Under an over-arching goal of ensuring the informed development of public policy relating to the Internet, the RIPE NCC has a number of areas of priority over the coming 12 months. These are:
The RIPE NCC is eager to hear from all of our stakeholders, including the RIPE NCC membership and broader RIPE community, on what issues are important and how the RIPE NCC can most effectively represent its community. We facilitate this feedback through a range of forums and activities, including the RIPE Cooperation Working Group and RIPE NCC Regional Meetings.
Read the full article on RIPE Labs.
Reports and session transcripts have now been published on the IGF website for the three workshops that the RIPE NCC was involved in organising:
The RIPE NCC also contributed to workshops on Internet Exchange Point development (Workshop 159), Developing a National/Regional Framework of Principles for Internet Governance (Workshop 170), and two sessions discussing output from the Arab IGF.
The main plenary session on Managing Critical Internet Resources (CIRs) considered issues surrounding the ICANN new gTLD program, Intergovernmentalism (focusing on the ITU, WCIT and the International Telecommunications Regulations) and IPv4 markets. Each of these discussions built on work done in earlier workshops, with APNIC Chief Scientist Geoff Huston representing the RIR community perspective on the panels. A transcript of this session is available on the IGF website.
Looking ahead, APNIC Director General Paul Wilson spoke to the Closing Ceremony, highlighting the ongoing concerns regarding IGF funding and the importance of maintaining the IGF as part of a broader, multi-stakeholder, bottom-up system of Internet governance. There were also calls from many participants for the IGF to take a more active role in defining and facilitating "Enhanced Cooperation", a key concept in Internet governance processes since the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in 2003.
The next IGF will be held in late 2013 in Indonesia. Paul Rendek will continue in his role as a member of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), which will develop the themes and working methods for the event. There will also be opportunities for members of the general public to contribute feedback and ideas through Open Consultations, the first of which will take place at the UNESCO Headquarters in Paris on 28 February 2013.
We welcome any questions or comments regarding the RIPE NCC's participation in IGF 2013 on the RIPE Cooperation Working Group mailing list.
]]>In a workshop at the IGF this week in Hyderabad entitled “IPv6: The solution for the future Internet”, speakers from the local industry voiced concerns that a shortage of IPv4 addresses might be playing a role in slowing Indian Internet growth.
Mr. Wilson assured the audience of the contrary, saying, "Based on a continuation of the current rate of deployment of IPv4 addresses, there are still around two years’ supply of IPv4 addresses available. In other words, there is still a large number of addresses available and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) that can show a need for those addresses will certainly receive them. APNIC declines very few requests for IPv4 address space, and addresses are equally available to all ISPs, regardless of location."
“In fact, this month, China reached a total of more than 10 "/8s" (each /8 represents nearly 17 million individual addresses). In contrast, this month, India reached one /8 in total.”
"We are seeing that, while there are actually many networks in India, they do not appear to be growing as quickly as the IPv4 allocations to them would seem to suggest," said Mr. Wilson. "This situation reflects industry conditions in India, which are entirely independent of the IP address supply or IP addressing policies".
This statement is supported by APNIC statistics showing that although India ranks second in terms of the number of ISPs requesting address space from APNIC, the space actually being requested by those ISPs is relatively small.
"While it is great to see the very strong interest in IPv6 at the IGF in Hyderabad," said Mr. Wilson, "it seems that India’s Internet industry expects IPv6 deployment to be a solution to the relatively slow pace of Internet growth. While IPv6 is an important long-term requirement for all economies, its deployment will make no difference in India if the local environment does not encourage healthy growth of a diverse and competitive Internet industry."
On 5 December 2008, IPv4 and IPv6 transitional issues will be discussed in the main session of the IGF. The Number Resource Organization (NRO), of which APNIC is a member, has issued a statement on the transition from IPv4 to IPv6.
The vital role of the NRO and RIRs in IP address management:
http://www.nro.net/news/nro-press-release-ipv6-growth-increases-300-in-two-years
"We are very happy to receive this special consultative status," said Axel Pawlik, Managing Director, RIPE NCC. "The RIPE NCC has been widely recognised for its contributions throughout the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and the ongoing Internet Governance Forum (IGF). This latest development is a further recognition of the RIPE NCC and highlights the importance of industry self-regulation in the management of critical Internet resources."
Nominated by UK Internet Services Providers' Association (ISPA) for an Internet Hero award in 2005, the RIPE NCC actively supports and represents the interests of its 5,000 members and the RIPE community.
"The new consultative status from the United Nations strengthens the RIPE NCC's efforts to represent its members and the RIPE community," said Paul Rendek, Head of External Relations and Communications, RIPE NCC. "But it also provides key decision makers with the benefits of the RIPE NCC's experience, allowing them to make well-informed decisions that promote the continued stability of the Internet."
