Skip to main content


Date: 7-9 December 2003
Location: Taj Palace Hotel, Dubai, U.A.E.

Meeting Agenda


  1. Opening & Welcome - Axel Pawlik, RIPE NCC
  2. International Management of Internet Resources - Rob Blokzijl, RIPE
  3. What is RIPE? - Rob Blokzijl, RIPE
  4. What is RIPE NCC? - Axel Pawlik, RIPE NCC
  5. RIPE NCC Services - Axel Pawlik RIPE NCC
  6. Interconnections on the Internet: Exchange Points - Keith Mitchell, XchangePoint
  7. Routing: How Traffic Flows on the Internet - Philip Smith, Cisco Systems
  8. Emirates Internet Exchange (EMIX) Report - Saleem Al-Balooshi, Etisalat
  9. IPv4 Address Lifetime Expectancy - Paul Wilson, APNIC
  10. IPv6 Update - Axel Pawlik, RIPE NCC
  11. Etisalat IPv6 Infrastructure - Moeen Aqrabawi, Etisalat
  12. Close of Sunday Session


  1. Registration Services Update and Statistics - Dominic Spratley, RIPE NCC
  2. RIPE NCC Training Services - Rumy Kanis, RIPE NCC
  3. K-Root Nameserver Operations - Andrei Robachevsky, RIPE NCC
  4. Domain Management - An Introduction to CENTR Tim Mertens, CENTR
  5. Internationalized Domain Names - James Seng, Infocomm Development Authority
  6. Arabic Domain Names - Raed Al-Fayez
  7. TLD Mapping and Standardisation for the Arabic Domain Name System - Wael Nasr, I-dns
  8. Open Microphone Session
  9. Close of Monday Session

Sunday 7 December

Meeting began at 9:10 AM

1.) Opening & Welcome - Axel Pawlik, RIPE NCC

Axel welcomed attendees to the first regional meeting of the RIPE NCC. He thanked the meeting sponsors, Dubai Internet City, Etisalat and FLAG Telecom. He noted that the meeting would be webcast live and locally archived.

Axel introduced Rob Blokzijl, RIPE Chair.

2.) International Management of Internet Resources - Rob Blokzijl, RIPE Chair

Rob spoke on Internet resources, how they are co-ordinated on a global scale, and explained the organisations that are involved in the management of resources. He further noted issues regarding Internet addresses and protocol, Autonomous System Numbers, Domain Name System, and standards; he explained that, while address allocation begins at the global level and ends with the End User, Internet Protocol operates conversely, with discussion and agreement of rules starting with the users. Rob concluded by calling for more participation from users and providers of Internet resources.

This presentation may be accessed at:


3.) What is RIPE? - Rob Blokzijl, RIPE

Rob noted the origins, history, purpose, organisation and meetings of RIPE, including the RIPE Working Groups and meeting attendance (per meeting, country and organisational categories). He noted the policy-making process and the four main components of the process: open, transparent, developed bottom-up, documented.

This presentation may be accessed at:


4.) What is the RIPE NCC? - Axel Pawlik, RIPE NCC

Axel spoke on the RIPE NCC organisation, its service region and activities, organisational statistics, co-ordination of the RIPE Meetings, and explained the difference between RIPE and the RIPE NCC.

This presentation may be accessed at:


5.) RIPE NCC Services - Axel Pawlik, RIPE NCC

Axel spoke on the services of the RIPE NCC, explaining in greater detail its services with regards to membership, co-ordination, and new projects/information. He outlined departmental structures and responsibilities within the RIPE NCC. Axel noted co-ordination activities between the other RIRs, including the creation and mission of the Number Resource Organisation (NRO), and noted ongoing and planned actions for the RIPE NCC to perform.

This presentation may be accessed at:


The floor was opened to questions.

Question on government involvement and Internet resources and the IANA's perceived control of the resources, particularly the name root servers, commenting on the requirement to receive approval by the US Dept. of Commerce. He asked what was being done to fix this.

- Rob Blokzijl, RIPE, responded that the management of the infrastructure is done in a “bottom-up” manner and not by ICANN or private organisations. He noted that most of the organisation and policy setting is done at the lowest level. He also noted that IANA was never intended to be controlled by the US government and said ICANN plays a prominent role between two worlds presently: being overseen by the US government versus on a global scale. Rob noted that the US government has stated its intention to give ICANN independent control but has waited for ICANN to show that it is capable to do so.

