pacnog December 2012

pacnog@pacnog.org

9 participants
24 discussions

by Routing Analysis Role Account

This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, LacNOG, TRNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group. Daily listings are sent to bgp-stats(a)lists.apnic.net For historical data, please see http://thyme.rand.apnic.net. If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith <pfsinoz(a)gmail.com>. Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 29 Dec, 2012 Report Website: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net Detailed Analysis: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/ Analysis Summary ---------------- BGP routing table entries examined: 438252 Prefixes after maximum aggregation: 181041 Deaggregation factor: 2.42 Unique aggregates announced to Internet: 215672 Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 42943 Prefixes per ASN: 10.21 Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 33998 Origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 15900 Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 5694 Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 137 Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table: 4.5 Max AS path length visible: 31 Max AS path prepend of ASN ( 28730) 25 Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 373 Unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 132 Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs: 3609 Number of 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 3251 Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table: 8795 Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table: 15 Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space: 173 Number of addresses announced to Internet: 2620507916 Equivalent to 156 /8s, 49 /16s and 199 /24s Percentage of available address space announced: 70.8 Percentage of allocated address space announced: 70.8 Percentage of available address space allocated: 100.0 Percentage of address space in use by end-sites: 94.1 Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 154887 APNIC Region Analysis Summary ----------------------------- Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes: 105461 Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 32809 APNIC Deaggregation factor: 3.21 Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks: 106390 Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks: 43557 APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 4810 APNIC Prefixes per ASN: 22.12 APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 1248 APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 798 Average APNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.6 Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 23 Number of APNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 393 Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet: 716761856 Equivalent to 42 /8s, 184 /16s and 235 /24s Percentage of available APNIC address space announced: 83.8 APNIC AS Blocks 4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431 (pre-ERX allocations) 23552-24575, 37888-38911, 45056-46079, 55296-56319, 58368-59391, 131072-133119 APNIC Address Blocks 1/8, 14/8, 27/8, 36/8, 39/8, 42/8, 43/8, 49/8, 58/8, 59/8, 60/8, 61/8, 101/8, 103/8, 106/8, 110/8, 111/8, 112/8, 113/8, 114/8, 115/8, 116/8, 117/8, 118/8, 119/8, 120/8, 121/8, 122/8, 123/8, 124/8, 125/8, 126/8, 133/8, 150/8, 153/8, 163/8, 171/8, 175/8, 180/8, 182/8, 183/8, 202/8, 203/8, 210/8, 211/8, 218/8, 219/8, 220/8, 221/8, 222/8, 223/8, ARIN Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes: 155868 Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation: 78374 ARIN Deaggregation factor: 1.99 Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks: 156536 Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks: 70647 ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 15348 ARIN Prefixes per ASN: 10.20 ARIN Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 5807 ARIN Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1591 Average ARIN Region AS path length visible: 4.1 Max ARIN Region AS path length visible: 25 Number of ARIN region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 17 Number of ARIN addresses announced to Internet: 1089154688 Equivalent to 64 /8s, 235 /16s and 46 /24s Percentage of available ARIN address space announced: 57.6 ARIN AS Blocks 1-1876, 1902-2042, 2044-2046, 2048-2106 (pre-ERX allocations) 2138-2584, 2615-2772, 2823-2829, 2880-3153 3354-4607, 4865-5119, 5632-6655, 6912-7466 7723-8191, 10240-12287, 13312-15359, 16384-17407 18432-20479, 21504-23551, 25600-26591, 26624-27647, 29696-30719, 31744-33791 35840-36863, 39936-40959, 46080-47103 53248-55295, 393216-394239 ARIN Address Blocks 3/8, 4/8, 6/8, 7/8, 8/8, 9/8, 11/8, 12/8, 13/8, 15/8, 16/8, 17/8, 18/8, 19/8, 20/8, 21/8, 22/8, 23/8, 24/8, 26/8, 28/8, 29/8, 30/8, 32/8, 33/8, 34/8, 35/8, 38/8, 40/8, 44/8, 45/8, 47/8, 48/8, 50/8, 52/8, 53/8, 54/8, 55/8, 56/8, 57/8, 63/8, 64/8, 65/8, 66/8, 67/8, 68/8, 69/8, 70/8, 71/8, 72/8, 73/8, 74/8, 75/8, 76/8, 96/8, 97/8, 98/8, 99/8, 100/8, 104/8, 107/8, 108/8, 128/8, 129/8, 130/8, 131/8, 132/8, 134/8, 135/8, 136/8, 137/8, 138/8, 139/8, 140/8, 142/8, 143/8, 144/8, 146/8, 147/8, 148/8, 149/8, 152/8, 155/8, 156/8, 157/8, 158/8, 159/8, 160/8, 161/8, 162/8, 164/8, 165/8, 166/8, 167/8, 168/8, 169/8, 170/8, 172/8, 173/8, 174/8, 184/8, 192/8, 198/8, 199/8, 204/8, 205/8, 206/8, 207/8, 208/8, 209/8, 214/8, 215/8, 216/8, RIPE Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by RIPE Region ASes: 112934 Total RIPE prefixes after maximum aggregation: 58409 RIPE Deaggregation factor: 1.93 Prefixes being announced from the RIPE address blocks: 115880 Unique aggregates announced from the RIPE address blocks: 74516 RIPE Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 17011 RIPE Prefixes per ASN: 6.81 RIPE Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 8152 RIPE Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 2755 Average RIPE Region AS path length visible: 5.0 Max RIPE Region AS path length visible: 31 Number of RIPE region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 2104 Number of RIPE addresses announced to Internet: 650459748 Equivalent to 38 /8s, 197 /16s and 58 /24s Percentage of available RIPE address space announced: 94.6 RIPE AS Blocks 1877-1901, 2043, 2047, 2107-2136, 2585-2614 (pre-ERX allocations) 2773-2822, 2830-2879, 3154-3353, 5377-5631 6656-6911, 8192-9215, 12288-13311, 15360-16383 20480-21503, 24576-25599, 28672-29695 30720-31743, 33792-35839, 38912-39935 40960-45055, 47104-52223, 56320-58367 59392-61439, 196608-199679 RIPE Address Blocks 2/8, 5/8, 25/8, 31/8, 37/8, 46/8, 51/8, 62/8, 77/8, 78/8, 79/8, 80/8, 81/8, 82/8, 83/8, 84/8, 85/8, 86/8, 87/8, 88/8, 89/8, 90/8, 91/8, 92/8, 93/8, 94/8, 95/8, 109/8, 141/8, 145/8, 151/8, 176/8, 178/8, 185/8, 188/8, 193/8, 194/8, 195/8, 212/8, 213/8, 217/8, LACNIC Region Analysis Summary ------------------------------ Prefixes being announced by LACNIC Region ASes: 45330 Total LACNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 9040 LACNIC Deaggregation factor: 5.01 Prefixes being announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 48936 Unique aggregates announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 23162 LACNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1766 LACNIC Prefixes per ASN: 27.71 LACNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 503 LACNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 338 Average LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.7 Max LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 25 Number of LACNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 731 Number of LACNIC addresses announced to Internet: 120924712 Equivalent to 7 /8s, 53 /16s and 42 /24s Percentage of available LACNIC address space announced: 72.1 LACNIC AS Blocks 26592-26623, 27648-28671, 52224-53247, 262144-263167 plus ERX transfers LACNIC Address Blocks 177/8, 179/8, 181/8, 186/8, 187/8, 189/8, 190/8, 191/8, 200/8, 201/8, AfriNIC Region Analysis Summary ------------------------------- Prefixes being announced by AfriNIC Region ASes: 9744 Total AfriNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 2356 AfriNIC Deaggregation factor: 4.14 Prefixes being announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 10337 Unique aggregates announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 3636 AfriNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 589 AfriNIC Prefixes per ASN: 17.55 AfriNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 190 AfriNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 130 Average AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.7 