Meeting Called to Order
MR. PLZAK: Good morning.
SPEAKER: Good morning.
MR. PLZAK: Hello, am I on? Microphone please, thank you. Okay. It's a little bit overpowering here. Okay, this is the Members Meeting, and so this is not the Public Policy meeting, so we won't be discussing any policy issues we discussed for the last two days. We'll be discussing matters that are pertinent to the membership. Even though this is a Members Meeting, it is open to anyone that desires to attend. So the agenda is posted on the website, and it is in your information packet. And we will begin with a series of, well, actually I've got to use some slides, I guess. Yeah, let's thank the sponsors and special participants. (Applause)
MR. PLZAK: And you have one last chance to visit Richard, and to win so many prizes. I see Leo Bicknell, won a backlit keyboard yesterday afternoon. And Scott Beuker got an extra beach towel. So Andrew, you can fill out another sheet, and you could submit again, so maybe lightening will strike three times, who knows. Anyway, so at the break go forward, and actually I'll tell you what. We really, really appreciate the information we get back from this small targeted survey, and we found it to be very, very effective so far. And we really appreciate all of you that participate because it does help us make things better. So the registration desk are both open yet today until 12:30. And remember, if you have a wireless card, and you don't wish it to become your property at a price that you probably wouldn't pay for it, remember to turn it in to the registration desk, and the wireless network for the meeting will be shut down after the Members Meeting. Please don't forget to complete your surveys from the IPv6 workshop and the meeting. Please, if you are going to fill this thing out, so you can put down mold and cold, I think we all have that message. So we'd appreciate some other comments, in fact if you went into the staff room you'll see there's two settings on the thermostat, mold and cold, so -- but we do appreciate all of your other comments, and we will do better next time with the hotel. So if you do submit it, it gets into another raffle, and you could win one of these neat video watches. So somehow or other I can see Andrew sitting under the light of his lava lamp watching TV on this watch, I don't know, some image, okay. Anyway, remember the meeting courtesies and rules of discussion. If you are not familiar with them they are in the program, and with that let's begin. The first presentation this morning will be from Susan Hamlin, the Director of Member Services. Susan.
Member Services Department Report
MS. HAMLIN: Thank you. Good morning, everyone.
SPEAKER: Good morning.
MS. HAMLIN: Want to spend a few minutes talking about some new activities we've been carrying on in the Members Services Department. And I am happy to say I am the only department director that has a cute baby picture to show this time. Lori Nuth, our web specialist, gave birth to Tori in January. And Lori is at home watching, so the newest member of our department. And all the other folks with the exception of Einar, who is watching from home this time are here. And while all of the ARIN staff both here and at home worked very hard to put on this meeting I would like to recognize the members who are here; Jason Byrne, ask that they stand up please. Erika, Erin, if she is back here. And Megan, and ask you to give a round of applauses. (Applause)
MS. HAMLIN: Thank you. Looking at membership, our membership continues to grow. These are the stats from the last four meetings, and you'll notice there's been slow growth in all of the geographic areas, for a current total of 2688 members. Okay. Member services covers a wide spans of activities, we work in the area of association business, and I wanted to call out a few new things on our website. Since the last meeting we have added and made some changes in the "About Us" section with our corporate documents, and have put versions of the Articles of Incorporation and the Bylaws in an HTML version, and added a change log to the Bylaws, so you can easily reference when amendments are made. And also I would like to call your attention to the election cycle, which will start in July with a nomination period, and encourage all of you to get involved this year. The public policy development process, we followed a suggestion that was sent in through the ACSP, and added some links in the policy archives to their relevant section in NRPM, and you'll find that on the website. In the communication and education area, we've made a modification in our quarterly newsletter, and it's now entitled the ARIN Report. Here is a picture of the one that was posted in February, and we will update these periodically. And we always welcome suggestions if there is any type of news or article you'd like to see please contact us at email@example.com. Recent activities, the end of February, beginning of March, we had a campaign to increase subscription to the Public Policy Mailing List. And in three batches we sent out invitations to all registered POCs in the database inviting them to subscribe. And a lot of folks took us up on that invitation, and before we started that campaign we had about 450 subscribers, and as of today we have a little over 1,600. So I think we have seen increase in the individuals participating on the list, and certainly we have a lot more lurkers on the list, so we hope that after a while they will be encouraged, and will also voice their opinions. In the other area, we have implemented the ARIN consultation and suggestion process, and to date we've had one community consultation. The final resolution of that is pending, and there will be an announcement made shortly. We have also received 26, and I say confirmed suggestions because there is a two-part process explained on the website when you send in a suggestion you'll receive an e-mail from ARIN, and you must click to confirm before we enter it into the process, sorry. 22 of the suggestions have been reviewed, commented, acted upon, and that there has been a response back to the author, and there are four still under review. Monday of this week we actually posted on the website a public log of the suggestions, and with Erika's help I'm just going to take you to the web site and show you where to find that. So if you are on the home page, you see there to the right, button that says "Suggestions". If you click on that it will take you to the ACSP document; on the upper right you can click to submit a suggestion, and there are details of what you have to do, a form, and it tells you about the confirmation process. On the left hand you'll see that we now have archives to the suggestions, and consultations. So we are now on the suggestion archive page where you'll see at the top all the active suggestions, and then underneath we have the archives of completed suggestions. So you can read through all, and each suggestion has its own page behind that, but as a compilation of all the activity. Okay, thank you, Erika. Okay, some new documentation we've put out, and you'll find that in the Cyber Cafe, and also in the website. We are continuing to add to our collection of information sheets. Again, if there is a topic that you think would be useful for us to produce, please let us know, you can contact any of the staff members or certainly let us know at firstname.lastname@example.org. Our new production has been on display in the Cyber Cafe. Our flash presentation of the ARIN policy process interested in feedback, we debuted this last week in the ministerial briefing in Anguilla, got good reception, and I've noticed quite a few people here watching it. So I hope you'll find it a good explanation of the process, and will be doing more of these types of presentations in the future. The other on the lower left hand corner I have the "Whois CBT"; we have almost completed converting that into a flash presentation, and we'll get that up on the website. It will be much easier for people to access it in that format. Next month we will be mailing out a membership handbook. I mentioned this at the last meeting, and we have now finalized the contents ready to go. I would encourage all of you all if you don't know who your designated member rep is for your organization that you contact us before we do this mailing, and they -- so we have the right individual, and also have the right address for the mailing. Some things to note that we'll be doing in the future based on our success last fall at ISPCON, ARIN will have a booth this spring in May, in Orlando at ISPCON, and we will also for the first time be exhibiting at HostingCon this July. And these are the booth numbers, and we'll be sending out some information if you are in the area, or know people who are in the area, we hope they'll come visit us. Also, ARIN now has a permanent presence at NANOG meetings starting in February we put up the ARIN Cyber Cafe, and a Registration Services help desk, and we'll be doing that again at June, and all of the NANOG meetings going forward. It's another opportunity to reach out to our members and others in the community that would like to have information about us. And with that looking ahead to the fall, with the next ARIN meeting, ARIN XX will be in October in Albuquerque, New Mexico. It will be another back to back meeting with NANOG, and we hope that all you here will join us. And that's it, any questions?
MR. CURRAN: Any questions?
MS. HAMLIN: Thank you.
MR. CURRAN: Thank you. (Applause)
MR. PLZAK: Just for a point of reference you saw those little pictures of those hot air balloons. Our meeting will start the weekend that the balloon fest is ending. So if you've never seen a hot air balloon race it's something else to behold. So next step on the agenda is the report from Registration Services. So Leslie, would you please come up, and provide your report?
Registration Services Department Report
MS. NOBILE: Okay. Good morning. I have a quick update on what's going on in Registration Services Department. This is the staff currently; on the left is what I consider to be our senior staff, Cathy, David and Jon. On the right, our analyst Doreen, Jeff, Sue and Lisa. Cathy, Jon -- I'm so sorry, I left off Mike. Mike is here, but he should be on this list. Cathy, Jon, Mike and Doreen are all here, and they have been at the help desk quite a bit, so hopefully you've had a chance to see them. And this is a really great solid team we have going here right now, so. What's new in RSD? Well, we just published a new frequently asked questions. We haven't really had a very good one for a long time, and we had a snow day this year, we all got snowed in our houses, and Jon decided that instead of, you know, baking cookies and going sled riding, he was going to write an eight-page frequently asked questions. So we have that, the staff all contributed, we have hard copies printed, and we have a copy up on the web. And really any question you ever thought of asking Registration Services is probably on there, so it's a good reference. We also produced a new criteria for eligibility chart, it's really a quick sort of cheat sheet; a little reference to see how to qualify for resources from ARIN, what the criteria will be, we have a hard copy of that, and that again will be on the website. And we have revised all of our registration guidelines so that they are clearer and more concise, and correct. So as far as policy implementation, since the last meeting we have implemented three policies. We did the 4 byte ASN -- implemented January 1, 2007. We've issued four to date. What we are seeing a lot of is people asking for byte ASN's, we give an option; you want a 2 byte or a 4 byte? And a lot of people are choosing 4 bytes, and they have no idea of what it is, what they are doing with it, and they come back. We've had to trade in about 15 of them so far, people just don't get it. So we've been doing a bit of trading, and that's where we stand right now. As far as capturing originations we implemented that in March on the 28th, and so we went back and looked in the stats, and there are a lot of people using this policy. 492 CIDR blocks covering 110 unique ASNs are registered right now, about 90 percent of them are on reassignments, and 10 percent are on direct registrations. The Micro-Allocations for Internal Infrastructure for IPv6 implemented December 20th, 1 /48 has been issued to date and requested. I have a few statistics on the history of help desk activity over the past year. I just did through all of 2006 just to give you an idea of the kind of the amount of work flow that comes in there. Total templates processed, we are doing about 55,000 templates a month, most of those are reassignments. We had about 70,000 pieces of e-mail per month that we actually manually review. And we are taking an average of 1,200 phone calls a month on the help desk. And this is kind of a little bit of demographics, so we went back to last April 1st through this March 31st to see who we issue resources to. So we issued resources to 2,540 unique Org IDs in that one-year period and this is the breakdown according to country, a little over 2,000 in the U.S., 200 in Canada, and then 30 divided amongst -- 30 organizations divided amongst the Caribbean Island region. This just shows how much -- how many request, resource requests we are receiving and how many we are approving. So again this is that same time frame, this past year, we get -- we got 7,200 IPv4 requests from ISPs, 570 IPv4 requests from end-users, 61 v6 requests from ISPs, and 70 v6 requests from end-users, notice more end-users are applying for v6 based on ISPs. And that figure, the 70, is only since September of '06 when the policy was implemented, so that's, you know, roughly six months. Excuse me. We actually approved and issued a little over 1,100 v4 requests, or we are approving 62 percent of all the v4 requests coming in from ISPs. We are approving 56 percent of the end-user v4 requests, 69 percent of the v6 ISP requests, and 76 percent of the v6 end-user requests. And I have a little clarification on the bottom, we don't actually track what's denied because we don't often actually flat out deny people. The majority of those not approved are abandoned. We go back and forth, I know a lot of you have requested resources from us and know we ask a lot of questions, we're very nosey. But some people don't want to answer them, they get to a point where they don't have the information or they don't think they really qualify, they just stop, the ticket is just abandoned. So the remainder are denied, but that is a small percentage. That is all I have, very short. Any questions?