Rob noted that top-level domain rules can be dependent on administrative changes on the name root server. He noted that, once ICANN has reached a stable situation, representing all concerns fairly on a global scale, then the content of the root servers will become freed from US governmental intervention. He noted that the US government is not involved in domain name regulation. He noted that there are 13 IP addresses pointing to root servers today but do not connect directly to the server but to a cluster of servers. He noted that no one knows exactly how many servers are connected to the root server system, making it increasingly more difficult for any one to “ hijack” the system. He said the US government is also incapable of stopping or stalling the root server system.

- Paul Wilson, APNIC, noted the increased addition of servers involved in the root server system clusters and that there has been no involvement or interference by the US government or ICANN in the system development.

- Rob Blokzijl noted that it is the local community who, through local providers, become involved in the root server system.

Question on portability of IP numbers and providing this capability in Internet services.

- Rob Blokzijl noted that IP numbers and telephone numbers are, indeed, numbers but they are structured completely different. He noted that the routing tables must be manageable and that having portability of IP numbers could threaten the stability and integrity of the Internet structure as it is today.

- Paul Wilson noted that the size of the routing table is growing but the capacity is not. He said the availability of the portability of blocks for multi-homing is now happening and that the minimum allocation of address blocks has been made easier and greater accessible to smaller ISPs. He noted that these affect the routing table.

Question on IRI PN on new services that the RIPE NCC should provide to members, including the allocation of IPv6 numbers. The RIPE NCC should help members to connect to the services.

- Axel Pawlik, RIPE NCC, replied that he will speak on IPv6 later in the meeting. He also noted that he's heard member's concerns on IPv6 accessibility.

Question on portability control on connectivity; interfering with the movement from one place to another.

- Axel stated he was not certain he had heard of it and hoped to discuss it with the questioner later.

- Rob Blokzijl noted that neither the RIPE NCC, nor other RIRs, were involved in copyright issues on content, stating that the issue is extremely complicated.

Question on session initiation protocol that will allow user to connect to as he/she moves around.

- Rob Blokzijl replied that this peer-to-peer technology is prevalent in telephony technology that does not create a new layer of connecting but allows continuous connectivity.

6.) Interconnections on the Internet: Exchange Points - Keith Mitchell, XchangePoint

Keith spoke on Internet exchanges including their advantages, Internet interconnect principles (including market space), exchange technologies (including routing and switching, customer requirements,), exchange commercial and governance models (including the importance of IXP neutrality), starting an exchange point and IXP resources.

This presentation may be accessed at:


7.) Routing: How Traffic Flows on the Internet - Philip Smith, Cisco Systems

Philip spoke on how Internet traffic flow works, discussing topologies, topology definitions, routing (including how routing works, use of AS Numbers, packet flow, routing policy and policy limitations), BGP and aggregation and the efforts to improve the quality of it.

This presentation may be accessed at:


8.) Emirates Internet Exchange (EMIX) Report - Saleem Al-Balooshi, Etisalat

Saleem spoke on EMIX including its mission, history, present connection points, EMIX links, its customers, regional peering connectivity, peering with the f-root nameserver, connectivity trace route to Qtel, KUIX, Batelco and Omantel, noting speed improvements to the traffic flow.

This presentation may be accessed at:


Question on peering in Qatar.

- Saleem noted that private peering or transit providers should be considered. He said Oman is a paying customer as are Jordan, Iraq, Sudan, and Somalia.

Question on the EMIX price structure.

- Saleem suggested seeing or contacting their offices to speak with account advisors.

9.) IPv4 Address Lifetime Expectancy - Paul Wilson, APNIC

Paul presented Geoff Huston's research and analysis results based on three years of data regarding IPv4 address space, its allocation into the IP system, present and projected usage, BGP routing table and how it corresponds to the use of address space, projected IPv4 address space exhaustion based on BGP announcements, and combined allocations through the IANA and the RIRs as well as the holding pool analysis.

Moe information on this issue can be found at Geoff Huston's personal web site:

This presentation may be accessed at:


The floor was opened to questions.

Question on what other studies are available on IPv4 lifetime projections.

- Paul noted there may be other studies or commentaries published but none have been as comprehensive as Mr. Huston's. He noted one based on commercial trends that predicted technological developments that have not yet occurred; that it was based on more marketing plans and projections. He suggested anyone to examine the raw data for him or herself, noting that Mr. Huston's conclusion was based on data for anyone to see and critique. Paul noted that the IPv6 Forum is a vital group that should be considered for those interested.

Question on AS Number space usage studies and when businesses should actively begin using IPv6.