Founded in 1992, the RIPE NCC is an independent, not-for-profit membership organisation that supports the infrastructure of the Internet. The most prominent activity of the RIPE NCC is to act as a Regional Internet Registry (RIR) providing global Internet resources and related services to a current membership base of around 5,500 members in over 70 countries. These members consist mainly of Internet Service Providers (ISPs), telecommunication organisations and large corporations located in Europe, the Middle East and parts of Central Asia.
As one of the world's five RIRs, the RIPE NCC performs a range of critical functions including:
The RIPE NCC also provides a range of technical and coordination services for the Internet community. These services include the operation of K-root (one of the 13 root name servers), the Deployment of Internet Security Infrastructure (DISI) and DNS Monitoring (DNSMON).
As a result of its established position in the Internet industry, the RIPE NCC has played an important role in the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), European Union (EU) workshops and government briefings on key issues in the current Internet landscape.
Please contact either Blaise Hammond or Lucie Smith at Racepoint Group UK
Tel: +44 (0) 208 752 3200
Email:
]]>Name of the paper: Cluster one B3 Assessment Report
We appreciate the efforts that have been put into the production of this draft document. It is reassuring to see the draft documents are improving in quality and in accuracy, and we commend the authors for their continued efforts.
While this draft document represents clear progress towards comprehensive coverage of IP address administration, we feel it is important to correct details that are still not accurate. We are particularly concerned to see that there are still areas that might be misinterpreted, particularly regarding the description of the IP address Policy Development Process used to formulate address allocation rules. We would like the WGIG to note that this Policy Development Process is open to any and all interested parties, including governments, civil society and the private sector.
In the interest of full transparency and clarity, we will comment on particular sections of the draft working paper below. For ease of reference we will quote the relevant text from the paper in full before giving our reaction to it.
Paragraph 1
“The IP Address System is part of the underlying infrastructure of the Internet. Each Domain Name needs an IP number. IP numbers are allocated, on documented requests, in form of address blocks from IANA to the RIRs and from the RIRs to the ISPs or other units, which register domain names.”
The references to domain names here are misleading since IP addresses have a much more fundamental purpose. We suggest the following replacement text:
“The IP Address System is part of the underlying infrastructure of the Internet. Every device connected to the Internet needs an IP address (IP number), and network providers normally require many addresses in order to establish Internet-connected services. IP addresses are allocated in blocks, in response to documented requests, from the IANA to RIRs, and from RIRs to ISPs.
IP addresses are fundamentally different from Domain Names in the functions that they fulfil, their essential characteristics, and the ways in which they are distributed and managed. The DNS provides a lookup service for IP addresses, allowing Internet users to identify sites and services according to (supposedly) memorable names rather than their numeric IP addresses. The DNS is also dynamic, allowing the IP address associated with a name to be changed invisibly to the user, a feature which allows a degree of portability of Internet services. The DNS is, as its name implies, a service which operates on the Internet - and without it the Internet could still operate (though with considerable inconvenience to its users); IP addresses are fundamental to the Internet itself.”
Paragraph 2
“The IPv4 address space has a capacity of about 4 billion addresses. There are different interpretations about the unused IPv4 space. While some groups argue, that the Internet community is running out of new IPv4 addresses, there is evidence that only half of the IPv4 addresses are used at the moment. A substantial number of IPv4 address blocks are allocated to individual organizations but are not used.”
This paragraph implies that basic details regarding IP address utilisation are the subject of legitimate debate. On the contrary, accurate and objective data is available to describe many aspects of the IP address management system, including: the amount of unallocated IPv4 address space held by the IANA (currently 29% of the total IPv4 address space); the amount of IPv4 address space actually used on the Internet (32.15% of the total IPv4 address space); and the rate of allocation of IPv4 address space (2.5% of total IPv4 address space was allocated in 2004). From this factual data, many reliable conclusions can be drawn; it is objectively clear for instance that we are not in immediate danger of running out of IPv4 address space.
The WGIG should recognise that some arguments that have been brought to bear in current debates in Internet Governance have less merit than others, and that some are simply incorrect. In order to reach truly valuable conclusions, we hope that the WGIG, as an expert group, will produce reports which are as precise and as factually accurate as possible.
Paragraph 3
“In the middle of the 1990s, a more extended Internet Address Protocol (IPv6) was developed which creates de facto an unlimited address space. Transition from IPv4 to IPv6 has started already before 2000 but has moved forward slowly.”