MR. PALET MARTINEZ: Jordi Palet. I will like to understand a little bit more not just in the case of IPv6, but of course for much more interesting IPv6; why some of these requests are denied. I understand that you can not provide information of each one, but maybe you can make a set of cases of which questions you are coming back, and then you don't get the response because that may help to understand what is behind that, and if there is some problems with the policy. I think it -- it will be actually interesting also for -- for the rest that they deny, not just IPv6, right?
MS. NOBILE: Yeah, I probably can give you specific examples, I can do that maybe next time. But I can assure you that if a policy is not working the way it's supposed to be, that will come out in a staff assessment. We've just started that process, you started to see some of this staff assessment, I mean, I'm sorry, our policy experience report. What I've been doing at the policy BoF, if the policy is not working you'll know about it. So we'll continue to look at that, but I can tell you that what happens is people come in and apply for resources, and then it's up to staff to figure out how to qualify them, you know, we have a number of policies that we look at. If one doesn't work, we are going to try another one. We ask all those questions to see, what policy can you qualify under: Are you multi-homed? Do you have this? Do you have that? I mean, we go through every question we can think of to try to qualify people for space because that's our job. And we rely on the immediate need when people don't actually meet an existing policy. Sometimes people just don't qualify, they are just too small, there is just no way to qualify them. That's when we deny; it's very rare, but we go through the whole process to try to qualify them.
MR. PALET MARTINEZ: Yeah. I'm not sure how are the stats in other regions. It could be interesting to compare them because it seems to me that 20-25 percent of denied or that people abandoned, it's too high.
MS. NOBILE: Uh-huh.
MR. PALET MARTINEZ: It's my perception, maybe I am wrong.
MS. NOBILE: I would be curious to know how it is in the other regions as well, but I don't. Somebody may want to comment.
MR.PALET MARTINEZ: Okay, thank you.
MS. NOBILE: Thanks, Jordi. Oh, sorry --
MR. CURRAN: Steve, comment please.
MR. RYAN: Yeah, I want to comment on this, Jordi, and I want everybody to listen to this comment. A lot these that are abandoned are based on fraudulent applications as well. And I've got to say that that Leslie's group has done an outstanding job of sensing when the paperwork that has been provided to us is literally falsified documentation, we spent yesterday afternoon dealing with just such a case. So I don't want people to misread these abandonments as if we have tortured people, you know, that Leslie Torquemada Nobile is, you know, is dealing with them. It is frankly, I would say we are getting an increasing percentage, not a large percentage, but an increasing percentage of false applications. And when we smash one false application here, honestly, some of these people must be really -- think we are stupid because it pops up again, you know, within 48 hours over here with the invoice form that didn't make sense to us now, you know, they whited it out and there is a new name there, okay. So I don't want people to -- in the future to think that a statistical number like this is anything other than a reflection potentially of outstanding work to ferret out a fraud which we are seeing an increasing percentage of. Pardon?
MR. PALET MARTINEZ: Maybe then it will be good to spilt that figure in -- request that we believe are fraud and other cases, so we understand the difference.
MR. RYAN: I am not sure I wanted to tell you as a group, I mean, I -- you know, I got to tell you by the way no matter what percentage of fraud we are picking up I suspect we are not picking it up a 100 percent. I don't know how good we are in that sense, so I am not really interested in making that division for the community. It may be a guide post that I don't want to put up there, I'llI think about it though.
MR. PALET MARTINEZ: Got it, thanks.
MS. NOBILE: Owen?
MR. DeLONG: Owen DeLong, Jittr Networks. It's my understanding recently that a particular organization received a /12. I'm trying to conceive what kind of justification would be required for getting a number of networks equivalent to a million copies of the current number of Internet hosts that are possible in the v4 world. Is there any available information on that?
MS. NOBILE: I can tell you that we haven't issued a /12 to any organization.
MR. CURRAN: I think -- is your question on allocation to the Department of Defense?
MR. DeLONG: Yes.
MR. CURRAN: I don't know what the exact size of it is, Ray.
MS. NOBILE: He is right there. I can -- right now the DoD has qualified for 4 /16s, that's what we are working from. And they did justify it, and provided reams and reams of paperwork.
MR. PLZAK: All right, let me interject the justification for that, went through intense scrutiny that lasted an extremely long period of time by most people's standards, and the negotiation of the RSA took over a year. So this was not just something that they brought -- endorsed and said give it to me, and we said, yes, sir, three bags full. Believe me, it was a very intense negotiation. Counsel, you still on the room, you want to comment on that negotiation at all?
MR. RYAN: I think point one is we did a unique RSA based on a year's negotiation, it took a year not because -- because it required the approval at a high level within ARIN, it also required it from the Secretary of Defense's Office. And that agreement is in the long run, I think extraordinarily beneficial to the community because it contains the provision indicating that the department will return unused IPv4 resources that the Department makes the decision are not necessary for U.S. Government use. The resolution of that agreement has already prompted other civilian government agencies, who frankly have a lot less excess IPv4 space to make a similar -- were in a similar drafting phase. So I think while they have gotten significant resources, I think one of the things you might want to think about rather than being concerned about it, is actually that they are going to drag the United States economy into IPv6 because their contractor base will need to be IPv6 in order to deal with them. So you've got to be careful on how you view this issue, I think.
MS. NOBILE: Martin?
MR. HANNIGAN: Excuse me. I am Martin Hannigan, the ASO AC member for the ARIN Region. Regarding fraud do we have any numbers -- like false positives, and when we've raised the fraud issue with an applicant or anyone conducting any kind of transaction with ARIN. Have we been legally challenged?
MS. NOBILE: Steve, you can talk about it.
SPEAKER: She just --
SPEAKER: Why don't you just give Steve his own mic now that I'm thinking about it?
MR. RYAN: Steve Ryan, left wing microphone. The -- we -- I get to deal with lots of lawyers around the United States, and lots of individual companies. And I've -- I must say I like what we are doing. We have grown far more sophisticated in how we are handling these cases. They have not resulted to date in litigation, there has been threats of litigation, and the only thing I perhaps agree with George Bush, I've said bring it on. Okay.
MR. HANNIGAN: So we have confidence that we are doing the right thing?
MR. RYAN: Yeah, we have confidence.
MR. HANNIGAN: Okay, thank you.
MS. NOBILE: Yurie, sorry.
MR. RICH: That's all right. Here's just a quick clarification on the fraud; do we see a higher number of potential fraud cases with regards to v4 space request, or v6 or this equal?
MS. NOBILE: No, it's all v4, and much of it has to do with legacy space. And that's it, no more questions, thank you. (Applause)
MR. PLZAK: Okay, next step. Bob Stratton, Financial Services report. Bob?