- Paul noted that, a few years ago, it was feared that allocations of ASNs would last only five years. This has not come to be but it is what IETF is watching.

- Paul noted that it is important for every ISP to begin looking at IPv6, especially when considering the potential impact of VoIP, and planning future adjustments.

Question on NAT.

- Paul commented that, while many studies have been done, Geoff's research focused mainly on public addresses. He added that use of private addresses is something ISPs need to look at.

Comment that it will be interesting to look at Geoff's study but with private addresses as a factor.

- Paul agreed.

10.) IPv6 Update - Axel Pawlik, RIPE NCC

Axel spoke on IPv6 allocation and assignment, how to receive allocations from the RIRs, total allocations by RIR, distribution by country, IPv6 policy developments, allocation principles, and where to receive IPv6 address space.

This presentation may be accessed at:


The floor was opened to questions.

Question on other alternatives to 6-bone.

- Axel replied that there is no need for an experimental network, noting organisations involved in 6-bone testing, such as IETF and other 6-bone dedicated groups.

Question if it is possible to use IPv6 now and for production networks?

- Axel confirmed that IPv6 is available now and can be accessed through service providers. He also noted a survey done on IPv6 that showed there is no “killer application” to push the use of IPv6 just yet but it is available. He also noted that local governments have considered offering tax benefits to ISPs who use or provide IPv6.

Question on the DNS and IPv6 difficulties?

- Axel noted that some root nameservers are being made IPv6-ready so the issue should not be a problem in the future.

11.) Etisalat IPv6 Infrastructure - Moeen Aqrabawi, Etisalat

Moeen spoke on the scope of Etisalat scalable nationwide IPv6 native test network, its deployment strategy, infrastructure, milestones, and a demonstration of their IPv6 test site.

This presentation may be accessed at:


The floor was opened to questions.

Question on experience with large native IP routing tables.

- Moeem noted that they had tested larger tables, noting one with1,000 AS Numbers.

Question on other large and small scale testing with KACST.

- Attendee from KACST noted they had begun testing, involving IPv6.

Axel closed the first day of the meeting, thanking the presenters and sponsors.

The meeting concluded at 1715.

-- End of Sunday's session --

Monday 8 December

Meeting began at 9:15 AM

Axel Pawlik opened the second day of the regional meeting, outlining the day's agenda.

12.) Registration Services Update and Statistics - Dominic Spratley, RIPE NCC

Dominic spoke on the services that the RIPE NCC has been providing to the membership, focusing on activities in the Middle East region. Topics included RIPE NCC activities, Registration Services departmental structure, service requests, documentation renewal, new requests format, RIPE NCC LIR Portal web interface, statistics (membership growth, customer requests, IPv4 space allocation), IPv4 distribution, AS Number growth rate and assignments, and IPv6 allocations and distribution.

This presentation may be accessed at:


13.) RIPE NCC Training Services - Rumy Kanis, RIPE NCC

Rumy spoke on the training services offered by the RIPE NCC including the Local Internet Registry Course, the Routing Registry Training Course, the DNSSec Training Course, tutorials and seminars (including a Dubai Seminar that encapsulated several of the courses), number of courses held throughout the year, locations of courses in the RIPE NCC service region, planned course schedule, and training services in development.

This presentation may be accessed at:


14.) K-Root Nameserver Operations - Andrei Robachevsky, RIPE NCC

Andrei spoke on the k-root nameserver being operated by the RIPE NCC and how it affects the root server system. Topics included an explanation of the root server system, location and operators of the root servers, the evolution of the root server architecture, anycast technology, k-root milestones and current status, and future node plans.

This presentation may be accessed at:


The floor was opened to questions.

Comment that local ISPs in the Middle East region are presently incapable to host a root server mirror because there is no exchange point in the region.

- Andrei replied that an exchange point is not a requirement.

Question on the requirements were needed for mirroring the servers.

- Andrei replied that how to proceed was subject to discussion as requirements and specifications may differ.

Question that other root servers exist and asked the reason the RIPE NCC supports the “official and old” root server.

- Andrei noted there were only 13 operators of the system and were chosen before 1997. No new operators were being introduced.

- Rob Blokzijl added that there might be differing beliefs on operation. He said that the RIPE NCC is a believer in a homogeneous, well-established root system available now and that small deviations in areas of the Internet were of no interest to the RIPE NCC.

Question on the financial implications on hosting a root server.

- Andrei replied that it depended on specifications and that the hosting organisation fully funds the mirror instances, including connectivity, rack space, co-location facility and equipment.

