy was developed from the community of the five regions and then was approved by IANA. It's the policy they are applying at this time.
So regarding regional policy development, there are lots of things that are ‑‑ that we're discussing that are being discussed, all the criteria for assigning for the books were discussed and are a consequence of policies and developed by the community. All the criteria for the new IPv6 methods of assigning books are policies being deployed and proposed by the community.
And also there are a lot of work regarding administrative policies, how this process works, if they have to be changed from time to time because of, you know, if things need to be done different you have to propose a policy, which is also proposed by the community. To change the process of developing, of policy development. That's also part of the policy development process, not part of the manual.
I will stop here and if you have any questions then.
>> AXEL PAWLIK: Thank you very much. I think we'll do a round of questions at the end. You said anybody can come off the streets and participate in the discussion. That is interesting.
Saskia, who are you.
>> SASKIA KLEINE‑TEBBE: My name is Saskia. I work for the German Federal Government, precisely in the federal ministry of the interior. What I'd like to talk about is we as the government had some difficulties in assuming role of being just a part of a community, but still we are alive and the world is still turning so it was not the end. I would like to tell you how our experience was working with precisely with a broadband CC because Germany's in Europe.
So how and why we as a government are part of that community. How do we interact with broadband CC. You should pay in mind the German Federal Interior is one of the conservative administrations in our government. It has been there forever. It was kind of new for us to work together to cooperate with a not for profit organization based in Amsterdam in the Netherlands where basically as Nicolas described everyone could participate and engage in discussions.
That's not the way governments or ministries work.
This famous multistakeholder way is not normal to us in the government. So we had to we had to adjust to the way how the government is governed. Usually we say we're the government, including the Internet, but no Internet is ruled in a different way. You all know that. Although the words governance and government sound quite alike, it's still a different thing.
So we actually learned that we have to play by the Internet governance rules, where if we want to have our say and we want to put forward our interests. So as a matter of fact, we have to do that because we are operating a local Internet registry. As we received IPS from broadband CC. So if we receive something we have to give in return. There is a need of course because we as the government also have to prepare for future Internet usage also at government level, we need to build up a structure and homogeneous infrastructure and we have to follow a coordinated approach and take care of all security aspects in the ministry of the interior it's all about security, of course.
So in order to do so we just had no choice but to accept our role in this community.
And our role in that community is being an equal part with everybody else. We are not someone special just because we are a government. And when doing so we figured out that we could learn so much from the other community members. So thank you to all of you because we were quite new to that community. And it worked well. It really turned out fine. We had to set up our local intraregistry DE, dot government, we didn't know how to do that but we learned. And now we are part of the community. We follow the complete same multistakeholder approach like everyone else who is part of a community.
Well, as I told you in the beginning that was scary because normally if we ‑‑ if you want to change something we do a policy, we work with governments, we work with the parliament. In the end if we have to make a law that's how we work, but this doesn't work for Internet governance.
So we had to accept the role as part of the community. We started to engage in discussions. We took part in the policy negotiations, and what happened, we listened, we talked to people, we put forward our interests. And the rest of the community happened to listen to us. That was maybe not surprising for the community. For us it was.
So we had the chance to bring up our user perspective. It's a bit different of course of user Internet service providers or companies because we are a government after all. We have some special requirements and some different needs. For example, of course, maybe our federal office does not want to be published in an Internet accessible database because that might not work well with the work they have to do, or another example is sometimes we have the police, public prosecutor and the court within the same building. You could say that's just one side. It is not because for constitutional reasons we have to keep the traffic and all the databases and all the ‑‑ everything concerned with data completely apart between the police and the judiciary. There are some ‑‑ will not get into details. There are some differences, but at least we will listen. We could explain how governments work and how our requirements are. And finally, there was an agreement that governments or the public administration is a sort of special, a new local Internet registry, which is a bit different, but still it works in a similar way. But because we have different needs, there might be also a need for policy adaptations. In order to do that we just had to engage in the discussions. We did so. Of course the group of shake holds got a bit bigger by bringing in all the public administration, but, well that's how it is. And you know what, in the end working with this pays off because in the short week together with the United Kingdom and also with Switzerland we managed to change a policy. To be precise the policy of RIPE 641 RIPE IPB6 address allocation and assignment to RIPE 655. And now our new needs are taken into account.
So I said that a number of times so I would like to tell you in a nutshell is that governments do not govern the Internet. The Internet is governed by the community. But governments are part of that community and when they start acting as a member of that community, it's not the end of the world, but it's the only way to put forward government interests within that world. That's what I wanted to tell you.
Thank you very much.