Financial Services Department Report
MR. STRATTON: Good morning, everybody. First, I would like to congratulate Abram on his smallish, second place foosball trophy. I'm going to go over our staff, what activities we've been up to, and some stats. We have a good staff in FSD, you hire smart people and you let them do their job; that's my philosophy. Tammy is our accounts receivable supervisor. Dawn, Tanya, Amaris, and Amy work for her. Valerie is our staff accountant. She's very good, both Tammy and Val, I rely on heavily. And I can't say enough about them. What we are up to a couple of projects recently that you guys would be interested in. We are in the process of working with engineering on elimination of redundant information. We have information in our accounting system that's needed to be looked at occasionally by RSD and MSD. You know who is the accounting billing POC, who's the -- what's their payment status, are they a member in good standing. Across the organization, that information is in other places. So, it's redundant. So, what we want to do is eliminate any redundancies and design some lookup, read-only system where it would just reside in the accounting information but cross-departmentally, other people could be able to see it. Also, we are working to improve the customer interface for updating contact information. One of the things we found our greatest weakness is, if we don't have the correct contact information on who to bill you guys for, that's when trouble arises. And it just takes an awful lot of work to catch up with you. So, if that could be done, so it's in virtual mode where you guys could keep it up-to-date yourselves, it would make everybody's life a lot easier. We are also exploring lockbox for receiving checks. This is a process whereby the checks that you cut and send to us would go directly to the bank. This would also help us in our Sarbanes-Oxley adherence. The only trick here is sometimes transactions have a sense of urgency and we need to know right away whether somebody has paid because you want your resources right now. So, we just want to make sure that this would work for us in that sense. That we have visibility to the payment coming in. We are continuing work on a document archiving/scanning. From our standpoint, this has mostly to do with the RSA's. We've got thousands of them. So, right now we are working on identifying them so we can index them. Then at some point, we are going to scan them into a system so that then they are retrievable electronically. We can move the physical documents offsite put them somewhere else. And move into the wider world in the sense that we can then look them up and form that electronically. Just some of our activities, FSD does receivable accounts payable. Tammy's group does the accounts receivable. The improvement that we've had in the last year is the e-mail reminder system that we set up. We've got some pretty good feedback on that. But we are always continuing to try and improve that. One thing that we need to do that the Board gave us guidance that we are cleared to do is we want to move everybody's anniversary date in terms of the billing and when it is actually due to the end of the month. So at some time this year we're going to reset everybody's billing due date to the end of any given month. This will standardize across all different kinds of platforms so that you all will know when you are due and all of us within ARIN will know when you are due. And it just makes life a lot easier. Under accounts payable that's a Val function, we have instituted some new procedures and put policies in place. Sarbanes-Oxley has made the world of a lot more complicated. And we're doing our best to maintain our adherence to the rules therein. Contracts administration, we're formalizing contracts administration. Up until now ARIN has been, let's say not necessarily as mature in this area, but now all of a sudden we're mature. So, we've got a contracts officer with a contracting officer representatives. And we've set up a system in place for the -- we don't have very many of these but when we do we hope to go through a process that's standardized and auditable. On the budgeting financial reporting, we've set up a system in place. Val does a tremendous amount of legwork here. But all the amigos have to sit down and figure out what they see as costs coming up in the year going forward. This is just a data point that I thought you guys would find interesting. The blue is the IP invoices that we sent out and the yellow is the maintenance invoices. And this is just the absolute numbers of transactions. The maintenance invoices are growing like top seed. And just something to keep in mind time is money. It takes just as long to process and administer a $100 invoice, as it does a $4,500 invoice. So, just in terms of what our actual activities are. Keeping up with the maintenance is becoming a chore. This is the number of phone calls we receive a month. When I've shown this in the past, it's been more spikes to it. One thing that's happened was the e-mail reminders, what happens is we start getting phone calls in return that we are reminding people that they are due. Now, that we've had it in place for a while you can see that, that has smoothed out, there was no spikes anywhere. And this last data point is just something I thought was pretty interesting in "The Economist" in March 27th, of this year. This shows the purchasing power parity of the different regions. And you could see that Asia and China seem to be heading upwards. I just thought that was fascinating. But anyway, with that, thank you.
MR. CURRAN: Any questions. Bob.
MR. PLZAK: Andrew, before you ask your question. You may not get the answer right now. You may have to wait for the Treasurer's reports. So, depending on what you ask.
MR. BRADNER : Ask the question anyway.
MR. PLZAK: I didn't say don't ask the question. I'm just telling you where it might come from.
MR. DUL: So, the question is, I know I brought this question up to Lee, I know, a year ago about making or allowing people to pay more than a year in advance for the maintenance fees, so they could basically, you know, you could cut down on the number of transaction cycles. I don't know what ever happened to that. And then you wanted to ask a question about what happened to the accounts payable.
MR. PLZAK: I believe I heard the question is can people pay maintenance fees more than one year at a time?
MR. DUL: Yeah, I made that suggestion to Lee and Lee said he was going to think about it and I don't know what ever happened so.
MR. PLZAK: So, Lee have you thought about it?
MR. HOWARD: Absolutely I have given it hours and hours of thought. And the answer is there's no accounting policy reason why we couldn't do it now. But the Finance Committee has not talked about how we would recognize the revenue over the periods and I don't know, Bob would have to tell us whether our system can actually handle waterfalling the recognition over the period.
MR. PLZAK: Okay, Woody you had a comment?
MR. WOODCOCK: Besides which, that exactly misses the point. Since, the point of the maintenance fee is not revenue for ARIN, which is why it presumably barely covers its processing cost, it's to make sure that your contact information is up-to-date. If you prepay your maintenance fee for five years or for four years then we have no idea where to reach you.
MR. PLZAK: Any other questions. Okay thanks. Let's see. Okay, next up, the Engineering report. Ginny?
Engineering Department Report
MS. LISTMAN: Good morning. I'm first going to start out with the org chart. This is highlighted in yellow -- are the people that are here. We have Darren and Ray at the back table making sure that the network stays up. Tim who was the MC for the foosball. Abram, who has been known to respect his elders even when playing foosball. And Ming, who has seem to not had any public responsibilities here, but he still does a lot of work. Some of the things that we've completed over the last six months based upon some feedback that we received. We've made some modifications to the credit card web forms. And Leslie mentioned the 4-byte AS number the -- as a request from the AC we've created a PPML polling prototype. We have not used it yet other than in a test area. But we -- it could be coming to a mailing list close to you. Susan talked about PPML subscriptions. We also put to the test the ACSP polling for one of these suggestions that we received. Capturing originations, Leslie had talked about and we are also -- along with the other forms of polling, we are enabling a number of referendums. And we have not put that into production. Things that we are working on over the next six months. We are looking to implement an RSS feed for some of the public lists. We are continuing to work on lame delegations. The resource classification, there has been a lot of discussion over the last couple of days about legacy and identifying, which resources are covered by an RSA. We're looking to better handle that within ARIN. We have a convoluted way to get to the data. We just want to be able to get it to it very quickly, so that we can clearly identify legacy records. The resource certification, ARIN is working with the other registries some of the -- in some of the other RIR reports they did mention that they are doing work with this resource classification. ARIN is doing some work with them as well. And we are looking to start ticketing Bob's mail -- Bob's group's mail. On the systems side, we've done some IP telephony exploration. We had an intern who spent his entire time figuring out how we can leverage some of the IP telephony that's out there. And we are starting to put some of that in place. We implemented a ticketing system for our internal operations team, so that they can respond to internal requests. We outsourced the DNS 40 /8's and we upgraded our hidden masters so that things would work much better and more smoothly with our host. And we've also established a test network to do a lot of our testing before we put it into production. What we plan to do over the next six months. We are looking to upgrade -- well, not complete but we will be working on replacing or upgrading our OS and our database. We are looking for -- we have many different systems and a number of staff log on to three or four different systems. We're looking to implement an internal authentication system, so that people may have to log in one time and they are given the permissions that they need to do whatever they need to do. We host all the /8's for the other registries. We provide secondary DNS service for them. It consumes a lot of our bandwidth and we're looking to restructure the way that it's set up. So, we are looking at ways to improve it. Virtualization, we have many, many, many different servers and if we can virtualize some of them we cannot take out as much rack space. Collaboration in a group where is -- just a way that we can better plan and better share data. And we continue to look for that and sharing data the engineering document repository. A good way to also share data. And that's all I have.
MR. CURRAN: Questions. Yes, Ms. Schiller.
MS. SCHILLER: I wanted to know if there's an update on the status of fixing templates that are currently kind of broken a little bit. So, the 4.1 templates don't allow you to put in the network contacts. So, you -- what I was told to do the 3. -- so, you can't put in like the Abuse and NOC role accounts when you reallocate resources. So, I was told that you have to swip with the old template and then modify it with the new one to get the origination in the newer features in the newer template.
MS. LISTMAN: I think Leslie is probably better prepared to answer this, are you?
MS. SCHILLER: I thought that the -- know anything about the templates, which is why I asked you. Sorry.
MS. NOBILE: When we revised all the templates last time less than a year ago, we tried to streamline them and make them easier. And I think we inadvertently cut out something that people were using. Which was that field? We have actually asked engineering to add that back in for us. And that hasn't happened yet. So, that's still on the plate. We know it needs to be done. And it has got to happen. So, it will.
SPEAKER: I was just wondering if there a timeline --
MS. NOBILE: I would like a timeline as well and we will work that out.
MS. LISTMAN: It's not on the table right now but it doesn't have a specific --
MS. NOBILE: Oh yeah, it's going to happen.
MS. LISTMAN: Okay.
MR. LEWIS: Ed Lewis, NeuStar. Looking at the list of technical things that are going on here, made me think of an item from the St. Louis meeting. There was a presentation about IRIS and (off mike) IRIS and I know -- I haven't been able to check their archive this week because I don't have my computer with me. But I think there was some guidance to ahead and look at IRIS further. And I was wondering if that has actually gone further, if anything has been done that? It may not be an engineering department discussion but just made me think of it right now.
MS. LISTMAN: We have not done any work on it. We have talked about it. About what we would like to do. What we would like to see. And internally we have not done anything.
MR. PLZAK: Thank you. And last, but certainly not least, the Human Resources and Administration report from Mary K. Lee.