Question on the efficiency of anycasting.

- Andrei noted that apart from efficiency it enables root server operators to improve geographical spread. He noted that it depends on network topology.

Question if a well-connected ISP or exchange point was a requirement.

- Andrei noted that it is an issue of limited amount of resources and/or nodes and the intent was to provide as many mirrors as possible in various regions, but it depended on the region.

Question if all root nameservers were the same.

- Andrei replied that all root servers are different, noting “diversity is good.” He explained how DNS works and adding root server mirrors are beneficial to the whole system, noting it also benefits against DDOS. He noted that not everyone needs all 13 servers replicated in their regions, as one is sufficient.

Question on queries coming from the Middle East and elsewhere.

- Andrei noted that a majority of queries are “garbage”.

Question on operation and maintenance of the root nameservers and what is the sniffer box?

- Andrei noted that the box “dumps” the Ethernet traffic on internal k-network. The root nameserver is operated solely by the RIPE NCC but remote hands and 24/7 emergency support may be requested. There would be no, or very limited, access to the machines by mirroring hosts.

15.) Domain Management - An Introduction to CENTR - Tim Mertens, CENTR

Tim spoke on issues related to management of domains by top-level domain registries. Topics included country domains and associates and observers in CENTR, the CENTR General Assembly, its Executive Committee, administrative workshops, legal and regulatory working groups, technical working group, work plan for year 2004,

This presentation may be accessed at:


The floor was opened to questions.

Question on what the advantages were for Arabic countries to join CENTR.

- Tim stated that the benefits, such as the legal and technical and administrative exchanges, are necessary and useful to registry businesses. He said their diverse members have been going through changes and having access to information exchange is very helpful to them. He noted that, if an organisation were interested in politics, then CENTR would not be of interest as it is primarily for information exchange and consensus building.

16.) Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) - James Seng, Infocomm Development Authority

James spoke on “non-English correctors”. Topics included work done at the IETF Working Group, a history of IDN, where IDN is located, issues of stability, compatibility and confusion, problems, IETF RFCs related to IDN, encoding, implications, the Eco-system, CJK administrative timeline, internationalised e-mail addresses, internationalised resource identifier, suggestions on implementation, software and standards, IDNA clients, IDN open source, the Internet Software Consortium and advisory council.

This presentation may be accessed at:


The floor was opened to questions.

Question on standardisation on international cc-TLD names.

- James noted the IDN was not developed for this and he was not aware of any other work developed on the issue of standardisation.

17.) Arabic Domain Names - Raed Al-Fayez

Raed spoke on the Arabizing of Domain Names. Topics included the Internet and the Arab World, levels of Arabizing the Internet, reasons for Arabizing Domain Names, requirements and solutions (eg. standards development), organisations and committees, defining character sets, defining TLDs, and recommendations.

This presentation may be accessed at:


The floor was opened to questions.

Question on an idea of participants on the survey mentioned?

- Raed said that the recommendations came not from the survey but from an Arabic advisory committee. A subgroup was the linguistic committee tasked to define a character set, discuss linguistic issues, define Arabic Top-Level Domains. The survey was done secretly by an expert on Arabic language. All of the Arabic countries participated and the results matched the recommendation.

Question on an estimate when Arabic Domain Names can be used.

- Raed said there is no answer to the question yet as it depends on how the Arabic community supports the idea.

Question if there was an Arabic country code defined similar to the English country codes today?

- Raed noted there is a standard already developed with Arabic two-letter representation.

Question if Raed was proposing to create a new level of top-level domains.

- Raed said this was the case and a group was established to define the Arabic TLDs..

Question if Raed had discussed the issue with ICANN.

- Raed said he had not but the MINC group had.

- Rob Blokzijl noted that, historically, creating country codes was challenging for ICANN.

Question on how can an non-English user access sites.

- Raed noted there might seem to be confusion with a development of several languages.

Comment that once the Arabizing of Domain Names has been developed, a proposal will be given to ICANN.

Comment that Arabic equivalent for ISO codes will be problematic.

Question if Raed's proposal noted if top-level Domain Names could be translated by incorporating with work done by the IDN group?

- Raed noted that the presentation done did not cover the issue, that there is another group focussed on the technical solutions. Raed noted that his proposal would work with the current DN structure.

Comment that ICANN had been following what various groups have been doing and was aware of the requirements in the scripting other than ASCII in the top level and is seeking to find solutions for everyone. He noted there were many questions to discuss and find answers to.