>> AXEL PAWLIK: Wonderful. Thank you very much.
And as you say, was a bit of a surprise for you that it worked. I could say it wasn't a surprise but it was great to see you participating as a government in the PDP and getting the results that you wanted of the community just playing along was wonderful.
Mike, you're up next. Who are you?
>> MIKE BLANCHE: Who am I? It's been a long week.
I'm from Google based in London. We're a member of RIPE as well as some of the RIRs as we have operations around the world.
I'm just going to talk a little bit about RIPE from the perspective of being a member such as Google is a member of RIPE.
First of all, obviously management of the IP resort is a part of the Internet and RIPE, which has responsibility for a very large region ranging from Greenland in the west to the far east of Russia and then if you go from top to bottom it's like Iceland down to Yemen. There you go. I know my geography just about. It's a very large area and many hundreds of millions of people that rely on RIPE operating fishily and effectively for the Internet to work well.
RIPE is obviously community bottom up organization, multistakeholders, you've heard from other people, RIPE's been around since 1989 and the organization was founded a couple years later since the fall of the Berlin wall, which was quite a long time ago.
And the RIPE community as you heard from other speakers comes together in both physically and together at main RIPE meetings that happen two or three times a year. And also there's regional meetings which takes the RIPE organization out to every corner of that large geographical area.
Through RIPE the policy that Saskia was talking about, the rules about how RIPE operates and how it allocates its resources and how the organization operates, that is debated in and agreed between all the stakeholders and all the participants involved in the RIPE organization.
This policy development happens in both formal and informal kind of sessions. At RIPE meetings there's formal development sessions and also you can talk to anyone you want over beer or coffee. Everyone is equal, everything is open. The mic is always open. Remote participation is always encouraged and you don't even have to be a member to attend a RIPE meeting. Anyone can come.
Participants from environmental from commercial from Civil Society, from governments from individuals and there's this open dialogue and discussion. More broadly than just policy development, the RIPE meetings facilitate sharing of broad best practices, network management practices. Information is exchanged between all the members of the community. And I think RIPE were an example of the multistakeholder system at work.
I think it also played a role in bringing together a coherence and inclusive community dedicated to building and developing the Internet. I just leave you to one encouragement to participate in your regional Internet registry to post mailing lists to attend meetings to ensure that these organizations continue to be well governed and well run for the benefit of both their members and the broader Internet stakeholders into that community and to help shape these organizations in ways that benefit the Internet.
And just one final thought on that. I'm a big fan of the community getting to know each other and building trust and ideas in both formal and informal settings. Thanks to the generosity of sponsors, RIPE has great parties as well. I'll leave you with that.
>> AXEL PAWLIK: And there's that. Thank you very much.
So you talked about how we govern ourselves, bottom up, self regulation. Wonderful.
I believe Lito will take us into, slightly, government at large.
>> LITO IBARRA: I'm Lito. I'm from El Salvador in Central America and I'm a member of the LACNIC board for six years now. We've been dealing conducting these open meetings and policy development, receiving the community, the Latin American community mainly in our two yearly meetings but also through mailing lists and other types of involvement.
I wanted to refer briefly to a specific type of community involvement that started in March last year with the NTII amount that is the IANA transition. In LACNIC we started to see this transition in that we had to state a position bottom up process. So we designed a whole process, a timeline and work plan that started around August last year. We started with some online concentrations previous to engaging or developing documents or ideas more formally. And then we start ‑‑ we assemble small coordinated meeting of three people from the community. I was honored to be one of these three person that conducted their first consultation, public consultations and. And we did that. We started by looking at the other RIRs, what they doing at that time. Those are characteristics I like very much about this community. We always look at each other, to the other 4RIRs in the world. So we ‑‑ as the global policies we tend to look what are the others doing so we can take example or ideas and probably include them. That is what we did with this process. We assembled this team. We started with a specific mailing list for this purpose to gather ideas and opinions about the transition so we can have a model or something that we can discuss with the other RIRs to finally come up with an integrated proposition to the ICG was going to receive these numbers from the community. So we did that.