Max AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 25 Number of AfriNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 6 Number of AfriNIC addresses announced to Internet: 42905088 Equivalent to 2 /8s, 142 /16s and 174 /24s Percentage of available AfriNIC address space announced: 42.6 AfriNIC AS Blocks 36864-37887, 327680-328703 & ERX transfers AfriNIC Address Blocks 41/8, 102/8, 105/8, 154/8, 196/8, 197/8, APNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 4766 2946 11556 914 Korea Telecom (KIX) 17974 2485 829 54 PT TELEKOMUNIKASI INDONESIA 7545 1815 301 88 TPG Internet Pty Ltd 4755 1658 381 174 TATA Communications formerly 9829 1416 1156 42 BSNL National Internet Backbo 9583 1183 88 501 Sify Limited 7552 1147 1070 12 Vietel Corporation 4808 1123 2040 316 CNCGROUP IP network: China169 9498 1051 309 74 BHARTI Airtel Ltd. 24560 1037 385 161 Bharti Airtel Ltd., Telemedia Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-APNIC ARIN Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 7029 3468 1010 215 Windstream Communications Inc 6389 3118 3717 132 bellsouth.net, inc. 18566 2081 382 180 Covad Communications 22773 1947 2932 131 Cox Communications, Inc. 1785 1941 678 124 PaeTec Communications, Inc. 20115 1688 1603 618 Charter Communications 4323 1597 1155 397 Time Warner Telecom 30036 1356 287 705 Mediacom Communications Corp 7018 1294 10534 854 AT&T WorldNet Services 7011 1206 321 685 Citizens Utilities Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-ARIN RIPE Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 8402 1731 544 16 Corbina telecom 2118 1052 97 15 EUnet/RELCOM Autonomous Syste 34984 895 211 232 BILISIM TELEKOM 12479 869 777 64 Uni2 Autonomous System 13188 768 96 115 Educational Network 31148 743 38 15 FreeNet ISP 20940 734 241 571 Akamai Technologies European 6830 714 2313 435 UPC Distribution Services 8551 637 367 39 Bezeq International 58113 633 70 378 LIR DATACENTER TELECOM SRL Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-RIPE LACNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ----------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 10620 2270 387 207 TVCABLE BOGOTA 28573 2252 1299 70 NET Servicos de Comunicao S.A 7303 1674 1139 202 Telecom Argentina Stet-France 8151 1547 2936 352 UniNet S.A. de C.V. 6503 1454 435 67 AVANTEL, S.A. 27947 745 86 89 Telconet S.A 18881 740 716 18 Global Village Telecom 3816 672 309 71 Empresa Nacional de Telecomun 11172 601 86 66 Servicios Alestra S.A de C.V 7738 588 1242 34 Telecomunicacoes da Bahia S.A Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-LACNIC AfriNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ------------------------------------------ ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 24863 872 275 36 LINKdotNET AS number 36998 749 48 3 MOBITEL 8452 549 958 13 TEDATA 6713 499 602 20 Itissalat Al-MAGHRIB 24835 291 80 8 RAYA Telecom - Egypt 3741 267 906 225 The Internet Solution 12258 193 28 67 Vodacom Internet Company 15706 191 32 6 Sudatel Internet Exchange Aut 29975 191 667 21 Vodacom 16637 181 697 88 MTN Network Solutions Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-AFRINIC Global Per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 7029 3468 1010 215 Windstream Communications Inc 6389 3118 3717 132 bellsouth.net, inc. 4766 2946 11556 914 Korea Telecom (KIX) 17974 2485 829 54 PT TELEKOMUNIKASI INDONESIA 10620 2270 387 207 TVCABLE BOGOTA 28573 2252 1299 70 NET Servicos de Comunicao S.A 18566 2081 382 180 Covad Communications 22773 1947 2932 131 Cox Communications, Inc. 1785 1941 678 124 PaeTec Communications, Inc. 7545 1815 301 88 TPG Internet Pty Ltd Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet Global Per AS Maximum Aggr summary ---------------------------------- ASN No of nets Net Savings Description 6389 3118 2986 bellsouth.net, inc. 17974 2485 2431 PT TELEKOMUNIKASI INDONESIA 28573 2252 2182 NET Servicos de Comunicao S.A 10620 2270 2063 TVCABLE BOGOTA 4766 2946 2032 Korea Telecom (KIX) 18566 2081 1901 Covad Communications 1785 1941 1817 PaeTec Communications, Inc. 22773 1947 1816 Cox Communications, Inc. 7545 1815 1727 TPG Internet Pty Ltd 8402 1731 1715 Corbina telecom Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-CIDRnet List of Unregistered Origin ASNs (Global) ----------------------------------------- Bad AS Designation Network Transit AS Description 15132 UNALLOCATED 12.9.150.0/24 7018 AT&T WorldNet Servic 30031 UNALLOCATED 12.27.122.0/24 7018 AT&T WorldNet Servic 13317 UNALLOCATED 12.44.10.0/24 7018 AT&T WorldNet Servic 23502 UNALLOCATED 12.44.44.0/24 7018 AT&T WorldNet Servic 17300 UNALLOCATED 12.45.103.0/24 209 Qwest 17300 UNALLOCATED 12.45.110.0/24 701 UUNET Technologies, 16476 UNALLOCATED 12.46.27.0/24 7018 AT&T WorldNet Servic 14764 UNALLOCATED 12.108.237.0/24 7018 AT&T WorldNet Servic 33649 UNALLOCATED 12.111.112.0/24 19029 New Edge Networks 26064 UNALLOCATED 12.149.37.0/24 7018 AT&T WorldNet Servic Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-badAS Prefixes from private and non-routed address space (Global) ----------------------------------------------------------- Prefix Origin AS Description 128.0.0.0/24 2876 Jump Management SRL 128.0.24.0/21 41794 Altline LLC 128.0.64.0/22 49466 Declic Telecom SAS 128.0.68.0/22 49466 Declic Telecom SAS 128.0.72.0/21 23456 32-bit ASN transition 128.0.80.0/20 52041 Timer LTD 128.0.104.0/23 51848 FOP Gabidullina Ludmila Nikol 128.0.106.0/24 23456 32-bit ASN transition 128.0.128.0/20 29285 AMT closed joint-stock compan 128.0.144.0/22 59675 mywire Datentechnik GmbH Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-dsua Advertised Unallocated Addresses -------------------------------- Network Origin AS Description 27.112.114.0/24 23884 Proimage Engineering and Comm 41.222.80.0/21 37110 Moztel LDA 41.223.108.0/22 36966 >>UNKNOWN<< 62.12.96.0/19 38478 SunnyVision Limited 62.61.220.0/24 24974 Tachyon Europe BV - Wireless 62.61.221.0/24 24974 Tachyon Europe BV - Wireless 64.66.32.0/20 18864 >>UNKNOWN<< 64.185.224.0/24 27431 JTL Networks Inc. 64.185.225.0/24 27431 JTL Networks Inc. 64.185.226.0/24 27431 JTL Networks Inc. Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-add-IANA Number of prefixes announced per prefix length (Global) ------------------------------------------------------- /1:0 /2:0 /3:0 /4:0 /5:0 /6:0 /7:0 /8:18 /9:13 /10:29 /11:87 /12:244 /13:477 /14:858 /15:1545 /16:12489 /17:6566 /18:10939 /19:21633 /20:31043 /21:33016 /22:44333 /23:40798 /24:230036 /25:1304 /26:1682 /27:869 /28:172 /29:69 /30:13 /31:0 /32:19 Advertised prefixes smaller than registry allocations ----------------------------------------------------- ASN No of nets Total ann. Description 7029 2729 3468 Windstream Communications Inc 18566 2031 2081 Covad Communications 6389 1773 3118 bellsouth.net, inc. 8402 1455 1731 Corbina telecom 22773 1279 1947 Cox Communications, Inc. 30036 1261 1356 Mediacom Communications Corp 11492 1157 1194 Cable One 1785 1023 1941 PaeTec Communications, Inc. 6503 980 1454 AVANTEL, S.A. 7011 954 1206 Citizens Utilities Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-sXXas-nos Number of /24s announced per /8 block (Global) ---------------------------------------------- 1:704 2:692 3:3 4:9 5:701 6:3 8:470 12:1929 13:3 14:701 15:11 16:3 17:6 20:27 23:221 24:1786 27:1467 31:1349 32:54 33:2 34:2 36:11 37:1145 38:841 39:2 40:141 41:2658 42:180 44:3 46:1726 47:3 49:527 50:656 52:12 54:28 55:8 56:1 57:28 58:1071 59:559 60:237 61:1317 62:1039 63:2015 64:4348 65:2200 66:4492 67:2086 68:1199 69:3330 70:940 71:557 72:1893 74:2622 75:475 76:293 77:1052 78:1030 79:524 80:1221 81:982 82:661 83:537 84:529 85:1164 86:457 87:970 88:362 89:1757 90:304 91:5381 92:613 93:1621 94:1988 95:1630 96:489 97:337 98:967 99:40 100:31 101:286 103:1974 105:501 106:117 107:203 108:510 109:1753 110:834 111:983 112:470 113:745 114:642 115:905 116:888 117:775 118:962 119:1265 120:372 121:707 122:1727 123:1182 124:1320 125:1299 128:811 129:199 130:307 131:643 132:319 133:142 134:254 135:62 136:216 137:235 138:344 139:169 140:182 141:300 142:516 143:351 144:490 145:89 146:518 147:327 148:728 149:335 150:158 151:245 152:399 153:188 154:23 155:424 156:231 157:379 158:257 159:681 160:335 161:421 162:371 163:193 164:584 165:458 166:471 167:569 168:1006 169:131 170:988 171:164 172:4 173:1641 174:631 175:466 176:947 177:1479 178:1713 180:1364 181:183 182:1147 183:287 184:650 185:147 186:2157 187:1449 188:1903 189:1566 190:6187 192:6082 193:5720 194:4485 195:3602 196:1244 197:289 198:4012 199:5159 200:6032 201:2027 202:8859 203:8751 204:4479 205:2543 206:2810 207:2808 208:4064 209:3648 210:2911 211:1559 212:2006 213:1883 214:859 215:91 216:5135 217:1571 218:596 219:321 220:1260 221:544 222:324 223:375 End of report