Comment that the initiative was good but there are concerns about the amount of time to spread the culture of Arabizing among the average user. Additionally, other concerns on ownership and support need answers.

- Raed replied that the current proposal would not replace existing structure, as it is an alternative for non-English speaking users. Raed hoped the differing structures could co-exist without difficulties.

Question on how people can get involved and assist in the effort.

- Raed noted interested users could visit his company's web site or the INC group's site for information. He added users could visit a multi-lingual group like MINC as well. Raed called for more community input and assistance in the project's development.

Comment that copyrights and intellectual properties issues will be a challenge.

18.) TLD Mapping and Standardisation for the Arabic Domain Name System - Wael Nasr, I-dns

- Wael spoke on the Domain Name System, how IDN works, technical and linguistic standards, Arabic Domain Naming evolution, RFCs for Arabic Naming, TLD mapping, ccTLDs in Arabic,

This presentation may be accessed at:


Question on the use of e-mail, etc. once a client has been installed on a PC.

- Wael noted that technical standards for Domain Names are already established and suggested that the first step involves the NICs in each Arabic country to implement the mapping first and then people would start using it.

Question if there will be an affect to the way the DNS runs today.

- Wael noted that a technical modification must be made to a client or PC per IETF recommendations via a plug-in. Then a translation takes place to communicate with the Internet. The structure remains ASCII.

Question on which client is used and what about the compatibility between clients.

- Wael noted that the clients must be compatible. People who wish to visit a site in Arabic and are using an iDNS iClient, they will need to download the client to communicate in Arabic.

Question on the use of a multi-lingual e-mail address in this process.

- Wael noted that the RFCs spoken about deal only with Domain Names, not e-mail, and the technical standards for e-mail have not been finalised.

Question on converting to the Arabic client with a register and if standards would be supported to allow the translated to

- Wael replied that it is what Verisign does but there will be a need for the user to still type in English, making the idea impractical.

Question on what the RFCs refer to.
- Wael noted that the RFCs regarding the cc-TLDs address how the cc-TLDs should implement the mapping into their systems.

Question if Wael was suggesting registering as and then the client will convert to

- Wael replied that, when talking about the gTLD, a company would register the ASCII Domain Name, go to an appointed company that runs the Arabic domain database and register the Arabic Domain name there.

Question if Wael was suggesting that each country should start accepting registrations for Domain Names, with each user who accessed a domain in an Arab country would install the plug-in. He also asked if it would be required until ICANN would have a uniform method of accessing each country.

Question associated to previous on adding ASCII streams into the root zone and how it is done in the DNS if it has not been added in the root zone: What do we add to the root zone and who manages it?

- Wael stated he had no answer to the questions.

Question on how a situation would work where .ae has a company using one iClient and is working with another company with another iClient.

- Wael noted that the client needs to download the iClient from the .ae site due to incompatibility issues.

Question if it would be best to wait for ICANN and for standards to be created before moving forward on the proposal.

- Wael replied that the technical standards have been set and the UN is seeking to appoint a company to implement the gTLDs that would have an iClient and have wide-spread use. He noted that, as Arabs, a need exists to develop this before another entity does so.

Comment questioning the viability and readiness of implementation this proposal.

- Waed noted that the technical and linguistic standards are done now.

Question requesting the number of the RFCs mentioned in the presentation as being completed.

- Waed noted he did not know the number but would e-mail the information.

Question on the number of domains being handled at the moment for Arabic countries.

- Waed replied that he did not know the number and was providing information as was developed with the UN and other groups.

19.) Open Microphone Session

Question on IPv6, applications available for it, how to plan for it, splitting IP addresses, and locating help.

Axel Pawlik, RIPE NCC, noted there were plenty of documents available and suggested subscribing to the RIPE IPv6 Working Group mailing list run by the RIPE NCC. Axel also recommended running IPv6 as soon as possible as costs could increase later.

Question regarding preconception that the RIPE NCC only registered addresses and if there were other activities, like APRICOT, that are offered to ease the management of resources.

- Axel replied that the RIPE NCC facilitates the RIPE Meetings, which is similar to APRICOT. He added that the RIPE NCC provides other things that are not directly related to registration, such as the k-root server operation, that are seen as important. Axel asked for feedback from members.

Request to have RIPE NCC better marketed as a name that is well known since it would help managers send employees to the RIPE Meetings.

- Axel replied that the RIPE NCC was aware of the issue and has identified areas where documents for the technical minded people can be produced. He noted there are efforts focused on greater awareness building.