Human Resources and Administration Department Report
MS. LEE: Good morning everyone. Small report on the smallest department at ARIN. Just a little bit on the department staff, what we have been up to recently, and what we do when we are at the beach. Therese Colosi, who I think almost everyone knows. Executive Assistant, she does support for the Board of Trustees and the Advisory Council. A lot of meeting coordination on a scheduled coordination and a lot of travel arrangements. And she is here today. I think she is in the room. She's here at the meeting. Teresa Woodfork back at the office to take care of things, while the rest of us are here. She does day-to-day facility management, a lot of travel arrangements herself. She provides some support to the financial service department, and a lot of support to me as well. My areas include compensation, benefits, payroll and general administration. Some of the things we have been implementing over the last six months. We put in place a new performance appraisal system. Our annual reviews in December were done via this. It's a completely online system. Had pretty positive response from everyone about it. And we will be using it again to do our informal six-month reviews in June. Education and training, to my knowledge I tried to count it up last night, there are five people actively working on finishing their bachelor's degrees, and two working on a certification program, and there may be a couple that I've missed there. And most of the people working on their bachelor's degrees are in the last year of study. So, we should have some graduates very soon. Training, a little bit of everything. Document retention course, managing the front desk, had two people in engineering just attend Web 2.0 conference, and someone else in engineering has been doing some DNS classes. Annual reports, like Bob, I do some annual reporting. I do give him and Val some assistance with the annual financial reports, and also do an appraisal of the benefits system and a travel audit for our business travel company. We will be transitioning to a new payroll company, the official date is effective June 1st but I will be working on that the second I walk back in the door, to work on Friday probably to make that a smooth transition. And it was a relatively easy choice. It's a company that's affiliated with our 401(k) plan, which will smooth those over. It's less expensive, the reporting is more robust and it allows better backup for me. So, it was a pretty easy decision to make. Employee longevity, at this point we have 22 people who have been in ARIN four plus years or more. And 18 of us have reached the five-year anniversary. And we have some very recent five-year anniversaries and they are all here at the meeting. And that's Jason Byrne, Dawn Anderson and Therese Colosi. And I didn't do as many stats on the folks as I do sometimes. But I thought this was interesting. We have 42 positions now, full-time positions, one opening. And we have more women than men now. We have 21 women and 20 men. So, on to a little more fun. Here we go at the beach. Asked -- sent our little survey of questions and got some good answers from folks. So, what's your favorite beverage? Well, there was a few of those. Had a lot of iced tea and Pepsis and orange juice. But then we also had pitchers of beer and many frozen concoctions. My favorite of which was, "I would like to have a Strawberry Margarita as big as my head." Favorite footwear, this was simple. There were a few scattered answers but the majority of folks was -- give me my flip-flops or nothing at all, thank you. Can't live without? We're practical, we want sunscreen, towels, and sunglasses. However, one person said her favorite item at the beach was her daughter, which I thought was very sweet. Beach activities? We are pretty active. Some things we would like to do although the lounging did include lounging on a floatee in a pool. So, we do like to have our leisure time as well. And what's your favorite beach? A lot of them North and South Carolina beaches came up quite a bit, Florida beaches, Hawaii, Cozumel. And then I think one of the final answers was the next beach I go to, which would be here in Puerto Rico. Thank you.
MR. PLZAK: Any questions for Mary K. Thanks Mary K. Okay, that completes the department reports. The next report on the agenda is that from the Advisory Council I ask the Chair Marla Azinger to come up.
ARIN Advisory Council Report
MS. AZINGER: Good morning. I'm going to pretend I'm awake. I seriously am trying to still wake up. It's been a long week. So, on with the -- last night we had our meeting and discussed all the proposals that were put forward and this is what we came up with. 2006-7: Changes to IPv6 initial criteria and based on that PPML (off mike) several different kinds of suggestions that were put forward, we moved to revise this with the author and work on it a little bit more. And then repost it to PPML. We felt like there was valid input that possibly might make it acceptable by people. So, that's what we chose to do with that one. 2007-1: Reinstatement of the PGP Authentication Method, we moved to last call, with comments to staff regarding the implementation of it. 2007-2: Documentation of Mail-From Authentication Method, we moved last call. 2007-3: Documentation of X.509 Authentication Method, we moved to last call. 2007-4: Changes to IPv6 policy - removal "interim", we moved that to last call. 2007-5: Changes to IPv6 policy - removal of "multiple /48" justification. We do not feel there was enough support so that has been abandoned. 2007-6: IPv4 minimum size change. We felt there really was no consensus on it at all, so we abandoned. 2007-7: Creation of Policy for Subsequent End-User IP Requests/Assignments we moved to last call with change to NRPM chapter reference. 2007-8: Transfer Policy Clarifications moved to last call with correction of nomenclature from IP address to number resources. 2007-9: Modernization of ISP Immediate Need Policy we moved to last call. 2007-10: End Site Immediate Need Policy, we felt no consensus was met and a fresh new start would be best with so we abandoned it. 2007-11: Refinement of ISP Initial Allocation Policy, we moved to last call. And the last one, 2007-12: IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal, we didn't feel there was enough support for this policy proposal so it has been abandoned, but it's been noted that subject still need to be looked at for other possible policy creation. Other AC activities, AC continues to participate in other RIR meetings. We are looking into working on a policy operational guidance so that certain sections that really on policy got pulled out and separated. So, people know what the staff is looking for when they go to them. And it's not in the policy but staff is actually asking for this justification in addition to help clarify things. We're doing various edits still for clarity and grammar to the NRPM. We're engaged in the IPv6 multi-homing and traffic engineering BCP effort with the IETF. And we are working with authors on the global e-GLOP multi-cast address assignment policy. And there's more but those are the main things we are working on right now. And I did want to make a special thanks to all the people that participated heavily on the PPML this time. It was fantastic with all the input that was put. And hello to the remote attendees. Thank you very much we all heard that it was a little choppy but thanks for bearing with us. And thank you to the member attendees.
MR. CURRAN: Thank you.
MR. PLZAK: Any questions? Thanks Marla. Next up with the report of the Board of Trustees is Chair John.
ARIN Board of Trustees Report
MR. CURRAN: Okay thank you. So, since the last time we've gotten together the Board has been busy. This is the period of time at the beginning of the year for the ARIN Board is when we take care a lot of housekeeping tasks. Amongst other things, we confirm the result of the elections generally in this time. We did do that. The AC and Board elections. We work on issues such as our policies for board members, this year we revised our conflict of interest, NDA, and ethics paperwork that all the Board members go through. And we then moved on to budget issues. Because every year has a new budget. So, spent quite a bit of time between the last member meeting and this member meeting working on our 2007 budget. And also a number of compliance issues was noted earlier that Sarbanes Oxley, while not directly applicable on all forms to ARIN, does have provisions for entities such as us and an increasing number of provisions. We're actually -- in some cases we're moving a little ahead of the curve in our compliance because we know it's better to pay attention to this before it applies than waiting till afterwards. Another big thing that occupied our time and there, as Steve Ryan our Counsel discussed earlier, was litigation against ARIN. ARIN is in a position where acting on the community's behalf we have to do quite a number of tasks in terms of resource policy management. And that puts us in the limelight for entities that disagree with how we do things. One of those was the Kremen matter, which as noted in Steve's report, was handled earlier this year. There was a quite a bit of Board time and discussion spent discussing that and how we move forward, and how both we handle that matter and get it to final disposition. And also what other activities we should do to make sure that we are better prepared or as well prepared as possible against other suits. So, the Board has spent a lot of time that maybe in things that look like housekeeping but are very important to the success of the organization. I guess last matter is that every now and then an Internet resource policy comes across our desk. And are we working on the actions of the ARIN Advisory Council and their recommendations. We are involved in the ratification of such proposals. Since our last meeting two of them have come forth. You actually already heard a report on the implementation progress of them, but I will just highlight 2006-2: Micro-allocations for Internal Infrastructure and 2006-3: Capturing Originations in Templates. Both were ratified by the Board and therefore in implementation right now. That's what the Board has been up to since our last meeting. I'll take any questions that people might have. Okay seeing no questions I will turn it back to Ray. Thank you.
MR. PLZAK: Thank you John. Next up, we will skip the break and call on Lee Howard the Treasurer to provide the financial reports.
ARIN Financial Report
MR. HOWARD: Good morning. I'm always impressed that John can give his report without any slides. But I have come to realize that slides are indications that you don't really know what you are going to say. That said, here are my slides. And part of the reason that I do have -- that I do want slides here -- and I assume you are going to advance them for me, thank you -- is that I'm going to present the 2006 audited financial statements, which are currently in draft form. And that will be very difficult for me to read and I will just recite out loud and expect anybody to follow what I was saying. We will talk briefly about the other Finance Committee work for 2006 in the past couple of months and then describe and solicit feedback from members. So, let me just -- the current position of our 2006 audited financial statements is that the auditor has audited these statements and said we are happy. The Finance Committee has looked at them and said looks pretty good to us. And the Board has said, we need to do some wordsmithing on the notes. So, we're going back to the auditors to work with them. But because we have not challenged any of the content of the numbers, I felt comfortable presenting the draft numbers to you today. You can -- I'm not going to read all the numbers to you, but I'm going to highlight some of the changes from 2005 to 2006, just describe our financial position. On this slide you can see cash was up and specifically that's because on December 31st, we were in the process of moving some cash from one investment instrument to another. So, we actually had swept it out of ICANN it was in the checking account and then it was being moved to a different fund on that day. And that's the big reason that cash was up. Most of the other changes are not significant. Property and equipment was down and that's because we had a fair amount of property and equipment fully depreciated now. So, that's lower on the balance sheet, but also some of the equipment that is -- that we are replacing. I should say some of the equipment that's fully depreciated has -- does not require replacing. Some of the equipment that we have replaced is less expensive than it was 5 - 10 years ago. So, again, the overall line there is lower. And the escrow is -- you are going to see it again in the next slide, but that's funds in escrow to ICANN. Money that we have set aside as contribution to ICANN but haven't yet paid them. And that's up as of December 31st. Its back down again because we have actually released some funds to them and finally the security deposit was an item in our lease with our landlord that we had not -- actually we needed to have a letter of credit with him as part of the terms of the lease and that's just an oversight that we remedied this year. Continuing on the statement of financial position. Again not going to read all the numbers. There's that escrow to ICANN again and then deferred revenue I was going to -- deferred revenue is when we get a renewal for ISP allocation, registrations. That renewal is some thousands of dollars, and we recognize that revenue over the course of the year. So, we get it all -- so we send out year-end invoices. You pay us and then we recognize that over the following 12 months. And so, that's --this deferred revenue is the money that we have received but haven't actually recognized as revenue yet. Now, we are into the next statement -- statement of activities. I thought it was interesting on this particular slide that IP end user registrations are up. And I had to go back and ask what was the end user registration why that specific item is up. And that's because, of course we have an IPv6 end user policy now. And so, we've had some registrations as Leslie pointed out. Also apparently some -- and I hadn't heard this. Apparently, some users, some organizations that qualifies end users are becoming multi-homed to comply with Sarbanes-Oxley. That they are -- one of their understandings for -- as a requirement and again Sarbanes-Oxley is a fairly vague law. But one of the things they are trying to do is show redundancy by becoming multi- homed and once they are multi-homed then they can come to ARIN at a certain size for an end user registration assignment. So, obviously that's been bringing the assignments up. Membership dues is up and that's organizations becoming members so that they can qualify for the waivers on IPv6. And contributions you can see is up and that's both -- that is contributions for -- from sponsors for meetings. Thank you very much sponsors. And part of that is we are better recognizing the actual cost that we allocated to the sponsors. Here is -- okay, just one of the ways that we -- the dividing operating expenses between the departments. You can see -- I don't have a whole lot to say in program services the numbers are what they are. I think I am going to mention that -- no sorry go-ahead -- the -- that number is here. So, if you -- the change in the assets before investment don't remember what they are acting and when to mention that no sorry go- ahead. The number's here so if you the change in the assets before investment activity. So, the first one is change in that assets for investment activities. That's -- if you'd go back to the revenues from previous slides, subtract expenses, and there you have the change in that assets. We had more revenues than expenses, so it's a positive number. Generally, that's considered a good thing. You can see that this year, in 2006, compared to 2005, we actually had less of a surplus than previous years. So, we're kind of closing the gap a little bit. We are showing less of a profit than we have in past years. Part of -- but still even part of that 1.6 million is overdue collections. So this is a project that financial services has been doing for several years now. To go back now and collect on the people who had not paid us for previous years. And that project is winding up and so part of that revenue will not show up in future years as -- because we will only be collecting for one year at a time in future years. Unlike in many cases this year, and in fact 2005, there was a significant number of overdue collections.