9 years, 6 months

Weekly Routing Table Report

by Routing Analysis Role Account

This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, LacNOG, TRNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group. Daily listings are sent to bgp-stats(a)lists.apnic.net For historical data, please see http://thyme.rand.apnic.net. If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith <pfsinoz(a)gmail.com>. Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 22 Dec, 2012 Report Website: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net Detailed Analysis: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/ Analysis Summary ---------------- BGP routing table entries examined: 438165 Prefixes after maximum aggregation: 180937 Deaggregation factor: 2.42 Unique aggregates announced to Internet: 215621 Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 42906 Prefixes per ASN: 10.21 Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 33973 Origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 15870 Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 5700 Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 138 Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table: 4.5 Max AS path length visible: 31 Max AS path prepend of ASN ( 28730) 25 Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 1211 Unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 437 Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs: 3595 Number of 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 3233 Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table: 8730 Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table: 15 Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space: 175 Number of addresses announced to Internet: 2620290828 Equivalent to 156 /8s, 46 /16s and 119 /24s Percentage of available address space announced: 70.8 Percentage of allocated address space announced: 70.8 Percentage of available address space allocated: 100.0 Percentage of address space in use by end-sites: 94.1 Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 154819 APNIC Region Analysis Summary ----------------------------- Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes: 105281 Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 32772 APNIC Deaggregation factor: 3.21 Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks: 106205 Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks: 43419 APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 4807 APNIC Prefixes per ASN: 22.09 APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 1243 APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 792 Average APNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.5 Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 23 Number of APNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 389 Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet: 716469376 Equivalent to 42 /8s, 180 /16s and 116 /24s Percentage of available APNIC address space announced: 83.7 APNIC AS Blocks 4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431 (pre-ERX allocations) 23552-24575, 37888-38911, 45056-46079, 55296-56319, 58368-59391, 131072-133119 APNIC Address Blocks 1/8, 14/8, 27/8, 36/8, 39/8, 42/8, 43/8, 49/8, 58/8, 59/8, 60/8, 61/8, 101/8, 103/8, 106/8, 110/8, 111/8, 112/8, 113/8, 114/8, 115/8, 116/8, 117/8, 118/8, 119/8, 120/8, 121/8, 122/8, 123/8, 124/8, 125/8, 126/8, 133/8, 150/8, 153/8, 163/8, 171/8, 175/8, 180/8, 182/8, 183/8, 202/8, 203/8, 210/8, 211/8, 218/8, 219/8, 220/8, 221/8, 222/8, 223/8, ARIN Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes: 156086 Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation: 78438 ARIN Deaggregation factor: 1.99 Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks: 156771 Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks: 70691 ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 15356 ARIN Prefixes per ASN: 10.21 ARIN Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 5800 ARIN Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1591 Average ARIN Region AS path length visible: 4.1 Max ARIN Region AS path length visible: 25 Number of ARIN region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 18 Number of ARIN addresses announced to Internet: 1089414016 Equivalent to 64 /8s, 239 /16s and 35 /24s Percentage of available ARIN address space announced: 57.6 ARIN AS Blocks 1-1876, 1902-2042, 2044-2046, 2048-2106 (pre-ERX allocations) 2138-2584, 2615-2772, 2823-2829, 2880-3153 3354-4607, 4865-5119, 5632-6655, 6912-7466 7723-8191, 10240-12287, 13312-15359, 16384-17407 18432-20479, 21504-23551, 25600-26591, 26624-27647, 29696-30719, 31744-33791 35840-36863, 39936-40959, 46080-47103 53248-55295, 393216-394239 ARIN Address Blocks 3/8, 4/8, 6/8, 7/8, 8/8, 9/8, 11/8, 12/8, 13/8, 15/8, 16/8, 17/8, 18/8, 19/8, 20/8, 21/8, 22/8, 23/8, 24/8, 26/8, 28/8, 29/8, 30/8, 32/8, 33/8, 34/8, 35/8, 38/8, 40/8, 44/8, 45/8, 47/8, 48/8, 50/8, 52/8, 53/8, 54/8, 55/8, 56/8, 57/8, 63/8, 64/8, 65/8, 66/8, 67/8, 68/8, 69/8, 70/8, 71/8, 72/8, 73/8, 74/8, 75/8, 76/8, 96/8, 97/8, 98/8, 99/8, 100/8, 104/8, 107/8, 108/8, 128/8, 129/8, 130/8, 131/8, 132/8, 134/8, 135/8, 136/8, 137/8, 138/8, 139/8, 140/8, 142/8, 143/8, 144/8, 146/8, 147/8, 148/8, 149/8, 152/8, 155/8, 156/8, 157/8, 158/8, 159/8, 160/8, 161/8, 162/8, 164/8, 165/8, 166/8, 167/8, 168/8, 169/8, 170/8, 172/8, 173/8, 174/8, 184/8, 192/8, 198/8, 199/8, 204/8, 205/8, 206/8, 207/8, 208/8, 209/8, 214/8, 215/8, 216/8, RIPE Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by RIPE Region ASes: 112749 Total RIPE prefixes after maximum aggregation: 58303 RIPE Deaggregation factor: 1.93 Prefixes being announced from the RIPE address blocks: 115652 Unique aggregates announced from the RIPE address blocks: 74554 RIPE Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 17002 RIPE Prefixes per ASN: 6.80 RIPE Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 8144 RIPE Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 2761 Average RIPE Region AS path length visible: 5.0 Max RIPE Region AS path length visible: 31 Number of RIPE region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 2091 Number of RIPE addresses announced to Internet: 650235364 Equivalent to 38 /8s, 193 /16s and 205 /24s Percentage of available RIPE address space announced: 94.5 RIPE AS Blocks 1877-1901, 2043, 2047, 2107-2136, 2585-2614 (pre-ERX allocations) 2773-2822, 2830-2879, 3154-3353, 5377-5631 6656-6911, 8192-9215, 12288-13311, 15360-16383 20480-21503, 24576-25599, 28672-29695 30720-31743, 33792-35839, 38912-39935 40960-45055, 47104-52223, 56320-58367 59392-61439, 196608-199679 RIPE Address Blocks 2/8, 5/8, 25/8, 31/8, 37/8, 46/8, 51/8, 62/8, 77/8, 78/8, 79/8, 80/8, 81/8, 82/8, 83/8, 84/8, 85/8, 86/8, 87/8, 88/8, 89/8, 90/8, 91/8, 92/8, 93/8, 94/8, 95/8, 109/8, 141/8, 145/8, 151/8, 176/8, 178/8, 185/8, 188/8, 193/8, 194/8, 195/8, 212/8, 213/8, 217/8, LACNIC Region Analysis Summary ------------------------------ Prefixes being announced by LACNIC Region ASes: 45459 Total LACNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 9016 LACNIC Deaggregation factor: 5.04 Prefixes being announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 49029 Unique aggregates announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 23167 LACNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1751 LACNIC Prefixes per ASN: 28.00 LACNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 493 LACNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 336 Average LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.6 Max LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 30 Number of LACNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 729 Number of LACNIC addresses announced to Internet: 120904232 Equivalent to 7 /8s, 52 /16s and 218 /24s Percentage of available LACNIC address space announced: 72.1 LACNIC AS Blocks 26592-26623, 27648-28671, 52224-53247, 262144-263167 plus ERX transfers LACNIC Address Blocks 177/8, 179/8, 181/8, 186/8, 187/8, 189/8, 190/8, 191/8, 200/8, 201/8, AfriNIC Region Analysis Summary ------------------------------- Prefixes being announced by AfriNIC Region ASes: 9738 Total AfriNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 2355 AfriNIC Deaggregation factor: 4.14 Prefixes being announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 10333 Unique aggregates announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 3634 AfriNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 588 AfriNIC Prefixes per ASN: 17.57 AfriNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 190 AfriNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 130 Average AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.7 Max AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 25 Number of AfriNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 6 Number of AfriNIC addresses announced to Internet: 42899456 Equivalent to 2 /8s, 142 /16s and 152 /24s Percentage of available AfriNIC address space announced: 42.6 AfriNIC AS Blocks 36864-37887, 327680-328703 & ERX transfers AfriNIC Address Blocks 41/8, 102/8, 105/8, 154/8, 196/8, 197/8, APNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 4766 2926 11556 908 Korea Telecom (KIX) 17974 2488 829 54 PT TELEKOMUNIKASI INDONESIA 7545 1816 301 89 TPG Internet Pty Ltd 4755 1661 381 174 TATA Communications formerly 9829 1415 1156 42 BSNL National Internet Backbo 9583 1182 88 502 Sify Limited 7552 1148 1070 12 Vietel Corporation 4808 1123 2040 316 CNCGROUP IP network: China169 9498 1038 307 69 BHARTI Airtel Ltd. 24560 1037 385 161 Bharti Airtel Ltd., Telemedia Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-APNIC ARIN Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 7029 3473 1010 215 Windstream Communications Inc 6389 3120 3717 132 bellsouth.net, inc. 18566 2081 382 180 Covad Communications 22773 1947 2932 131 Cox Communications, Inc. 1785 1941 678 125 PaeTec Communications, Inc. 20115 1692 1608 622 Charter Communications 4323 1596 1155 396 Time Warner Telecom 30036 1382 292 716 Mediacom Communications Corp 7018 1293 10533 854 AT&T WorldNet Services 7011 1206 321 685 Citizens Utilities Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-ARIN RIPE Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 8402 1756 544 16 Corbina telecom 2118 1052 97 15 EUnet/RELCOM Autonomous Syste 34984 884 211 230 BILISIM TELEKOM 12479 869 777 64 Uni2 Autonomous System 13188 765 95 121 Educational Network 31148 743 38 15 FreeNet ISP 20940 725 238 564 Akamai Technologies European 6830 714 2313 435 UPC Distribution Services 58113 633 70 378 LIR DATACENTER TELECOM SRL 8551 619 367 39 Bezeq International Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-RIPE LACNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ----------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 10620 2268 387 206 TVCABLE BOGOTA 28573 2249 1298 69 NET Servicos de Comunicao S.A 7303 1674 1139 202 Telecom Argentina Stet-France 8151 1574 2970 352 UniNet S.A. de C.V. 6503 1453 435 67 AVANTEL, S.A. 27947 766 85 94 Telconet S.A 18881 740 716 18 Global Village Telecom 3816 662 309 71 Empresa Nacional de Telecomun 11172 601 86 66 Servicios Alestra S.A de C.V 7738 588 1242 34 Telecomunicacoes da Bahia S.A Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-LACNIC AfriNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ------------------------------------------ ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 24863 874 275 36 LINKdotNET AS number 36998 749 48 3 MOBITEL 8452 557 958 13 TEDATA 6713 485 602 20 Itissalat Al-MAGHRIB 24835 291 80 8 RAYA Telecom - Egypt 3741 267 906 225 The Internet Solution 12258 194 28 66 Vodacom Internet Company 15706 191 32 6 Sudatel Internet Exchange Aut 29975 191 667 21 Vodacom 16637 181 697 88 MTN Network Solutions Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-AFRINIC Global Per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 7029 3473 1010 215 Windstream Communications Inc 6389 3120 3717 132 bellsouth.net, inc. 4766 2926 11556 908 Korea Telecom (KIX) 17974 2488 829 54 PT TELEKOMUNIKASI INDONESIA 10620 2268 387 206 TVCABLE BOGOTA 28573 2249 1298 69 NET Servicos de Comunicao S.A 18566 2081 382 180 Covad Communications 22773 1947 2932 131 Cox Communications, Inc. 1785 1941 678 125 PaeTec Communications, Inc. 7545 1816 301 89 TPG Internet Pty Ltd Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet Global Per AS Maximum Aggr summary ---------------------------------- ASN No of nets Net Savings Description 6389 3120 2988 bellsouth.net, inc. 17974 2488 2434 PT TELEKOMUNIKASI INDONESIA 28573 2249 2180 NET Servicos de Comunicao S.A 10620 2268 2062 TVCABLE BOGOTA 4766 2926 2018 Korea Telecom (KIX) 18566 2081 1901 Covad Communications 22773 1947 1816 Cox Communications, Inc. 1785 1941 1816 PaeTec Communications, Inc. 8402 1756 1740 Corbina telecom 7545 1816 1727 TPG Internet Pty Ltd Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-CIDRnet List of Unregistered Origin ASNs (Global) ----------------------------------------- Bad AS Designation Network Transit AS Description 61309 UNALLOCATED 5.1.96.0/21 41562 Host4all Sarl 59505 UNALLOCATED 5.2.65.0/24 50673 Serverius AS 59505 UNALLOCATED 5.2.66.0/24 50673 Serverius AS 59530 UNALLOCATED 5.8.182.0/24 31261 GARS Telecom 61408 UNALLOCATED 5.56.0.0/21 174 Cogent Communication 61395 UNALLOCATED 5.83.56.0/22 3292 TDC Tele Danmark 61395 UNALLOCATED 5.83.60.0/22 3292 TDC Tele Danmark 59414 UNALLOCATED 5.102.144.0/21 15576 Nextra backbone in D 59395 UNALLOCATED 5.133.16.0/21 3549 Global Crossing 59407 UNALLOCATED 5.134.16.0/21 51167 Giga-Hosting GmbH Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-badAS Prefixes from private and non-routed address space (Global) ----------------------------------------------------------- Prefix Origin AS Description 128.0.0.0/24 2876 Jump Management SRL 128.0.16.0/21 43568 RIPE Network Coordination Cen 128.0.24.0/21 41794 Altline LLC 128.0.64.0/22 49466 Declic Telecom SAS 128.0.68.0/22 49466 Declic Telecom SAS 128.0.72.0/21 23456 32-bit ASN transition 128.0.80.0/20 52041 Timer LTD 128.0.104.0/23 51848 FOP Gabidullina Ludmila Nikol 128.0.128.0/20 29285 AMT closed joint-stock compan 128.0.144.0/22 59675 >>UNKNOWN<< Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-dsua Advertised Unallocated Addresses -------------------------------- Network Origin AS Description 27.112.114.0/24 23884 Proimage Engineering and Comm 41.222.80.0/21 37110 Moztel LDA 41.223.108.0/22 36966 >>UNKNOWN<< 62.12.96.0/19 38478 SunnyVision Limited 62.61.220.0/24 24974 Tachyon Europe BV - Wireless 62.61.221.0/24 24974 Tachyon Europe BV - Wireless 64.66.32.0/20 18864 >>UNKNOWN<< 64.185.224.0/24 27431 JTL Networks Inc. 64.185.225.0/24 27431 JTL Networks Inc. 64.185.226.0/24 27431 JTL Networks Inc. Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-add-IANA Number of prefixes announced per prefix length (Global) ------------------------------------------------------- /1:0 /2:0 /3:0 /4:0 /5:0 /6:0 /7:0 /8:18 /9:13 /10:29 /11:87 /12:244 /13:477 /14:858 /15:1544 /16:12488 /17:6566 /18:10963 /19:21629 /20:30998 /21:33005 /22:44366 /23:40789 /24:229935 /25:1310 /26:1688 /27:856 /28:182 /29:81 /30:17 /31:0 /32:22 Advertised prefixes smaller than registry allocations ----------------------------------------------------- ASN No of nets Total ann. Description 7029 2728 3473 Windstream Communications Inc 18566 2031 2081 Covad Communications 6389 1775 3120 bellsouth.net, inc. 8402 1481 1756 Corbina telecom 30036 1285 1382 Mediacom Communications Corp 22773 1279 1947 Cox Communications, Inc. 11492 1156 1193 Cable One 1785 1023 1941 PaeTec Communications, Inc. 6503 980 1453 AVANTEL, S.A. 7011 954 1206 Citizens Utilities Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-sXXas-nos Number of /24s announced per /8 block (Global) ---------------------------------------------- 1:694 2:718 3:3 4:13 5:697 6:3 8:488 12:1934 13:3 14:701 15:11 16:3 17:6 20:27 23:220 24:1794 27:1466 31:1339 32:54 33:2 34:2 36:11 37:1140 38:844 39:2 40:142 41:2654 42:179 44:3 46:1717 47:3 49:509 50:652 52:12 54:28 55:8 56:1 57:28 58:1068 59:558 60:237 61:1306 62:1037 63:2019 64:4354 65:2201 66:4497 67:2084 68:1202 69:3334 70:937 71:557 72:1895 74:2626 75:476 76:293 77:1037 78:1025 79:519 80:1207 81:980 82:643 83:536 84:531 85:1158 86:458 87:970 88:354 89:1756 90:304 91:5376 92:610 93:1625 94:1971 95:1610 96:487 97:338 98:969 99:40 100:31 101:287 103:1964 105:501 106:117 107:203 108:508 109:1738 110:833 111:980 112:459 113:744 114:643 115:904 116:891 117:778 118:966 119:1266 120:375 121:708 122:1730 123:1173 124:1320 125:1296 128:808 129:200 130:304 131:643 132:316 133:142 134:255 135:62 136:215 137:235 138:344 139:169 140:182 141:300 142:514 143:351 144:488 145:89 146:517 147:324 148:728 149:334 150:147 151:239 152:399 153:187 154:23 155:444 156:231 157:381 158:257 159:685 160:334 161:416 162:371 163:192 164:577 165:457 166:475 167:570 168:1003 169:133 170:1008 171:164 172:4 173:1654 174:628 175:464 176:879 177:1484 178:1742 180:1357 181:189 182:1116 183:294 184:633 185:135 186:2145 187:1432 188:1889 189:1570 190:6187 192:6085 193:5711 194:4490 195:3596 196:1247 197:291 198:4007 199:5153 200:6046 201:2027 202:8858 203:8744 204:4479 205:2556 206:2827 207:2828 208:4067 209:3655 210:2905 211:1548 212:2108 213:1875 214:862 215:90 216:5186 217:1552 218:595 219:321 220:1259 221:543 222:324 223:374 End of report