- Andrei Robachevsky, RIPE NCC, noted the first day and a half of RIPE Meetings is similar to APRICOT in enabling open discussions for technologies. He invited others to come and share experiences.

- Paul Rendek, RIPE NCC, noted there was information produced by the RIPE NCC that is available, such as Member Update and the annual report. He recommended subscribing to the mailing lists to receive a more information.

Comment that information is needed to convince managers to send their employees to RIPE Meetings.

- Axel replied that the Member Update was produced for this reason. He suggested that, if the content in the update is not answering needs, to write the RIPE NCC to make the content more helpful.

Questions on the benefits of attending RIPE Meetings and what can be done about spam.

Rob Blokzijl, RIPE, noted that the benefits of a RIPE Meeting include operational co-ordination of IP networks in all respects, done in practical ways in various working groups. He noted that much of the work is done on the mailing lists stating, in theory, people need not attend the meetings. He noted it was an occasion to meet people to discuss important and shared interests face-to-face, including peers whom may compete with attendees. He said it, along with mailing list discussions, helps to troubleshoot issues.

As for spam, Rob noted there is a RIPE Anti-spam Working Group. He suggested people to visit the RIPE NCC web site, look through the mailing lists and the discussions, including the minutes, to see what is discussed.

Comment that RIPE Meetings were found to be very useful in improving local services and how to best use resources. He noted it added value to his company's work and were satisfied with the work done by the RIPE NCC. He thanked the RIPE NCC for the first RIPE NCC regional meeting.

- Axel thanked the attendee and replied that a mailing list for feedback on the meeting and for general updates to attendees was established: <[email protected]>. He noted it was not a marketing or spam mailing list. It may exist for only 5-6 months.

- Rob Blokzijl added that several attendees have asked this question and requested that attendees take the initiative to create their own regional meetings and invite RIPE, RIPE NCC, ICANN, etc. to answer the needs of the community.

Request to have reports from various working groups at next RIPE NCC Regional Meeting as done at the RIPE Meetings.

- Rob Blokzijl noted that it might be a good idea to develop a regional operators forum in the Middle East region, adding that representatives from other forums, such as RIPE, ICANN, etc. would be happy to contribute to your formation.

- Paul Rendek, RIPE NCC, noted that what the meeting's mailing list would be useful for such ideas and is a forum to discuss them.

Question noting that updates from RIPE Working Groups, such as the anti-spam Working Group had not been seen in a while. Additional question on RIPE's involvement in IDN via the IETF.

- Rob Blokzijl replied there was a DNS Working Group focusing on the Domain Name System, but not the contents, adding, “we don't do names.” He noted that CENTR handles the IDN issue.

Regarding the Working Group reports, Rob noted five days would be needed and only two were available for this meeting. He suggested that a visit to the RIPE NCC web site, or subscribing to the mailing lists, or reading meeting minutes and other Working Group reports would be the best way to gather information.

Question regarding the IPv4 address lifetime, address consumption rate, and concerns on introducing the Internet to developing countries.

- Axel Pawlik noted that it was not the case that developing countries get fewer addresses than healthier economies. He said allocations were based on need demonstrated. He noted that one option is for smaller ISPs to band together and make comments to the RIPE Address Policy Working Group mailing list, suggesting a change in the allocation policy.

Comment that more developed countries have greater penetration capabilities than developing economies.

- Rob Blokzijl noted that IPv4 growth in the developed part in the world is shrinking and growth in less developed countries has been increasing over the last two years. He added that, on a per-country basis, most of the IPv4 addresses went to China, for example, where they said they did not get enough addresses. These are numbers you can find on the RIRs' sites and are updated regularly.

Comment suggesting changes to the RIPE NCC's replies to queries as weekends in Europe are Saturday and Sunday while in the Middle East, weekends are Thursday and Friday.

- Axel Pawlik replied that it is the intention of the RIPE NCC to shorten the reaction time to queries.

Question on the meeting's presentations and when access to them will be provided.

- Axel noted that presentations would be posted as soon as all speakers' presentations were received. He added that the RIPE NCC would list everyone attending the meeting and place it on the mailing list created.

Close of Meeting

Axel concluded the second day of the RIPE NCC Regional Meeting. He thanked the sponsors (Dubai Internet City, Etisalat, and FLAG Telecom) and those who helped to prepare the meeting. He also thanked everyone who attended, noting that it was the first meeting of its kind and that all feedback has been appreciated. He welcomed more input.

Meeting closed at 16:30