MR. HOWARD: Going on to the Finance Committee, the members of the Finance Committee are Treasurer as Chair -- that's me, Scott Bradner, and Bill Manning, who was over there and is now at the mic. Hi, Bill. Just had to point out that he is not in his seat right now. And some of the things that we've done this year. Of course, one of the things that the charter of the Finance Committee to do is to review the performance of the reserves. We do that individually every quarter and then once a year we take a look at it as a group. And performance was very nice in 2006. We contracted for a -- skipping to the last bullet there, we contracted for the audit that I just showed you a draft of. The second bullet then, we contracted for a financial controls audit. We're still in the process of evaluating vendors for that, or evaluating auditors for that. What that is is we did this a few years ago and this is to make sure that we have controls in place to protect the assets and reporting of ARIN. And the last one was good, a few notes -- made some changes. This one I don't foresee any problems, but this is -- again, as John said, we want to be out in front of the requirements imposed by Sarbanes-Oxley or equivalent rules for nonprofit organizations. And finally, as I think everybody knows, we are lifting the waiver on transfer fees as of January -- or sorry, we have lifted the waiver as of January 1, 2007. That's a waiver that we put in place several years ago to remove any barriers that people had for updating their records and making them accurate. And we did not have as much update as we hoped on that. So we pushed as long as we could and people didn't want to and so we got as many transfers as we could. Now, it's -- this is a transaction cost and we want to capture it. And we also want to make sure there is enough control there to, you know, limit the possibilities for fraud. Thank you. Are there any questions? Marty?
MR. HANNIGAN: Martin Hannigan, ASO AC, ARIN member representative. Can you talk a little bit about escrow to ICANN? What is all that money and why haven't we given it to them?
MR. HOWARD: There is -- so there is a formula that is incredibly complex for how much money the RIRs are contributing to ICANN to help with their budget. And over the years, originally when ICANN was formed -- I guess the reason we hadn't released all the money to ICANN is to make sure that there is still an incentive for ICANN to come and work with us on the letters that -- I'm sorry, go ahead.
MR. PLZAK: The current thing is -- that we're working is what I reported the other day in the NRO report, it's the exchange of letters between the NRO and ICANN and it's just part of the fact that we haven't completely formalized our relationship with ICANN. And until such time as we do so, we are holding funds in escrow. As a matter -- as Lee reported, as a matter of good faith and good intentions a portion of that escrow was released earlier this year.
MR. HOWARD: Thanks, Ray. I just want to make sure I got the name of the documents we're working on correct. The other thing is, as you know, we support ICANN in other ways than just those -- that direct escrow.
MR. HANNIGAN: That's right.
MR. HOWARD: We fund the NRO NC including travel.
MR. HANNIGAN: And I don't disagree with that strategy by that way. I just wanted to know why. Thank you.
MR. KOSTERS: Mark Kosters, VeriSign. I wanted to ask you about -- maybe I'm a little bit off base here, but wasn't there a legal defense fund set up? And if so, how much money was actually dispersed out of that to take care of the lawsuit?
MR. HOWARD: There is a budget item for legal expenses and I don't remember that amount off the top of my head. We are talking about ways to reflect our legal reserves in our financial statements --
MR. KOSTERS: Are we -- budget -- online when it's approved?
MR. HOWARD: I believe the 2007 budget is online but I don't have the url off the top of my head.
MR. KOSTERS: Okay.
MR. STRATTON: I think the 2006 budget -- or 2007 budget shows legal defense is $740,000. Our expenses in 2006 for legal defense was $325,000. So the actuals that will come out in the audit statements are $350,000. We budgeted this year for $740,000.
MR. CURRAN: Yeah, just a point of information. For people who go to the ARIN website, if you click on "About ARIN" or "About Us" on the first page the budget link is on the left-hand column.
MR. HOWARD: This is exciting, watching all the response. Yeah, Marty.
MR. HANNIGAN: Hi, Lee. Martin Hannigan, ASO AC, ARIN region member. Different question, last year I -- in my efforts to represent a company that I no longer represent in this matter I raised an issue around transparency in procurement. And I noticed in the Board minutes that the Finance Committee was tasked with taking a look at that. I didn't hear anything back and I haven't really asked -- and perhaps this is another case of me being on the treadmill and reading the minutes and missing something. But could you elaborate if -- could you give us an update on anything that has been done in that area or will not be done? Thank you.
MR. HOWARD: We do have a contracting process now and I'm not sure if that -- if the process itself is public but there is a contracting process whereby we will solicit for the appropriate -- go ahead.
MR. PLZAK: Actually there's two contracting processes. One, the external one, how we engage in and advertise from your perspective a business opportunity. And the second one which Bob reported on to a certain extent is how we take care of that internally. And both of those were done and the Board looked at them, I believe, about midyear last year and approved it.
MR. HANNIGAN: Thank you.
MR. SEASTROM: Rob Seastrom, ARIN AC. I'm not sure if you are the correct person to bring this up with or whether someone else on the Board or whatever business you -- you are the money guy.
MR. HOWARD: We'll find the right person.
MR. SEASTROM: Okay. There is currently a waiver on IPv6 registration fees. And it is set to expire in about 8 months. Has there been any discussion on extending that again?
MR. HOWARD: There has been discussion.
MR. SEASTROM: Is there anything you can share with us?
MR. HOWARD: And -- what's that?
MR. SEASTROM: Is there anything you can share with us?
MR. HOWARD: And the statement of the waiver as currently on the fee schedule on the website is accurate, that the waiver will expire at the end of this year.
MR. SEASTROM: Okay. Thank you.
MR. HOWARD: Scott has something to say.
MR. BRADNER: Just on that previous question, the gist of the procurement policy is that anything over a certain threshold gets publicly advertised and all of that. So the threshold's pretty low, but it's quite a rigorous policy.
MR. HANNIGAN: Is there a reference on the website that I can just take a look as a matter of interest or -- because this process has not been invoked yet and we're not quite sure how we are going to do the --
MR. BRADNER: It was on the -- the Board discussed; it was certainly in one of the Board minutes about it. I don't know whether -- it's not been published or --
MR. HOWARD: Certainly the internal evaluation process is not at end. Sounds like the rest of the process is also not on the website now except in the Board minutes.
MR. PLZAK: It's not publicly posted on the website but -- and actually I can't remember what the value is -- but as Scott says it is quite low and you probably wouldn't want to bid on what -- if it --(off mike) that low. But it is there. As counsel pointed out, when this issue came up last year, you know, we are not a government-contracting entity. So if you are used to dealing with the federal or a state government as a contractor, we are not bound by the same set of rules. So we have formulated rules which in some cases replicate the principles behind those rules but in other cases we're not maybe as rigorous because we don't have to be. Counsel, did you want to comment at all on that?
MR. BRADNER: We don't have to be but we are trying to be quite often and rigorous about make sure that contracting opportunities are publicly announced and that insiders don't get any track on them and that sort of thing.
MR. HANNIGAN: And I think -- basically I do support the work that you guys have already done and I don't have kind of issue with levels or what the staff decides and what doesn't go out to the process. I guess I'm just trying to kind of get some more information on what was established and I can probably do the rest of this offline. Thank you.
MR. PLZAK: Unless you have something you -- a burning desire to speak again at the microphone -- okay.
MR. HOWARD: I want to say one more thing about fees that we mentioned it earlier this week that we have received a lot of suggestions through PPML, through the suggestion process, with different ways that we might structure fees, different things that we could do with fees. And we haven't had time to -- you know, since the recent cycle of conversations on various lists and suggestions we've received privately, we just haven't had time to meet and really give them a thorough discussion. But that is in the very soon -- in the very near future for the Finance Committee and the full board. So there is going to be a lot of discussion about fees in the future. I can't tell you what that discussion is going to end up with though. Thank you.
MR. PLZAK: Thank you, Lee. Now, we are at the open microphone portion of the meeting. And remember meeting courtesies and rules of discussions. One restriction on this open microphone, this is not an open microphone to discuss the policies of the last two days. This is strictly on matters that pertain to the organization and the members. John?