9 years, 6 months

highlights from 2012

by Etuate Cocker

All, I found this video clip from APNIC FB page that included PACINET 2012 and PACNOG 12. Etuate Cocker Freelance CMS Developer 10 Ngatira place, Manurewa, Auckland. CCNA, CCAI, CEH - Cisco ID : CSCO11620114 - EC Council ID - ECC021378 Skype number +(61)280-147294 ext 881

9 years, 6 months

Thoughts on the WCIT outcome

by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro

Hi All, I am pleased with the following portions of the Resolution. [Para 9 on the Draft resolution Article 1 section 1.7 recognizes the sovereignty of member states. It is also worthwhile noting that the Resolution does not have the same effect as a Treaty and is merely there to create an enabling environment] As for definitions - there was nothing on ICT and it was simply Telecommunications although there was a distinction between Government and Service Telecommunications. I was also happy with Para 34 on Article 4 section 4.3 on QoS. It was also good to see Article 5B on Spam. For Pacific Island countries spam is a huge challenge. Article 6 on Taxation would be the most controversial one and one of the core reasons why some countries won't sign - what will be interesting to watch is the WTO space as well. I found Article 7 interesting on Suspension of Services both partial and temporary. I was extremely pleased to see Hungary's Proposal on Access for Disabled Persons under Article 8B incorporated. I am also pleased with the new Resolution on “Special measures for landlocked developing countries(LLDCs) and small island developing states (SIDSs) for access to international optical fibre networks. Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851