Following the process in October last year, 28th, we had ‑‑ within our normal regular second meeting of the year which includes the operators of the region, we had this special session to conduct this public consultation face‑to‑face and we started with the proposition that APNIC has already on the table comprises for four items, like the SLA or the renegotiation of the commitment of ‑‑ I mean the commitment with ICANN. Those were parts of the proposition that was being developed at that time. So we had this as a base but since in LACNIC we have had a fiscal commission that is in our bylaws, we have this body composed of three members of the community, elected by the community that they have the duty to observe, to follow, to request anything that both the financial operations and the bylaws compliant and all of these things. Since we have this in place we added to the APNIC proposal something that we call at that time the MONC. That was the Multistakeholder Oversight Numbers Council. Our idea coming from the community was that special body composed of ‑‑ in theory it would be composed from members of the community of the 5 RIRs and its duty would be to oversight the operation, IANA and RIRs relationship and state whatever they could find that could be improved or had to be ‑‑ or was wrongly done or whatever. That was our idea. And we came with this final proposal to the ‑‑ around 15 of November to our board, LACNIC board and it went to the RIRs and the body that we assembled that we sent our receptive to that body, to the CRISP, and they discussed this. And I would dare to say that the MONC turned into the review committee or something like that. It's the current committee that is in the transition proposal. And we're working in that. Afterwards the SLA was also worked and review and we were finalizing this whole job, I mean the whole numbers community in bottom approaches in an open process. We have like ‑‑ they have in the region, we have also people coming to our meetings, they are completely open, online participation, and we have people from the governments, from Civil Society, et cetera, private sector, of course. We have them in our meetings. So everybody was voicing their opinions about this proposal. So we are now in the phase that as you all know, we're waiting for the completion of the proposal from mostly the accountability issue. ICANN accountability, but our job is done in that regards. We're waiting for the final acceptance and so on to start working in the implementation of our own proposal. In LACNIC we are about to enter the process of selecting the members of the review committee from our region. So we're.
So I think that's what I wanted to tell. Thank you.
>> AXEL PAWLIK: Thank you very much.
So you described basically what the ‑‑ how the challenge to the communities was met to create something completely new and different. We were doing policies for 20 years, more than 20 years. It's all lovely but then this IANA transition thing was something completely different. How do we set up a process that we can define that? And you mentioned a proposal. So now I go on to Izumi.
How did that proposal come together? If you can just explain it in five minutes.
>> THEN IZUMI OKUTANI: Hello. I'm from national Internet registry in Japan called JPNIC. And I'm a member of the APNIC community member in terms of RIR regions and I'm also the chair of a team of a number of community representatives called the CRISP team. I think this homework that we were given by the NTIA was very interesting exercise and example of how we would actually address the global policy question that we needed to come up with a concrete answer where ‑‑ which is a little bit outside of our regular process. But as Lito has described we made use of the existing noncommunity and the forms that we have. I think Lito has really compressively described the association in LACNIC, and this is actually accommodated that people were able to communicate in either local situation and felt more comfortable rather than going directly into the global discussions. But of course we needed to submit a single global proposal to the ICG, not the five individual regional proposals. And the challenge that we had was that we had the timelines set. So the RFP was I think announced in June or July and we had to submit a proposal in January, mid‑January. Fifteenth of January, 2015.
So that's why the team called the CRISP team was set up with their three representatives each from 5RIR regions composed of 50 members each and I'm actually proud that we actually have the structure with equal representation. Because compared to the other two functions of this IANA that they had to do similar work for the names and the protocols, I think there has been some observations that has been made throughout that this week that some region is more vocal than the other. But we were able to balance this out very well by having this structure.
But I do want to emphasize that the role of the CRISP team was not to develop a proposal from scratch but to respect what has been discussed already in each of these regions. So on name the CRISP actually stands for consolidated RIR IANA stewardship proposal team. I can't remember. I have to read it. The key is to consolidate it. We actually ‑‑ you know, worked on how it can consolidate the differences between a proposal.
So I think at the beginning LACNIC was a proposal of the MONC was actually not proposed in other regions. We had to discuss how we would incorporate that idea. Whether other regions would be comfortable with accommodating that. There has also been an idea of exchanging an AUC between RIRs and ICANN, but this after considering the requirements felt that the SLA would be sufficient. So these were the kind of coordination work that was needed. And, yeah, I would say we worked very pragmatically and efficiently. So the first meeting of the CRISP team to start the work, start I think it was on the 19th of December, and then we've submitted the proposal in time on the 15th of January. So we did it in less than a month.
And it was pretty impressive to see the commitments and contributions by each of the CRISP team members. And I think this process is an excellent example of how we were ‑‑ we actually accommodate the diversities of the five regions but can work together collaboratively to establish when we were given a specific task of the numbers community. And I also find this experience in the CRISP not just brought me close to other colleagues within the RIR regions, which I wasn't ‑‑ I may have known their names and faces, but, you know, I got to know them very ‑‑ much, much better, but we also had an opportunity to interact better with the names and the protocol parameters. So this is really an example of how when we're given a task and how we collaborate with different communities and it's just like a concrete product of this multistakeholder process.
So this was a very good and encouraging experience.