MR. CURRAN: Okay. I would like to call your attention to the fact that it's the open microphone session. I'd also like to call your attention to the fact that the microphones are available now for any topic you might bring up. We do not review past policy proposals here, but otherwise everything else. I would also call your attention to the fact that it's presently 82 degrees and sunny outside in case you want to trade off what you want to be doing for the next hour. Owen.
MR. DeLONG: Okay, I don't know what the right -- Owen DeLong, (off mike) Networks. I don't know what the right process here is but I would like to make a recommendation or motion or whatever it is that the fee waiver for IPv6 at least be considered for extension such that if that decision was arrived at it could be implemented by the next Members Meeting.
MR. CURRAN: Okay, interesting point, to extend the fee waiver for IPv6 and I guess if anyone feels that that's a good idea or a bad idea, those microphones -- certainly it does occupy the Board's discussions from time to time. Center back.
MR. HANNIGAN: Martin Hannigan, ASO AC member, ARIN region. I don't support the waiver and here is why -- I think that in order for us to provide services to the IPv6 users they should pay for them and I think that the Board should at least consider that in the discussion. Thank you.
MR. CURRAN: Okay. Front right microphone.
MR. RICH: Yurie Rich, Command Information. I don't see the fee for the addresses being something that would cause someone who is interested in IPv6 to not do it. They have a number of other obstacles they have to overcome that are far greater than paying 1,250 bucks or whatever it is for the annual allocation. So I don't see it as being something that's causing people to not adopt v6.
MR. CURRAN: Okay. And so I guess to paraphrase, you wouldn't be in favor of renewal?
MR. RICH: Well, that's correct. I mean, I'd love to continue to get it for free but yeah, I don't support that.
MR. CURRAN: Okay. You can sort of visually imagine 30 years from now if IPv6 registration services are free, we would need to figure out what that implies for ARIN. So question is between now and 30 years now or some other timeframe how you go about that. Mr. DeLong.
MR. DeLONG: Just to respond to that briefly -- Owen DeLong, Jittr Networks, I don't support extending it indefinitely but I think extending it 1 year at a time until we achieve some level of v6 adoption in the region that starts to resemble the rest of the world that might be not such a bad thing.
MR. CURRAN: Okay. Microphone center, front. Paul beat you by this much.
MS. ARONSON: Since when has that stopped you from picking the other microphone? Go ahead.
MR. CURRAN: Oh, go ahead. I'm saving the best for last. Mr. Vixie.
MR. VIXIE: Thanks, John.
MR. CURRAN: Sure.
MR. VIXIE: So a number of you came to me in the bar and asked if I was in competition with Bill for Bad Idea Fairy of the Week in response to my question yesterday about, you know, what to do with dual stack allocations. It's actually not true. I bow at the feet of the master. (Laughter)
MR. VIXIE: But I do -- you know, I am trying to think out of the box -- outside the box. I think we all need to be thinking outside the box because in the Internet community we have our own global warming thing where we're, you know, headed for a brick wall, going past a tipping point, don't really have a lot of guidance for what we will do when the end comes, that kind of thing. So I am curious to hear other wacky proposals that people have thought about. And so you can look at the friendly competition between Bill and I as a way of lowering the bar to -- you know, maybe if there is an idea that you have about how to either extend the IPv4 so it lasts forever or make v6 deployment happen in spite of itself, but you've been too embarrassed about it, I think Bill and I have, you know, helped lower the bar to the point where nothing you could say would possibly be as wacky as what you've already heard.
MR. MANNING: Paul, I can lower the bar a little further if you'd like. (Laughter)
MR. VIXIE: Right here, Bill, not up there.
SPEAKER: It's not a contest. So --
MR. VIXIE: But anyway that -- to start things off and it may end after this. But would the RIR membership communities, starting with this one, have any interest in creating a reverse market for IPv4 address base? Would you like to see your membership fees used to pay for a legacy address to be returned to the pool so that it could be handed out under the normal policies of this organization with RSAs and so forth, that kind of thing?
MR. CURRAN: Okay, so you would like to first encourage people that wacky ideas, welcome. And the microphones and mailing lists are open for that. And in addition, give us an example of one potentially -- should we open a reverse market to help spur deployment, okay. Rear microphone.
MS. ARONSON: Cathy Aronson, ARIN AC. My comment, original comment, which I'll get to in a minute, wasn't about Paul's thing. But if Paul wants to do that, why don't we have some kind of prize for the wackiest. (Laughter)
MS. ARONSON: Because that might make it, you know, a little more interesting.
SPEAKER: Another duct-taped wallet. (Laughter)
MS. ARONSON: Yeah. My question, though, was, are the other -- do you know whether the other regional registries are charging for v6 base yet or is everyone waiving the fee?
MR. CURRAN: Point of information. So is there anyone from the other RIRs who would like to discuss their charging for v6 registration services? Yeah.
MR. PAWLIK: Axel Pawlik, RIPE NCC. We do charge for IPv6. It's part of our rather complicated algorithm of deriving -- of grading members into various sizes, then allocating them a fee. So yes, we are charging for them.
MR. CURRAN: Any other RIR representatives want to talk about whether they're charging for IPv6 registration services?
MR. KUO: George from APNIC. Yes, we do charge for IPv6 address space. But if the member at the same time holding -- also holds the IPv4 address space, then there is categories where if the holding of the v4 is larger than v6, then we will only charge according to that particular fee.
MR. CURRAN: Okay, very good. Anyone else like to speak for any other RIRs on this? Okay.
MR. PALET MARTINEZ: I am not completely sure but almost that what LACNIC and AFRINIC are waiving the fees for IPv6.
MR. CURRAN: Okay. Any other people want to speak on the point of information about RIR practices for v6 allocation fees? Okay. I hope that answers your question, Cathy. All right, the microphones are open. Yes, the far right microphone.
MR. ITO: Kosuke Ito from Japan, IRI Ubiteq. This is still a different subject. I like to have now a little feedback from your community about -- I am a little curious about the new infrastructure coming along. I'm acting in WiMAX Forum right now, which is broadband wireless infrastructure. Then it's coming along around 2008 or '09, that kind of a period about the deployment. Then worldwide interests is that global roaming which is many IP addresses will be required on that infrastructure. Then I don't know it's needs to be some specific policy to be allocated or any guidelines needs to be ready. Then if I -- if everybody likes to have it, then we would like to think over it.
MR. CURRAN: Okay, if I understand the question, you're saying you're aware of a WiMAX and other wireless large scale infrastructures being deployed in the next few years. And those combined with the need of global roaming might imply a very large address space requirement.
MR. ITO: Exactly.
MR. CURRAN: If that's the case, is there something this body needs to do with respect to policy to enable that. Would anyone like to comment on that topic of WiMAX and wireless roaming?
MR. ITO: Because I believe that that's really a huge impact on IPv4 consuming rates will be increased.
MR. CURRAN: Okay, that -- potentially that could have a huge impact on IPv4 because of the need to address such infrastructure. Anyone want to comment, anybody? If you have interest in this topic, please seek him afterwards. Okay, microphone in the rear.
MR. BICKNELL: Leo Bicknell, Harrah's Entertainment. I was going to put forth a slightly different kind of take on the fee waiver situation. ISPs' end users are potentially getting in a situation where they are going to have to pay for infrastructure resources twice to -- for the time period that they're dual-stacked anyway, assuming that's the transition forward. And perhaps rather than waiving one or the other we should come up with a scheme whereby, at least for the transition period, they don't have to pay twice. So for instance, if you had v6 and could prove you were actually using it, which I realize is a really nebulous concept, you might actually get a discount on your v4 space for the time period that you're dual-stacked so that no one has to incur a double cost, but we're actually charging for v6 going forward.
MR. CURRAN: Okay, question is regarding the fee structure and whether or not it's possible to encourage or prevent penalization of those who are operating with both address spaces. Lee, do you want to comment?
MR. HOWARD: I think that what the fee schedule says now is that even after the waiver for members expires, that member organizations will still only pay either for an IPv4 or an IPv6 allocation renewal. But I also think that it is not a -- because there are so many different waivers described in that section of the fee schedule that I don't think it's entirely clear. And so I do hope to clean that up for you.
MR. CURRAN: Yeah, my memory of the fee schedule matches Lee's which is that even when the waivers are expired, you will pay for the maximum category of registration services you're making use of but only one such category, only v4 -- the max of whether it's the v4 or the v6 in terms of size of category registration services. Does that help?
SPEAKER: Will that change anybody's (off mike).
MR. CURRAN: I'm not sure I --
SPEAKER: Would it change anybody's fees?
MR. BICKNELL: Yeah, so the question becomes for a standard average ARIN member, if there is such a thing, do we expect that will make their fees go up or go down because the fee schedules are different for the two.
MR. CURRAN: Since everyone presently is paying their IPv4 registration services, or you're hearing from Bob, okay, when the fee waiver for v6 should happen to not be renewed at some point, unless that happens to put you in a larger category, you wouldn't expect to change as long as that category of v6 was smaller than the corresponding v4.
MR. BICKNELL: Correct. I guess my question is for the people who already have both resources, is that actually true? Or do they change to a smaller or a larger category because the allocation policies have been different for the two.
MR. HOWARD: Nobody's fees will go down, if you're paying for the larger category of either.
MR. CURRAN: The question is whether or not there are some members for whom their v6 allocation category is so large that when the waiver goes away, they'll move up in category, okay. I can imagine just offhand one entity offhand that I know will have them because it came up earlier. Yes.
MR. HANNIGAN: Martin Hannigan, ASO AC member ARIN Region.
MR. BRADNER: Just -- I think the basic answer to your question is we don't know, but it's something that probably should be looked into.
SPEAKER: All right.