9 years, 6 months

US Ambassador Kramer's Remarks on the WCIT

by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro

World Conference on International Telecommunications Remarks Terry Kramer Ambassador U.S. Head of Delegation, World Conference on International Telecommunications Via Teleconference Dubai, United Arab Emirates December 13, 2012 ------------------------------ *MODERATOR:* Yes, good evening everyone. We’re here in Dubai and with Ambassador Kramer. We’ve just finished a session at the World Conference on International Telecommunications, and I’m going to turn it over to Ambassador Kramer now to give us the latest developments that happened at the WCIT 2012. Ambassador. *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Great. Megan, thank you, and thank all of you for joining us today. I want to thank you for your attention and patience as we’ve worked through the last two weeks at this conference, and I appreciate your diligence and persistence in reporting on the WCIT. I also want to take this opportunity to thank and commend the ITU Secretary General Hamadoun Toure and our Conference Chairman, Mr. Mohamed Al-Ghanim, for their efforts and skills in working to guide this meeting. Our gratitude also goes to the United Arab Emirates for their hospitality during these two weeks. The United States today has announced that it cannot sign the revised international telecommunication regulations in their current form. Throughout the WCIT, the U.S. and other likeminded governments have worked consistently and unwaveringly to maintain and enhance an environment for success for the international telecommunications and internet sectors. The United States has consistently believed, and continues to believe, that the ITRs should be a high-level document and that the scope of the treaty does not extend to internet governance or content. Other administrations have made it clear that they believe the treaty should be extended to cover those issues, and so we cannot be part of that consensus. There are a number of issues that were critical to the United States in these negotiations. Number one, recognized operating agencies versus operating agencies. The United States consistently sought to clarify that the treaty would not apply to internet service providers or governments or private network operators. Number two, spam. The United States position remains that spam is a form of content and that regulating it inevitably opens the door to regulation of other forms of content, including political and cultural speech. Number three, network security. The United States continues to believe that the ITRs are not a useful venue for addressing security issues and cannot accede to vague commitments that would have significant implications but few practical improvements on security. Number four, internet governance. In several proposals, it was clear that some administrations were seeking to insert government control over internet governance, specifically internet naming and addressing functions. We continue to believe these issues can only be legitimately handled through multi-stakeholder organizations. And finally, number five, the internet resolution. This document represented a direct extension of scope into the internet and of the ITU’s role therein despite earlier assertions from Secretary General Hamadoun Toure that the WCIT would not address internet issues. The United States has been willing to engage in good-faith discussions regarding these issues, and we’d like to thank and commend the other delegates for engaging with us. However, while we have consistently maintained our positions regarding the scope of the conference, other administrations have continually filed out-of-scope proposals that unacceptably altered the nature of the discussions, and ultimately of the ITRs. It is clear that the world community is at a crossroads in its collective view of the internet and of the most optimal environment for the flourishing of the internet in this century. The internet is a global phenomenon that is providing enormous personal, social, and economic benefits to consumers, citizens, and societies in all areas of the world. It has grown exponentially over the past decade and continues to flourish and adapt to human needs everywhere. The entire world has benefited from this growth, and the developing countries are seeing higher growth rates than the developed world. The infrastructure of the global internet is shifting rapidly away from the transatlantic routes that formerly carried most traffic. The internet is becoming more regional and national and less centered in the U.S. and other Western countries. This is a welcome development. All of the benefits and growth of the internet have come as a result not of government action or of intergovernmental treaty. They are an organic expression of consumer demand and societal needs, along with other multi-stakeholder governance. We have every expectation that the internet will continue to grow and provide enormous benefits worldwide. The United States will continue to uphold and advance the multi-stakeholder model of internet governance, standards development, and management. No single organization or government can or should attempt to control the internet or dictate its future development. In addition, the United States remains fully committed to the values of freedom of expression and the free flow of information and ideas on the internet. While there was no consensus at WCIT-12, the conference served a valuable purpose in clarifying views and building a foundation for continued dialogue. The United States will continue to work not only within the ITU but in multiple forums to achieve the universal goals of further growth of advanced network infrastructure in developing countries. The United States continues to believe that multi-stakeholder governance of the internet, coupled with liberalized telecommunication markets and the growth of network infrastructure in all countries, will accelerate growth and spread of the international telecommunications and internet throughout the world. The U.S. will remain engaged in a global dialogue on the role of governments and other stakeholders in the growth and development of international telecommunications and the internet sectors. This conversation will not be over when WCIT-12 ends. Rather, the discussion will continue for many months and years. I’d like to now open the floor for your questions. *OPERATOR:* Ladies and gentlemen, if you would like to ask a question, please press * then 1 on your touchtone phone. You will hear a tone indicating you have been placed in queue. You may remove yourself from the queue at any time by pressing the # key. If you are using a speakerphone, please pick up the handset before pressing the numbers. One moment, please, for our first question. Our first question is from Rob Lever with AFP. Go ahead, please. *QUESTION: *Yes, Ambassador, thank you. You said at the start that the United States cannot sign these ITRs in their current form. And does that mean that it’s not quite over and that you still have some hope of reaching some compromise, or is – you believe that proposal is on the table? And secondly, what does it mean if there is no consensus or no treaty that’s signed? What does that mean? Do we even need this at all? *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. Thank you for the question. So first of all, the discussions in the main plenary right now are in the final stages. And the chairman has gone through – the chairman of the conference has gone through several rounds of changes to the ITRs to try and meet a variety of needs. And that’s been a lot of our negotiations that have gone on over the last few days. The version that’s out there now looks like it’s the near-final one. There could still be some very small ones, but it’s looking near final. And the level of support from a variety of other nations looks strong enough that it looks unlikely it will materially change. So I just made a public commentary on the plenary floor to let the audience know there that we were not going to sign the agreement. And obviously, we talked about our fundamental belief in multi-stakeholder governance. So while there’s still a chance things could change, I’d say it’s highly unlikely. The plenary will meet for another hour or two, and then there’s formalities tomorrow with signatures and other things. So what can happen is your second question. So what’s likely is if there’s enough consensus to proceed, there’ll be an actual signing ceremony where the countries that do agree with the ITRs will formally sign them. Obviously we are not going to be signing them. There may be some nations that will take reservations. So they may sign the agreement, but they will identify several areas that they don’t like about the treaty. So it’s a way of expressing opposition to it. So the final part of your question is why does all this matter, how does it matter, et cetera. At the end of the day, these ITRs are not legally binding terms. They’re much more normative and values oriented. It really kind of drives what the public discussion is. The actual ITRs officially don’t take effect until January of 2015, and again, there’s not a legally binding nature to it. But what is very fundamental about all this discussion is this is – we’ve had a very explicit discussion about views on the internet, and how it should be managed. And that – it was an explicit discussion on the plenary floor, and with our bilaterals, et cetera. And as you know, the divergence of views is significant. And we’re going to continue to advocate the multi-stakeholder model. I’d like to think that as time progresses and people see the benefit of the internet, that the belief in liberalized markets and a multi-stakeholder model that frankly is much more practical in terms of advancing the internet, that that will take hold. But that will take a period of time, that discussion. *OPERATOR:* Our next question is from Eliza Krigman. Go ahead, please. *QUESTION: *Hi. This is Eliza Krigman with Politico. Thanks for taking my call. What does this mean for the commercial arrangement between carriers, and specifically within payments from – or sending party pay payments, will there – if some countries ratify this treaty, does that mean they’re going to then send Google a bill for sending their subscribers YouTube content? *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. So, Eliza, fortunately the sending party pays elements have been removed through negotiations. They have been removed from the agreements here. So we’re obviously very pleased about that. There’s obviously still – you have a lot of organizations that do business globally. But the way the treaty works is there’s national sovereignty rights, so countries can do whatever they want to do in their own country. But obviously we don’t want to have agreements globally that set a tone. So we’re going to have to continue to advocate the importance of the global nature of the internet. And there’s a natural momentum where the world is becoming more interconnected, and the commercial opportunities are significant. So that’s where there’s a continued kind of momentum to keep negotiations going between countries, between network operators. *QUESTION: *Thank you. *OPERATOR:* Okay. Our next question is from John Eggerton with Broadcasting & Cable. Go ahead, please. *QUESTION: *Yes, Ambassador. Can you identify any of the other countries you think might not sign, or is it just going to be the U.S.? *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah, so there were several – after I made my statement, there were a variety of other nations that then started to share their views, their concerns about the treaty. And they were either acknowledging that they would not sign or they acknowledged they had significant reservations and wanted to talk to their capitals overnight, or they identified specific areas that they want to take a reservation on. And matter of fact, once I spoke, there was a variety of nations, and I’ll read them off to you here, and then we went to a break immediately afterwards. So the countries that have already spoken and we’ll hear from more, but it is the United Kingdom, Costa Rica, Denmark, Egypt, Sweden, Netherlands, Kenya, the Czech Republic, Canada, New Zealand, and Poland. And again, that was just the group that spoke before we went on a break. So we’ll know more after this. One of the reasons, obviously, that I put my statement out is we wanted to clearly signal that this is the United States position. There’s a lot of countries, as you can imagine, that are waiting to see where the U.S. comes out. But on this issue, candidly, we are resolute on this. We had to go in understanding that we may have nobody else supporting us, because these issues are so fundamental. And fortunately, as I mentioned with that list of countries, a lot of other countries see the same issues we do. *QUESTION: *All right. But that’s a mix. You don’t know which specifically have said they’re not going to sign; that’s a mix of all three of those? *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* That’s right. That’s right. But all of them – the tone in which they shared it were all concerns. There isn’t anybody in that group saying, “We love it.” They are all either going to be taking some sort of reservation or they’re going to not sign. I mean, it was pretty clear from their comments. *QUESTION: *Okay. Thanks. *OPERATOR:* Our next question