While it is true that IPv6 offers vastly more address space than IPv4, this space is not unlimited and there remain similarities in the way this space needs to be managed. There will continue to be a need for:
“ICCAN/IANA allocates blocks of IP address space to the RIRs. Policies for the allocation of IP addresses are developed under the regional Policy Development Process in the Public Forums of the Regional Internet Registries. These policies have been developed bottom up and are specifically designed to meet the needs of the regional Internet community. Each RIRs Public Forum is sovereign in its policy development process. The RIRs are membership-based organizations. Members are mainly Internet Services Providers (ISPs), telecommunication organizations and large corporations. RIPE NCC has for instance more than 3800 members.”
It is important to point out that the IP address Policy Development Process described above is open, transparent and inclusive. It includes the active participation of both public and private sector bodies as well as civil society. The formal Policy Development Process, along with publicly available and archived, open mailing lists, enable Internet address management policies to take into account the broad perspectives of all relevant stakeholders. The role of the RIRs is to facilitate these processes, help their communities build consensus-based policies and then to ensure that these policies are applied fairly and consistently. Also, while RIRs are fundamentally autonomous, close cooperation is undertaken among all RIRs to maintain the consistency of policies developed, and ensure that any divergence is consistent with the technical and operational requirements of a stable Internet infrastructure.
It is important to recognise that these IP address policies are formed and approved by the Internet community at large, not by RIRs themselves or by RIR staff. This community includes governments, civil society and RIR members and non-members. The executive boards of the RIRs, while directly elected by the RIR memberships, also do not form or approve IP address policies.
“The general process of the management of IP addresses is rather transparent and democratic. IP addresses are allocated on the basis of requests for documented needs to members of the RIRs. There are no limitations on membership of RIRs.
There is no formal involvement of governments and civil society in the RIR structures. Governments have used the channel of the Governmental Advisory Committee to comment on IP address policies and in particular to the transfer to the IPv6 address space and the establishment of new Regional Internet Registries, in particular for Africa. However, they have no decision-making authority in the establishment of policy.”
“The management of IP addresses is primarily in the hands of the private sector, that is ICANN/IANA and the five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). The RIRs have demonstrated their capability to fulfill their tasks and to make their contribution to the functioning of the Internet. They have been able to manage the transfer of functions from ARIN to LACNIC and from ARIN, RIPE NCC and APNIC to AFRINIC in a way which did not only not interrupt Internet services and connectivity for end users but also developed broader opportunities for the regional Internet community in regions served by the new RIRs. IP numbers are considered a valuable international resource shared by all users in all nations. Although it can be said that the current management system and distribution of responsibilities for number allocation has worked so far, the rapid increase of demand and utilization of the internet requires a review of the current numbering management approach to ensure equitable distribution of resources and access for all.
As said above, there is no involvement of governments and civil society in the practical management of IP addresses.”
The above text (in Section 5.1 and 5.2) does not make clear that, by default, governments and civil society are included, and actually do participate, in the Policy Development Process used in the public forums of the RIRs *. This process is inclusive, allowing for the active participation of the diverse range of stakeholders from industry, government and civil society. The fact is that the Policy Development Process used in the public RIR forums allows all stakeholders to participate in the decision-making process and to ensure their input is included in the establishment of consensus-based policy. Governments and civil society may not be sufficiently aware that they can participate in this process, but this open and inclusive process is open to any and all input from governments and civil society, should they exercise their right to participate.
“There is no role for multilingualism in the IP numbering and addressing system. Nevertheless it would be helpful if written policies in this field, developed by RIRs, would be available in the local languages of the region.”
The above text is unclear, and could imply that the RIRs themselves develop IP address policies. The RIRs facilitate the development of policies needed to guide the management of Internet resources regionally and globally. These polices are developed by a Policy Development Process that is consensus-based and open to all stakeholders from industry, government and civil society.
In order to meaningfully assess the issues relevant to IP addresses, the WGIG needs to present a clear and accurate description of the current IP address Policy Development Process. This process is open, transparent and inclusive of the active participation of both public and private sector bodies as well as civil society.
We fully acknowledge that there is a valid role for governments in the administration of the Internet. If the WGIG papers could be more accurate and inclusive in their description of the current IP address policy processes, it would make it easier to explore how governments, and intergovernmental organisations, could productively engage with the current, successful model of Internet administration.
To encourage this, the RIRs have been actively engaged in outreach efforts designed to foster an open, constructive and detailed dialogue regarding the current issues involved in the IP address Policy Development Process. In recent years, these outreach efforts have focused particularly on governments and regulators in order to open additional channels of communication and to further increase participation by the public sector in the IP address Policy Development Process. The RIRs will continue these outreach efforts to ensure that all stakeholders, including governments and civil society, are fully aware how they can participate in these processes, should they wish to exercise their right to participate. We invite comments and advice on how we can further improve our outreach efforts.
* At RIPE Meetings 46, 47 and 48 government representatives accounted for 7% of total attendees.
See RIPE and the Policy Development Processes, p.11 - http://www.ripe.net/meetings/roundtable/march2005/ripepdp.pdf