MR. HANNIGAN: So, John, I actually think there should be a tax on people that have both because I think that Cathy made a presentation that showed that it looks -- my conclusion is that people are getting v6 allocations and putting them on the shelf, and it is like quitting smoking. I am always going to be going to v6 and -- (Laughter)
MR. HANNIGAN: -- I think if you have both, maybe the transition policies you pay extra, until you give one back.
MR. CURRAN: Okay, we did talk earlier about a -- what was that, duct tape wallet?
MR. HANNIGAN: Right.
MR. CURRAN: And I'm wondering if that was the category on which you are suggesting. Anyone want to comment on the idea of penalizing holders of both. Bill?
MR. WOODCOCK: Marty, are you sure that the proven strategy of giving people more IPv6 addresses won't cause them to transition sooner? (Laughter)
MR. CURRAN: Okay?
MR. DELONG: Point of order for the Chairman.
MR. CURRAN: You too -- Marty you want to respond that was a direct question, do you want to respond?
MR. HANNIGAN: Say that again Bill, because I don't smoke. (Laughter)
MR. DeLONG: Point of order.
MR. CURRAN: Yeah, okay. The question is from out of here you'll otherwise directs your comments, the Chair.
MR. HANNIGAN:: I think it was facetious and --yes.
MR. CURRAN: Okay, so, point of order. Owen?
MR. DeLONG: While I may agree with the Chair's comments, I don't think it is necessarily appropriate for the Chair to insult the ideas coming from the open microphone directly.
MR. CURRAN: I wanted to clarify the context in which he was suggesting, because that one was questionable one way or the other. I just want to make sure that he wasn't talking about the idea of opening us up to new zanier, specifically, new and zanier ideas. Okay, we have microphones open. I have got RS at the back.
MR. SEASTROM: So two questions. One is to give a concrete example on the fee structure. Clue Trust, which I am -- configure there routers from time to time is extra small and IPv4, and is small and IPv6. That means that we are paying small ones not paying twice. Is that correct?
MR. CURRAN: You're saying in terms of a fee schedule?
MR. SEASTROM: That's correct.
MR. CURRAN: Yes.
MR. SEASTROM: Okay. Second thing is, I don't necessarily disagree with Martin's suggestion for taxing people for holding both kinds of resources. But, I believe that the proper schedule for implementing that would be right about the time we run out of IPv4 addresses to hand out.
MR. CURRAN: Okay. We have Marla at the front mic.
MS. AZINGER: Marla Azinger, Frontier Communications. I think the taxing idea is completely horrible idea, and that's because I am one of those IPv6 holders that is not currently routing. But I am actually, actively doing tests, and figuring out how to manage my IP block. So I am working with it. It is just not routing yet. And, yes, I plan to, but I also plan to dual stack. So therefore I need v4, and there is a lot of people that are going to need both for quite a long time, and that's something everybody needs to accept, because you will need to use both for a while. There is a very long transition, even though we go to v6, it's really not going to save IP space for a while.
MR. CURRAN: Okay. On the topic of having fees for both cumulative or both in effect at the same time to discourage holding of v6 addresses on use; would anyone like to respond to that topic or that comment from Marla. Yes, Jason?
MR. SCHILLER: Jason Schiller of Verizon Business, UUNET. I concur with Marla. I think that, you know, I am routing IPv6 today. I have IPv6 customers. I'm on the v6 Internet, but we don't have any plans in the near term of turning off our v4. I think that it is going to be reality that we are going to be in dual stack for a long time. I am not necessarily opposed to there being a penalty for people that have gotten v6 addresses just to put on the shelf. But they should not penalize people who are actually using the v6 addresses. One of the ways you might be able to measure that is to see if the v6 address is announced in the Internet. Another way might be to see if they are using it in some sort of test or certification capacity to see that they have routers somewhere configured with v6 that are may be not necessarily part of the Internet. But certainly if people can demonstrate that their -- using those numbers to move forward towards adopting v6 then I think it's a good thing. And if they are just sitting on the shelf then it is not necessarily a good thing.
MR. CURRAN: Okay. Very clear comment. Anyone would like to respond? Mr. Hannigan, back mic?
MR. HANNIGAN: Martin Hannigan ASO/AC, ARIN region. I don't necessarily disagree with Marla. I think that there are -- there is definitely some discussion to be had on what constitutes on-the-shelf and what doesn't. But I have an IPv6 allocation, and I have it because it is free. And I'm worried that a lot of these sunset proposals that we see are going to make things more interesting as we go along, and I have no intention of routing that prefix because I have no resource to do anything with it, and I have no reason to use it.
MR. CURRAN: So?
MR. HANNIGAN: I just don't see what the point is. So, yeah, we can route them and say look I am routing a v6 prefix. Okay. There is nothing to do with it. I guess, I am saying, we are not the FOMC, and where we kind of, you know, take the pulse of the v6 community and say what suggest rates based on, you know, allocations and non-allocations. And I don't know that is necessarily our job to make people use v6 either. I think our job is to be ready for when people do want to use it, and that our services are adequate and prepared, and that goes back to paying. And then having both on-the-shelf they still need to be serviced, and I think this should be some kind of cost not discount. And when until v4 is gone there is cost there as well. So, I don't necessarily disagree, Marla. Marla, I think there just needs to be a lot more discussion, thanks.
MR. CURRAN: Okay, Marla?
MS. AZINGER: Marla, Frontier Communications. I'd support looking at figure not really what is a shelved v6 space, and obviously that's something we need to talk about a lot more, because there is a lot of things that would go into that involvement of staff -- ARIN staff and such. But, yeah, it is just the people that are I would not want to hinder people going to v6 because they are afraid they are going to get slapped silly because it takes some fives years to really figure it out and get it going in together. And that would be very bad to hit people on the side of the head for just trying to get it going.
MR. CURRAN: Okay. Far microphone, yes?
MR. BARGER: Dave Barger, AT&T. Yeah, just to kind of comment on what Marla just said that, you know, I really don't see how we can, you know, come up with some kind of a tax or a fee or whatever, you know, to levy against folks who have v6 space and then, you know, we think, well, may be they are not using it. You know, may be they are just shelving it or whatever. It is like, how do you monitor that? How is ARIN really going to police that? And, you know ARIN can say, hey, can you give some feedback, you know it has been 12 months, it has been a year; how are you doing it? Well, you know, reality of this anybody can put down to spend anything they want. I mean, you know, where I work, we are aggressively, you know, working on v6 in our labs. You know, we have governmental regulations that are saying you must do this, by this date. So yeah, you know, there is a timeline, there is a plan. Even, there is marketing pushing from behind, and all of this kind of thing, you know to do it, but you know, I really don't see it as ARIN's role to go in and police that and say are you really working hard to pulling that or are you just sitting there and holding on to it?
MR. CURRAN: Okay, thank you. Rear microphone?
MR. BICKNELL: Leo Bicknell, Harrah's Entertainment. Marty actually just gave me an excellent idea for something that ARIN staff could track, since they might not otherwise track it. When the fees are un-waived, which it sounds like the end of this year, it would be nice if we could track, if anyone gives back their IPv6 allocation, because they no longer want to pay the fee.
MR. CURRAN: Okay, a good point. Obviously, if we change the fee schedule it is good to track the behavior that results. Center front microphone?
MS. ARONSON: Cathy Aronson, again. I just -- it just occurred to me that I'm -- have an e-mail half typed to Gert, because I thought maybe what we could do for the next time is have him breakdown that slide if what's in the routing table versus what's handed out per region based on who pays and who doesn't, and see whether --
MR. CURRAN: Okay.
MS. ARONSON: -- if they pay they are more likely to advertise it? I don't know if anybody thinks that will be interesting, but and when I see if we could get that. Because, you know, I mean it may or may not mean that the fee is a deterrent to whether you advertise or not.
MR. CURRAN: Because in the ARIN region in the waiver of fees, everything in the routing table that's in v6 affectively did not have to pay. It really -- is that correct? Let me check. Is it true that all the IPv6 allocations in the ARIN region were made under a fee waiver?
MR. HOWARD: No, no.
MR. CURRAN: Okay. Don't worry.
MR. HOWARD: There were some that predated the waiver.
MR. CURRAN: Okay. I get wrong all the time. So I did it again. So you are right. There would be -- it would be possible for the staff to match up what's routed, and the people actually paid for, versus what's routed where it was not paid under a fee waiver, and somehow present that. Is that what you are looking for?
MS. ARONSON: Well, I mean, he can look at it per region, and that we could just look at -- that mean the majority of the ones in this region were under the fee waiver I would assume --
MR. CURRAN: Right. I would think that's true.
MS. ARONSON: -- because that's has been around for a long time.
MR. CURRAN: I mean, just off hand, if you think about the routing table and the current structure, it does seem as though the ARIN region is a little behind in deployment, and we're the ones that have the most aggressive fee waiver. (Laughter)
MS. ARONSON: Well, and I also think in this region, people are more likely to get address space more speculatively because of the way the policies have been and before, and you know, we are in the essence creating the swamp now for v6. So, we might as well get ours while we can, right?
MR. CURRAN: We are trained to create swamps. Okay, yes?
MR. BRADNER: Just bring back to where we started on all of this. The fee waiver came in because the RIRs came under a lot of pressure from parts of the community saying that we were somehow antisocial by blocking the deployment of v6. One comment earlier was that if you're going to deploy v6, the fee is going to be least of your problems -- a lot of us have thought about that at that time. But, we were getting a lot of bad publicity/dotted and all that kind of stuff of how evil we were because we were charging money to get people, let people get in the game. And so that's what started it off. It wasn't a lot of money. It didn't make much difference to ARIN's budget or anything, but it was a PR move. It really fundamentally was a PR move. Do we still need that PR move? Is this something that really makes a difference? If it makes a difference to this perception, then it's probably something we'd need to keep doing. If it doesn't make a difference to the --it doesn't make a difference to reality; we know that, but if it makes a difference to perception, then it's probably something we need to keep doing.