is from Richard Waters with *Financial Times*. Go ahead, please. *QUESTION:* Yes, hello. The fact that so many countries haven’t – sorry, are going to sign this suggests that – or does it suggest that actually the trend is away from the kind of open, free internet that you’ve been discussing here? And particularly if you bear in mind what happened at earlier conferences in 2003 and ‘5 where the kind of worst outcomes were headed off from your point of view, is what we’re seeing now a trend away from the kind of web and the internet that the U.S. would like? And what gives you the confidence to think that if things will swing around? You seem to be suggesting that when countries see the benefit of an open internet, they will adjust their point of view, but it seems to be exactly the opposite here, isn’t it? *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yes. So first of all, we don’t know yet who’s going to vote in favor, because we won’t know, literally, till tomorrow on that. There could be a lot of countries that abstain, et cetera. So it’s, I think, premature for us to say who’s going to agree or not agree. But a couple of things on this. A lot of the countries that are expressing points of view different than ours are newer and less experienced in the whole internet play. It’s a newer phenomenon. The penetration rates are still growing, et cetera. Many of them are dealing with political issues in their home countries where there’s political instability and there’s a different mindset to what the benefits of the internet bring. So the context, first of all, is very different in a lot of the countries that have expressed points of view different to ours. The second comment, Richard, is, as you know, I’ve got a mobile background. I used to work with Vodafone. It is amazing as technology rolls from country to country how it looks in different places. It carries its own life and customizes to the local market. I actually think even more than the mobile sector, the internet looks different in different places from a content standpoint, an application standpoint, et cetera. And in turn, as that customization occurs, growth tends to increase. So I’m a fundamental believer over the long term you will see a lot more interest, economic activity, et cetera. Are there going to be political issues where certain countries don’t want free expression? Absolutely, but if you say over a long period of time, I think people will see a lot of the benefits, and this is a long game that we’re playing here. *QUESTION:* But as more countries join the internet, as you say, it could be that they will change the internet rather than the internet changing them. So this just might be the way (inaudible) countries that have a different approach to the medium changing the internet. *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* I don’t know. I mean, it depends what you mean by changing the internet. If you mean they’re going to look to make it look different and customize it to their environment, then yeah, I would agree with you. If it’s governments are going to, on the long term, control the internet and decide what it looks and how, I don’t know that’s going to happen yet. Certainly, people talk about it in a futuristic way, but I’ve not seen kind of a concrete piece of it. And take an example of Kenya. I think Kenya is a great example from the internet and mobile and they’re one of the supporters of our activity. They see a clear benefit in their society because it creates economic value, it reduces the digital divide, it creates more demand for services, it connects them with the world. And I think as you see more of those case examples of success, you get more and more people that say this is a good thing. And that’s, again, the long game that we see. *QUESTION:* All right, thanks. *OPERATOR:* Okay, our next question is from Joseph Menn with Reuters. Go ahead, please. *QUESTION:* Hi, Ambassador. I wasn’t tracking all of it as well as I might have been, but it looked like 3.8, the addressing thing, came out, which seemed like a very clear stumbling block. If that’s right, then was the last straw the provision on countries pledging not to disconnect each other? Because if so, that sort of makes it look like the U.S. is an outlier and wants the ability to disconnect other countries in times of conflict. *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. So you know, candidly, there were several items that really were the things that turned this over. What was interesting about this negotiation is sometimes there’s this impression, well, you’re negotiating ten items; one or two matter a lot, and seven or eight are kind of moderate, they don’t matter a huge amount, you can give and take. In this negotiation, candidly, there’s like five, six, seven things that were huge issues that had a lot to do, again, with different aspects of controlling the internet, and any one of these would have been a trip for us, would have been us saying no, we don’t want to do this. And so when I read those off at the beginning of the call, each of those would have been a big issue. So there was an internet resolution, as I mentioned. The internet resolution specifically talks about governance, about governments involved in governance of the internet. Now, what happened in the negotiations, they said, well, we’ll take that internet resolution, we’ll move it from the body of the articles which are binding in nature and they’ll move it to a resolution which is nonbinding. And they said, well, isn’t that great? The reality is it’s still in the ITRs and people are going to look at it and say the ITU and this WCIT conference got into internet governance. So that was a fundamental issue that would have tripped, again, our position. The second one is on spam. There’s a provision on spam in this. And again, there was a lot of effort to try and water it down with saying we’re going to mitigate, the focus on content, et cetera. But at the end of the day, if you’re saying you want to reduce the spam problem, you’re getting into a content issue there. And somebody, especially if you’re talking amongst governments, you’re giving the government the right to look at those issues. A third issue was the issue of security. When you put security mixed in here with the internet and content, again, you open the door for an organization to say, listen, in the quest of dealing with cyber security issues, I’m going to have to look at content and I’m going to make it okay to review that content. So again, there’s all these kind of circuitous ways to get into these things. The final thing is just the agencies that are subject to this. We don’t want lack of clarity about the agencies that are subject to this. We’re very clear on this that public providers of telecomm services should be the ones that are affected but not any others, not private networks, not internet players, not cloud computing players, not government networks, et cetera. There’s a lot of players in this kind of converged world that, again, indirectly or directly could be subject to these regulations. So candidly, the decision to do a no-sign – there wasn’t a lot of consternation on it. There were too many issues here that were problematic for us, and it made the decision clear. *QUESTION:* Thank you. *OPERATOR:* Our next question is from David Gewirtz with CBS Interactive. Go ahead, please. *QUESTION:* Hi. This is David Gewirtz calling. So Ambassador, what happens now? Will other countries essentially route around the U.S. desires for an open net? Will this lead to what might essentially become two internets, one open and one closed? *AMBASSADOR KRAMER: *Well, we obviously hope that doesn’t happen here. And again, from my own technology and mobile background, there’s a natural momentum to players that have scale, that are first-movers, et cetera, that create lower costs, they create greater inoperability, et cetera. So there’s a natural, I think, bias or advantage to that. And that benefits, by the way – we talk about Richard’s question earlier about when technology rolls to successive markets, many of those later markets get the better end of the technology, because infrastructure costs come down, or handset costs come down, or unique contents available, et cetera, they get the benefit of it. Now, if a country says, listen, I want to have a different standard, I’m going to have a different approach, then they can go proceed with that. Candidly, they could still do that under national sovereignty. But they’re going to have to deal, again, with a more and more interconnected environment. And so I think our job in all of this is to continue to espouse the benefits of an open internet, of free content, of low costs here, of all the things that entrepreneurs do with the internet. We have to keep advocating that, and that will create a natural bias or momentum in favor of it. And again, at the end of the day, if somebody wants to develop a different standard approach, it’s obviously that’s country’s prerogative. But we’re hoping that’s not an easy task. *QUESTION:* Thank you. *OPERATOR:* Okay. Our next question is from Grant Gross with IDG News Service. Go ahead, please. *QUESTION:* Hello, Ambassador. Thanks for taking our calls. Kind of following up on that, what is the danger of this kind of resolution now as you see it coming out? What problems could it cause, even with the U.S. and the UK and other countries not adopting it? *AMBASSADOR KRAMER: *Well, so I don’t see a lot of near-term or intermediate-term risks here, because it’s not a legally binding document. It doesn’t carry that risk. I think we’ve also maintained good relationships and enough kind of openness that companies that do business abroad have got a good environment. I do think that it does set up for a much more direct conversation that’s going to have to happen on multi-stakeholder governance, that that is really the only model that’s been proven to be effective, where, again, you’ve got civil society and industry and others there addressing fundamental internet issues. And in turn, multi-stakeholder organizations are going to have to continue to focus on outreach and being global in nature. And if you – there’s issues in Africa. A lot of our African colleagues here are saying, listen, we’ve got cyber issues; we need help with that. Then we need to make sure there are multi-stakeholder organizations available to help then with those issues. The United States, in addition, does a variety of bilaterals with individual countries to help them with their own cyber work and other issues related to the internet. But again, our fundamental view on this thing is you’ve got to be pragmatic. No one government can solve fundamental issues and deal with the internet, so you’ve got to have that expertise, that agility. And importantly, you’ve got to be customized in your approach. So again, to bring up the cyber security issue, when you ask a lot of countries what is the cyber security issue, at the end of the day, it’s heavily a regional issue; it’s not a global issue. There’s kind of one or two countries there are cyber issues with. So then you kind of ask the question, well, why exactly would you want to put terms in a global agreement on cyber. And there’s not a very good answer. So the net net of all this is we need to continue to advance the argument and the benefits of multi-stakeholder organizations. We need to put a lot of energy into the effectiveness of those organizations and make sure we continue to kind of build that global opportunity. So I think that’s the charter going forward. And again, coming from the mobile industry, I’ve seen that in my own life with the associations and standards bodies that work very well in that environment. So I do think it will happen. It’s just a period of time. *QUESTION:* Thanks. *OPERATOR:* Okay. Our next question is from Adam Popescu with ReadWrite.com. Go ahead, please. *QUESTION:* Hi, Mr. Ambassador. Thanks for your time. A lot of my questions have already been answered by my peers, but going forward, what I’m – what I understand from what you’re saying is because of the fact that other nations are going to be putting forth a lot of this stuff in terms of the ROA versus OA, basically my question is, sort of dovetailing on one of the last questions about the two internets, are we going to see a different view of a certain site for international, when they’re here in the U.S.? And what’s going to happen globally? And you mentioned January 2015 as the day when these are supposed to take effect, so maybe you could speak on that a little bit. *AMBASSADOR KRAMER: *Yeah. So first of all, I mean on a second internet, again, anything is possible. And you see on the content side there are social media sites, for example, in Russia that are unique in Russia. But again, what happens in this space, as you know – take a Facebook, right, with over a billion users. There’s a natural advantage to having that type of user base globally. And that creates a momentum for that to spread further. So I think, again, with the momentum that’s going on, that it’s kind of a natural that having some unique standard and setup somewhere else is going to be an easy task. There’s countries, again, in the mobile space that have tried to set up a different standard for 3G, 4G, the latest network technologies – very difficult to pull off. So I don’t know necessarily there’s some ulterior motive at this point. We’re seeing some nation want create some new effort. But we are going to