>> AXEL PAWLIK: Thank you.
Janvier, who are you and what are you going to tell us?
>> JANVIER NGNOULAYE: I'm a lecturer in ICT at the University of Yaounde in Cameroon and former AFRINIC board member, one of the CRISP team member for our region.
I come with so my purpose is to answer these two questions. What are communities involvement in Internet development into our region and how IP addresses are progressing
So what's our communities involvement in Internet development. I have to start by how the first community was born. We can say that the first community ‑‑ our first community ‑‑ everything started in 1997 when the community was set up to work on AFRINIC structure and business plan. And then we have other dates, 2000, 2001, 2004. 2004 the AFRINIC was registered. In 2005 AFRINIC accredited ICANN AFRINIC as the fifth regional Internet registry. Up to now AFRINIC provides services to ISP and end user within its six regional geographic region, namely northern Africa, western African, central Africa, southern Africa, eastern Africa and Indian ocean.
Adding to AFRINIC for numbers, various organization imagings constitutes the African system. We can count African for education. APNIC for Internet exchange point. AFTID for country domain, capacity building and IS for Africa summit which Internet. Communities involved in government in Africa are all those. Considered the next Africa summit will take place in Botswana. It will be next year.
Now the next question is how IP addresses progressing in our region.
Let's say that we have about 12 million of IP addresses issue in 2004. 2.7 slash eight available in our IPv4 pools. End of 2014. And serving for about more than 1,000 organization in 2004. And more than 400 member with IPv6 with 36 percent of memberships ratio but only 15% visibility in 2004. IPv6 allocated to 49 of 53 African countries. And we can also add that training up to now about 4,000 engineers attended a workshop conducted in 41 countries.
Membership trained is going. We have 1,000 ‑‑ more than 1,000 active members as of year ending 2014.
These show how the increasing of consumption of IP addresses is increasing.
This table show ‑‑ give some IP address information so we can say that total located of IPv6 is for about 500 be distributed in the subregion.
About policy, we can say that we have about ‑‑ we have 21 policies that have been ratified and here we are some policies still pending. Two on the education out of vision of AFRINIC Internet numbers resources. This one is on that discretion.
Another one on that discretion is policy. The rest have been notified is the one on resources intervention for Internet exchange point. Another one on Incas resources assignment on AFRINIC region.
So we also work in capital building community and global engagement by training for government, policing and manager. African union, engage with African telecommunication union I2. Engagement with ICANN and cooperation within ENERO. Also engagement with Christian for transition.
So you are invited to our next event in Congola Brazil for AFRINIC 20, 23rd will be at the end of this month until fourth of December.
So thank you.
>> AXEL PAWLIK: Thank you very much. I think we can see quite clearly by your presentation what the establishment of what AFRINIC did for the continent as a focal point but for other activities that are not necessarily numbers related. There was lots of things going on there. We do see that all of a sudden in the other regions a little bit that the areas might have been in the focal point at one point or still is in some cases.
So we have a couple of minutes left. If there are any questions from the audience? If that is not the case I shall ask you as a group, what do you think what would be the upcoming challenges or the sort of areas of work for the RIRs communities as such. What do you think would be the thing that ‑‑ beyond the IANA transition maybe that you see as interesting, an issue that should come up, would come up?
I see a hand from Izumi.
>> THEN IZUMI OKUTANI: I can't quite speak from the RIR perspective but I would like to speak as the national registry in Japan. I'm not saying this because we're in the IGF, but sharing what's happening around the Internet governance arena and extracting what's relevant for the numbers community or in the wider context. Many of our community members are operators. What's relevant for the operators around the technologies that uses the resources, DNS routing and then wired context of security.
Those are the kind of challenges I'm seeing. How do we actually raise awareness about importance of getting involved in these issues. I think this time this year at the IGF the best practice forums that Susan has led was an excellent way of getting ‑‑ putting the expertise within the RIRs community into writing and share that with the wider governance. Arena. That's what I see is one of the areas we might want to offer.
>> AXEL PAWLIK: Lito?
>> LITO IBARRA: Besides taking care of the technical aspects of the numbers and ‑‑ the process of getting IPC deployed and new like Internet of Things related to IPV, besides that I think we have the role or duty to keep on creating more awareness about all these Internet government things. RIRs we stand clear on our main focus, which is technical, but we certainly are part of the ‑‑ a large community in our countries, in our regions. I think it's a duty, a challenge to be part of this Internet governance processes, to be part of these laws, proposal of laws, nationally, regionally and work alongside with the other stakeholders that are part of this whole Internet governance aspect. So I think that is a challenge that we'll grow instead of diminish.