MR. CURRAN: Okay. The comments appear -- no? Center front microphone?
MR. SCHILLER: Jason Schiller of Verizon Business, UUNET. I just had a quick question of clarification. If someone was interested in working with Marla on defining what it means to have a shelved v6 address in order to do something interesting with the billing, would we do that for the consultation process?
MR. CURRAN: If you want to work with Marla on that, you would go --
SPEAKER: Find Marla --
MR. CURRAN: -- e-mail Marla on. She is actually right there, I think.
MR. SCHILLER: No, but I mean if we wanted to make a change to the billing procedure, that would be through the consultation process?
MR. CURRAN: Yeah, if you want to make a suggestion regarding fees for ARIN, please put it in the suggestion consultation process. Far right microphone?
MR. RICH: Yurie Rich, Command Information. Is there a way to show any quantifiable impact of not charging for v6 address space versus the level of effort?
MR. CURRAN: That was effectively the earlier question, I think that Cathy asked, which is, "Can we demonstrate the results of the fee waiver, and I'm not sure -- I'm not sure we have a good way of doing that. I mean you could track it against number of assignments made, which we have done in presentations in the past, and certainly the number of assignments has increased, but in terms of the number of assignments that show up in the routing table, we have not yet done that."
MR. RICH: Well, I just think you are going by financial perspective. I mean the level of effort for ARIN staff to go through the process of allocating the space versus the fees generated or they would normally generate.
MR. CURRAN: The Board when we do things like fee waivers, we look at what impact that it has on the revenue of the organization, and it's -- for IPv6 it's de minimus, it's not a significant impact one way or the other. Leslie?
MR. PLZAK: Leslie has got one data point there and I don't know if there is any real inferences could be drawn from it.
MS. NOBILE: Yeah.
MR. PLZAK: But she can present that.
MS. NOBILE: I don't know if it is significant, but I just looked at the stats for 2005 for the v6 allocations and we issued 57 /32s, and I looked at 2006, when the fee waiver was implemented that said, "If you're a member, you don't pay fees," and we only issued 42 /32s (or other sizes) to ISPs. So it actually went down...
MR. CURRAN: Right.
MS. NOBILE: ... in 2006.
MR. CURRAN: So, no demonstrateable benefit impact?
MR. RICH: So, I guess then if that's the case, then it doesn't seem that there is any reason not to continue with the fee waiver, nor does it seem like there is any real benefit from looking at the shelved v6 base, because I would presume that if you're going to do that, you would have to do that for v4 as well, would you not?
MR. CURRAN: Earlier, Scott identified the fact that there is also a perception issue that applies in charging fees if it is not necessary with the recovery because of how small the number of actual usage is.
MR. RICH: Well, and that's why I was looking for quantifiable part, because I don't really care about perception as much as I care about the ability to quantify or not quantify that perception.
MR. CURRAN: Understood. Do you want to make a comment, right?
MR. PLZAK: Yeah, in regards to the number that Leslie just pointed out, I sincerely doubt that the fee waiver had influence one way or the other in terms of it went down or up or anything else like that. I suspect strongly that it really was business decisions that were being made. It really influenced whether or not you were going to comment yet the address from ARIN and not what your cost would be or wouldn't be, or what your potential cost would be five or ten years from now. So, I think you are the one who pointed out that there are host of other problems that are associated with doing this and paying the subscription fee or member fee is probably not one of the top items to consider.
MR. CURRAN: Okay. Center rear microphone?
MR. VEGODA: I am Leo Vegoda, ICANN. To talk about the fees and the influence the fees has had on IPv6 allocations, it might go well to put something like this with all the RIRs and the fees and the IPv6 allocations that are made on a chart like in the NRO stats presentation, the RIRs do each quarter. And go and show for each of the regions where fees started being charged and stopped being charged and whether there was any discernible pattern, so that you could actually see across the world rather than just in a particular region if fees were making any difference. And also to see where there were returns, because I know the RIPE NCC has had a few IPv6 allocations returned. I think it was probably just an MNA activity, and that's why the space was returned; but I can't remember. But it might be nice to sort of plot the RIRs against each other and go and see that over time. (Laughter)
MR. CURRAN: I hear the suggestion, and I will say that certainly having each of the RIRs describe how their change in fee policies encouraged adoption of v6 would be useful. That's probably going to have to be done on an RIR-by-RIR basis and then collected as opposed to RIRs getting in a room and describing and discussing in detail fees and fee structure, because of a number of interesting convolutions on the way world works with entities getting together and discussing pricing and fees, okay? Microphone remain open. Microphones remain open. I believe your name is Hannigan, Mr. Hannigan, rear microphone?
MR. HANNIGAN: Martin Hannigan, ASO/AC member, ARIN region. John, I wanted to thank the Board for the support that you guys gave us this week as the ASO/AC. I just also wanted to just remind everybody that there is a appointment process in progress and that on May 8th we will hopefully be transmitting to the ICANN secretariat who the ASO appointment to the ICANN Board will be. There's well-qualified candidates and as a representative to the region, I am open to additional feedback on direction that the membership would like me to take in casting my vote. And I have extensively discussed this with the people in the room already, and I appreciate the support and feedback that I receive from the community, thank you.
MR. CURRAN: Okay. We have multiple ASO AC representatives from the region here. Seek them out, because they do have an important task in front of them. Okay, microphones remain open. It's a brisk 65 degrees in here. (Laughter)
MR. CURRAN: Balmy 82, and sunny out there. But the microphones remain open, any other questions or tasks -- (Laughter)
MR. CURRAN: -- that anyone would like to raise before this session. Seeing no further questions like to end -- (Applause)
MR. CURRAN: Again, seeing no one at the microphones -- (Laughter)
MR. CURRAN: -- I'd like to -- Jordi?
MR. PALET MARTINEZ: It's just a comment. I wasn't sure if doing it myself because the registries, which I'm going to talk out in the present, but I believe that the waiver on the IPv6 fees in AFRINIC and LACNIC together, which -- very extensive training program has demonstrated that it has been in those regions successful in the take off, and -- actually, you see more and more ISPs starting to at least to pilots, but some to them are really providing services, and of course routing the prefixes. It's just -- it's my perception and I think I'm being objective saying these even if I am active part of that, because you can actually see, the prefix is being routed and customers using it.
MR. CURRAN: Okay. You're saying that we have successes in other regions with the waiver program when combined with education on v6? Okay, point for everyone to hear. Okay, microphones remain open for any further questions. Microphones closed. All done? (Laughter)
MR. CURRAN: Yes, center front microphone?
MR. POUNSETT: Matthew Pounsett, from CIRA / ARIN AC. Just a quick comment; I noted that the ASO AC all disappeared for an hour or two during the public policy meeting for their own meeting, and I was thinking that to whatever extent we have our control over those things, it would probably be a good idea to not schedule them during ARIN's Public Policy Meetings.
MR. CURRAN: Okay. Scheduling issue, would anyone like to respond?
MR. HANNIGAN: Hi, Martin Hannigan, ASO AC member. We did try hard to not do that, and it was stated on the list, and this is during the time of the meeting, and we found that it was just not possible. And I can assure you the next time it comes around I'll be able to be a bit more vociferous that it does not take place.
MR. CURRAN: Okay, microphones are open. Any other comments? None from here, down there? Last chance. Closed. Thank you all for participating in the open microphones -- (Applause)
MR. PLZAK: Thank you, John, and given the reception to Mr. Vixie's idea, I guess we'll be adding in another agenda item on Sundays, the "Whacky Idea Hour." Perhaps, it will be followed by the "Rat Hole Hour," I'm not sure. (Laughter)
MR. PLZAK: But actually, if you step aside from the humor that what Paul really was saying is, is that no idea is too crazy, or too farfetched to throw there and discuss, because sometimes what seems to be the most improbable or impossible thing is probably ends up being the right way to go. So, don't ever feel stifled and don't be afraid to raise a question, because as you've heard many times the most stupid question is the one that's never asked and so on. So anyway, I guess, let's see, we're beyond the agenda so we should take a coffee break, and then come back for closing comments? (Laughter)
MR. HOWARD: Move to adjourn.
Closing Announcements and Adjournment
MR. PLZAK: So, I mean, John couldn't control the open mic. He kept on trying to close it, reminding people that it's brisk 65 here, balmy 82 out there or whatever so. I'll just go on here a little bit. So, first of all a reminder, turn in your wireless cards; the network will shut down at the conclusion of this meeting. Perhaps those people who are keeping their mic open wanted to do some e-mail, I'm not sure. The Cyber Cafe, this is your absolutely last chance to visit Richard and spin the wheel of fortune, and so there are still a few items left. And so, please if you haven't done so, drop a suggestion in the box and visit the Cyber Cafe. Please remember to complete your workshop meeting surveys and remember you too could win this. A special thanks to Centennial de Puerto Rico for network connectivity in the Cyber Cafe. (Applause)
MR. PLZAK: A special thanks as a special participant I should say, to the Gauss Laboratories. (Applause)
MR. PLZAK: And while you are at it give you're all -- yourselves a good pat on the back and applause, because you are the ones that make this possible. (Applause)
MR. PLZAK: Before I let you go, I would like to take this time to personally thank all the members of the Advisory Council and Board for their support in helping to make this happen, and I would also like to have ARIN's staff, please stand. Thank you guys. (Applause)
MR. PLZAK: Your tireless efforts make this seem to be an easy thing, falling off a cliff to get done, but we all know there is a lot of work involved and I personally, greatly appreciate it. I have received many comments over the last several days about how well you guys continue to do your job, and so I personally thank you very much. So with that I will say thank you, and we will see you for the balloon races in Albuquerque.
(Whereupon, at 10:59 a.m., the PROCEEDINGS was adjourned.)