need to continue to do this global outreach so we don’t inadvertently allow a Balkanization of the internet. And in terms of the January 15th date, nothing happens until then. And there’s a lot of activities and conferences that are going to happen between now and January of 2015. So a lot of different reviews are going to happen. And candidly, in these situations a lot of people may have buyer’s remorse. It’s interesting; even when we do our bilats, et cetera, there are a lot of nations that are still kind of getting their head around what the internet is, the opportunity, what are the issues with spam, and what are the issues with roaming related to this et cetera. And that’s been the benefit of this conference and our bilaterals, is we can have that discussion with people. And I think from that information, that education, you get a much better outcome. And I think people will come to the conclusion that multi-stakeholder governance is the right approach. *QUESTION: *One quick follow-up question: When is the next major internet conference where we can kind of take up some of these matters? *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Well, there’s WTPF, a policy forum that’s in May of next year. So that’s going to be a place where some internet issues will be discussed. There’s an IGF, an Internet Governance Forum meeting that’s every year. I think their – it’s tentatively targeted for Indonesia next year in the fall. So these happen literally every few months or so. But again, what we don’t want to see is have these in the form of a treaty negotiating conference. There’s a huge amount to be done in best practice sharing, and fora that talk about ideas and approaches, but just not setting up regulations. *QUESTION: *And then my final question: Is this conference, then, and the fact that we’re not signing, is this a failure? *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Not at all. It’s an interesting question, because I would talk with our U.S. delegation – success – and we always set this out with the goals of our delegation in the U.S. effort. Our end goal here is to create an environment where we can say there’s going to be success for the internet and telecom. And it is so easy in this setting here where you’re dealing with a lot of technical rules and regulations, you’re dealing with other regulators here, et cetera, to lose sight of the plot in life. The plot here is to make sure that these sectors do well. And if you can’t definitively say that an ITR is going to help that future of success, then you shouldn’t put the ITR in. You shouldn’t put regulation in. So I very much look at this – this is success. We’ve had a chance in this conference to communicate what success, we think, looks like, the importance of the internet globally. There’s been a connection between different countries and different people, et cetera, that I think all of that is a benefit. And on any issue that you have that’s a deep kind of philosophical or technical issue, you don’t have kind of one conversation and people’s minds change. It happens over a period of time. It happens when you can point to success. It happens when you can say, look at what’s happened in Kenya with broadband and the internet. Look what’s happened in India with mobile penetration. You start pointing to success, and people say, “Now I know this isn’t some theoretical, philosophical argument. This is a model that works.” And so I think those things will happen. I’m optimistic about it. But it’s the beginning of several steps. And so I do think this was a success, and there are going to be more of them. *QUESTION: *Thank you. *OPERATOR: *Our next question is from Cyrus Farivar with ARS Technica. Go ahead, please. *QUESTION: *Hello Mr. Ambassador, and thank you very much for my taking question. I had two questions. First of all, I’m wondering – you talked about how the United States is not going to be supporting these agreements. I’m wondering why these agreements are even necessary in the first place. As you know, and I think as pretty much all of my colleagues know, lots of countries out there already conduct their own national internets to varying degrees. I’m talking most notably of China, Iran, certainly North Korea, that has probably the most restrictive internet policy of anyone in the world. So I wonder: Why are these even kind of national-based agreements even necessary to begin with when this practice is already going on? That’s my first question. And then my second question is: I’m wondering what was the role of lobbying to your delegation, particularly by corporations such as Google and particularly by prominent internet technical experts, like Vint Cerf, who, as you know, was the architect of some of the fundamental foundations of the protocols behind the internet itself. *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. No. Great questions. So first of all, on your first question on the global nature, you’re absolutely right. Countries have national sovereignty rights, so they can do what they want. But what we don’t want over time is a set of global agreements that people can point to and say, listen, this treaty gave us the right to impose these terms on global operators of some sort. Now, again, we don’t’ think that’s going to happen with this per se because it’s a normative approach, it’s not legally binding. But you sure don’t want to kind of just allow something to happen that people can think is a binding term on an increasingly global environment. So that’s why we don’t want it to happen. Our argument specifically on the ITU is the ITU does great work in a lot of the radio areas, in spectrum work, in coordination work, they do a lot of great work in developing markets, et cetera. But in the internet, it’s not the charter. It’s not the place. It’s not going to be able to do the things that are going to really add value. And so that’s why we say, continue with the ITU and interact with a lot of other delegates, but make sure it’s on the right topics. Now your second question – you said “lobbying.” It’s a good question, but I’ll rephrase it. It’s not lobbying per se. We had – have a delegation here of 100 representatives, roughly 50 from U.S. Government that are people from State Department, FCC, Commerce Department, Department of Defense, et cetera. We had about 40 people from industry, industry being either internet players or telecom players, and then another 10 people or so that were members of civil society. Their job as delegates is not to lobby. They – as a matter of fact they have to sign an agreement that says they’re representing national interests. So what we did is put them to work in a couple of areas. Number one is to be subject matter experts about what does the internet look like in these different places, what are the challenges and security issues going forward, why is spam being discussed here, et cetera. And they – the industry provided very, very helpful insights, positions, et cetera, that informed our positions more broadly on a national basis. A lot of that thought process, thought leadership was then used in our bilaterals to work with other countries. And when I said that’s the real benefit of this conference, we had some great discussions. The second piece of their work as members of industry, civil society, et cetera, was to do outreach. And the beauty of outreach when you get in this setting is you’re able to talk to a lot of different countries, a lot of different players, and share the points of view. And that’s been a huge benefit of our delegation. But finally I’ll say – and I don’t know if you call – it’s a bit of the irony of all this is we – people said, “Geez, you guys have a large delegation.” The fact we had a large delegation with the type of engagement we had is the beauty of our system – is you have a lot of people that are taking their ideas – some of them are their own self-interest, but a lot of it is much broader than that, and they’re contributing to a greater outcome here. And as I did bilaterals with other nations, it was interesting how many countries I would go to where a member of industry or civil society said, could you tell my government this, this and this? And I said, well, isn’t there a delegation in their own country sharing it? Well, the reality is a lot of countries don’t have that type of inclusive nature. Certainly the democratic ones do, but there are a lot of ones that aren’t. And it was a very stark message to me of exactly what we’re talking about when we talk about multi-stakeholder governance and how you collect the best wisdom and energy to create something bigger. So a long-winded answer to your question, but that – those representatives were a very essential part of our delegation. *QUESTION:* Thank you. *OPERATOR:* Okay. Our next question is from David McAuley with Bloomberg BNA. Go ahead, please. *QUESTION:* Thank you. Ambassador Kramer, my questions, too, have been answered, but let me ask this: What will happen to the U.S. delegation now and to your role between now and, let’s say, WTPF in May? And what are the U.S. plans going forward between now and January of 2015? *AMBASSADOR KRAMER: *Yeah. Thank you, David. And so a couple of things. People will all go into their own worlds again in the coming weeks and months. So our delegation – obviously a lot of them are in civil society or industry, et cetera. They’ll, obviously, go back into that. I’ll eventually go back into probably academia and the work that I was doing before, and maybe industry again. You never know. But importantly, what should be happening in the next month or two is what are the learnings from the conference, what are the implications going forward, how do we advance multi-stakeholder governance. All of those things, I think, are going to be very, very helpful. And I think, again, to the earlier question about was this successful, there’s a lot of success in understanding points of view of other nations, of really honing in on our arguments, and importantly how do you advance these ideas about liberalized markets and about multi-stakeholder governance. So the next couple of months, my mind is going to be on that and sharing insights as well as a lot of my colleagues. *QUESTION:* Thank you. *OPERATOR:* Next question comes from Jennifer Martinez, The Hill. Please go ahead. *QUESTION:* Hi. Thanks so much for taking my call. Appreciate it. You’ve kind of touched on this in previous questions, so apologies if this is somewhat of a repeat. But with the countries that are signing the ITRs, I guess, would they be treating a company like Google or Facebook differently in the future, or is it too early to tell, since the treaty hasn’t gone into effect yet? *AMBASSADOR KRAMER: *Yeah. I think it’s too early to tell. A lot of the countries that would sign, that would have policies very different than ours, are already creating a very different environment. So I don’t think that’s likely to happen near term. And again, I think from a legally binding standpoint, these ITRs don’t have teeth in them. But I do think we have to continually be vigilant on this issue about not erecting barriers. And some of the arguments on this, Jennifer, it’s interesting. You may have governments that have different political views than us. They may have different practices on censorship, et cetera. But many of them are fundamentally concerned about commercial issues. They want to see commerce; they want to see people using the internet effectively, et cetera. And so there’s always that argument that helps advance keeping the internet free and open. So that’s kind of the mindset from here. And again, I don’t expect any big change in any of this. But we are going to have a continued effort to make sure this multi-stakeholder model and the global opportunity is made clear. *MODERATOR:* All right. We have time for one more question. *OPERATOR:* Okay. Last question comes from Josh Peterson, The Daily Caller. *QUESTION:* Hi, Ambassador. Thank you for your time and thank you for taking my question. I just wanted to go back and talk a little bit about what brought the proceedings to a vote. Because from what I understand, the event operates on consensus, but – and a vote was unlikely. So what was it that prompted this to happen? *AMBASSADOR KRAMER: *Well, so first of all, what happened last night and what also happened this evening is there was an indication of interest. People hold up placards. They did one vote, I think, later on to try and move things along. So some of what’s happening is the views on these issues are so heartfelt and so significant, and it slowed down a lot of the negotiations. I mean, here we are Thursday night, and it’s almost midnight here, and people are still trying to work away. So the chairman has really tried to move things along. And one of the tools was to do this vote on the human rights element. But in general, they’ve tried to really stick to consensus. So I don’t feel, per se, that this indication of interest or a nominal vote has been the big issue. I think the bigger issue is there’s a variety of nations out there that do hold different views than our own, and we’re going to have to continue to engage so that we don’t find that that continues to be an area of disagreement. *MODERATOR:* All right. Well, thank you, everyone, for joining us this evening. And as a reminder, we will not be having another call. This was our press briefing that we had mentioned in our media note previously. Thank you, everyone. Have a good night. *ENDS* * *