>> AXEL PAWLIK: Thank you very much.
>> NICOLAS ANTONIELLO: Thanks. From the community perspective I also wanted to add that one of the challenges that I believe there that is always there, it's about preservation. I mean, it's the ‑‑ I always believe that the preservation has two sides. One is the ability to retain those who are already participating. That is apparently a simple thing but it's not like that. It's far from being simple to retain the people that are already participating.
On the other side which is with the same importance is how to engage the new ones in participating. I believe that's one of the challenge that has been always a challenge. We in the LACNIC region always talk about that within the community in the preservation in the policy development process, the participation in the ‑‑ in all the ‑‑ the process that our ‑‑ that we're always running, like policy one and the new ones like the IANA transition or whatever new process that for sure will arise in the future.
>> AXEL PAWLIK: Thank you.
Otherwise I would pick it up from basically what all three of you said. So you are community representatives. I'm maybe the receptive of the RIRs here. What we are trying to do as well, I think that is also equally important is to understand what the community wants, and growing the community and sustaining it but also there are lots of operators out there. I'm not an operator myself for more than 20 years. It's important to know what the members want. Giving out numbers is one but there are so many more things that we are doing and can be doing. So it's important to hear that and then again participation within the community and speaking out becomes very important.
Do you have anymore questions in the audience?
I have a microphone.
>> AUDIENCE: Thank you very much. I'm from association of computer telecom operators. I'm Rajish.
My question you mentioned about the voluntary surrender of IP address and such. How successful has that been since it's been two years since you have launched? Is there any incentive? We see a lot of people taking bulk IP address and they are not using it's left unused for many years. Especially big corporations or universities which have the entire bulk of IP address as such. Is there anything.
And secondly, from an Indian example, the Indian government is pushing the customers to actually use an Indian based IP address. Even if we have a global IP you would be required to take an Indian IP. This is especially true for specific for call centers who distribute their license as such. Is there any effort to kind of ‑‑ because one shouldn't be sent to localizing the IP. IP is a common pool can be used if the company has it.
>> AXEL PAWLIK: Thank you very much.
Anybody wants to take that?
>> NICOLAS ANTONIELLO: Okay. I kind of forgot the first question. I have it in my mind but it goes. Maybe ‑‑
>> AXEL PAWLIK: The first question was the effectiveness of reclaiming address space, returning it.
>> NICOLAS ANTONIELLO: Okay. For sure. Without ‑‑ I mean, I don't want to risk going into deep technical discussion, but IP addresses four addresses at the beginning were given with a different criteria. I mean, at the beginning of the IP protocol we are talking about three years ago, maybe or more. So there are some big blocks of IPv4 addresses that are retained by some few organizations, that is true. But then that changes. The criteria for assigning IPv4 addresses with the creation of the 5RIRs and with all the IANA and the system that ICANN has some participation on it has been more delicately assigned and the criteria for assigning that are running and working in all five areas ask for IPv4 or six. Actually are the consequence of policies that arises from the community. From the community and it's important to note it's very important in this which is more term legal to know that the operators are the community. They perceive what they need and what policies has to be developed. So they get what they need and they propose policies. So I tend to say that the actual criterias are the correct ones. Of course, there's always space for improving. That's why this process, this policy development process, it's always evolving.
And as for the second thing, which it could be running more technical details, I'm not aware of exactly what those local country IP address are. I believe I know the background on the argument of that, though I don't share the arguments. I may understand it, but I believe that ‑‑ I would say that you have to be very careful about what you do when you mix a local political decision or a local issue and you want to solve it by stating a policy. Because protocols and policies exist for a reason and work together.
The way they work means that they are coordinated and work together. If you tried to get into local issues by a
global approach like that, you may just end up destroying all that takes more than 30 years to build. So it's kind of risky. I would try to look at IPv6 and use IPv6 addresses instead of, you know, creating a new address, protocol or any others or a new DNS protocol. That's my thought.
>> AXEL PAWLIK: Thank you very much.
So we have neatly run out of time. I think we used up pretty much the hour. I think we'll all be around a little while longer in this room, like a couple of minutes. So if there are anymore questions then we can address. I would like to thank you all for your contributions. I think we've seen a very nice summary on a wide area of topics from how does the community operate to some technical hints there to the political as well. I think we show there's a wide diversity of topics of people of regions and needs within the regions across the world. The IGF is just one of the places we like to go and participate. I think it's very important that we do that. But again, participation in the RIRs of communities on a regional level is probably at the heart of this panel here.
Thank you very much. Thank you very much for coming. I wish you a lovely Friday and also wish that you have time for the beach a little bit maybe on the weekend.