9 years, 6 months

Fwd: Advisory - D-root is changing its IPv4 address on the 3rd of January

by Phil Regnauld

For those of you administrating DNS servers. https://lists.dns-oarc.net/pipermail/dns-operations/2012-December/009428.ht… - - - Begin forwarded message - From: Jason Castonguay <castongj(a)umd.edu> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 17:54:41 -0500 Advisory — D-root is changing its IPv4 address on the 3rd of January. This is advance notice that there is a scheduled change to the IPv4 address for one of the authorities listed for the DNS root zone and the .ARPA TLD. The change is to D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET, which is administered by the University of Maryland. The new IPv4 address for this authority is 199.7.91.13 The current IPv6 address for this authority is 2001:500:2d::d and it will continue to remain unchanged. This change is anticipated to be implemented in the root zone on 3 January 2013, however the new address is currently operational. It will replace the previous IP address of 128.8.10.90 (also once known as TERP.UMD.EDU). We encourage operators of DNS infrastructure to update any references to the old IP address, and replace it with the new address. In particular, many DNS resolvers have a DNS root “hints” file. This should be updated with the new IP address. New hints files will be available at the following URLs once the change has been formally executed: http://www.internic.net/domain/named.root http://www.internic.net/domain/named.cache The old address will continue to work for at least six months after the transition, but will ultimately be retired from service. - -- Jason Castonguay Network Integration Software Engineer Division of Information Technology University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742 - - - END forwarded message - - -

9 years, 6 months

Weekly Routing Table Report

by Routing Analysis Role Account

This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, LacNOG, TRNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group. Daily listings are sent to bgp-stats(a)lists.apnic.net For historical data, please see http://thyme.rand.apnic.net. If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith <pfsinoz(a)gmail.com>. Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 15 Dec, 2012 Report Website: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net Detailed Analysis: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/ Analysis Summary ---------------- BGP routing table entries examined: 437576 Prefixes after maximum aggregation: 180670 Deaggregation factor: 2.42 Unique aggregates announced to Internet: 214733 Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 42833 Prefixes per ASN: 10.22 Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 33929 Origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 15857 Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 5694 Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 135 Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table: 4.6 Max AS path length visible: 31 Max AS path prepend of ASN ( 28730) 25 Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 1188 Unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 426 Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs: 3579 Number of 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 3210 Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table: 8662 Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table: 15 Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space: 150 Number of addresses announced to Internet: 2619294732 Equivalent to 156 /8s, 31 /16s and 68 /24s Percentage of available address space announced: 70.7 Percentage of allocated address space announced: 70.7 Percentage of available address space allocated: 100.0 Percentage of address space in use by end-sites: 94.0 Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 154967 APNIC Region Analysis Summary ----------------------------- Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes: 104923 Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 32629 APNIC Deaggregation factor: 3.22 Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks: 105840 Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks: 43291 APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 4800 APNIC Prefixes per ASN: 22.05 APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 1245 APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 796 Average APNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.6 Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 23 Number of APNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 386 Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet: 716073472 Equivalent to 42 /8s, 174 /16s and 106 /24s Percentage of available APNIC address space announced: 83.7 APNIC AS Blocks 4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431 (pre-ERX allocations) 23552-24575, 37888-38911, 45056-46079, 55296-56319, 58368-59391, 131072-133119 APNIC Address Blocks 1/8, 14/8, 27/8, 36/8, 39/8, 42/8, 43/8, 49/8, 58/8, 59/8, 60/8, 61/8, 101/8, 103/8, 106/8, 110/8, 111/8, 112/8, 113/8, 114/8, 115/8, 116/8, 117/8, 118/8, 119/8, 120/8, 121/8, 122/8, 123/8, 124/8, 125/8, 126/8, 133/8, 150/8, 153/8, 163/8, 171/8, 175/8, 180/8, 182/8, 183/8, 202/8, 203/8, 210/8, 211/8, 218/8, 219/8, 220/8, 221/8, 222/8, 223/8, ARIN Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes: 156038 Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation: 78497 ARIN Deaggregation factor: 1.99 Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks: 156749 Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks: 70462 ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 15339 ARIN Prefixes per ASN: 10.22 ARIN Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 5794 ARIN Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1592 Average ARIN Region AS path length visible: 4.1 Max ARIN Region AS path length visible: 25 Number of ARIN region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 18 Number of ARIN addresses announced to Internet: 1089133184 Equivalent to 64 /8s, 234 /16s and 218 /24s Percentage of available ARIN address space announced: 57.6 ARIN AS Blocks 1-1876, 1902-2042, 2044-2046, 2048-2106 (pre-ERX allocations) 2138-2584, 2615-2772, 2823-2829, 2880-3153 3354-4607, 4865-5119, 5632-6655, 6912-7466 7723-8191, 10240-12287, 13312-15359, 16384-17407 18432-20479, 21504-23551, 25600-26591, 26624-27647, 29696-30719, 31744-33791 35840-36863, 39936-40959, 46080-47103 53248-55295, 393216-394239 ARIN Address Blocks 3/8, 4/8, 6/8, 7/8, 8/8, 9/8, 11/8, 12/8, 13/8, 15/8, 16/8, 17/8, 18/8, 19/8, 20/8, 21/8, 22/8, 23/8, 24/8, 26/8, 28/8, 29/8, 30/8, 32/8, 33/8, 34/8, 35/8, 38/8, 40/8, 44/8, 45/8, 47/8, 48/8, 50/8, 52/8, 53/8, 54/8, 55/8, 56/8, 57/8, 63/8, 64/8, 65/8, 66/8, 67/8, 68/8, 69/8, 70/8, 71/8, 72/8, 73/8, 74/8, 75/8, 76/8, 96/8, 97/8, 98/8, 99/8, 100/8, 104/8, 107/8, 108/8, 128/8, 129/8, 130/8, 131/8, 132/8, 134/8, 135/8, 136/8, 137/8, 138/8, 139/8, 140/8, 142/8, 143/8, 144/8, 146/8, 147/8, 148/8, 149/8, 152/8, 155/8, 156/8, 157/8, 158/8, 159/8, 160/8, 161/8, 162/8, 164/8, 165/8, 166/8, 167/8, 168/8, 169/8, 170/8, 172/8, 173/8, 174/8, 184/8, 192/8, 198/8, 199/8, 204/8, 205/8, 206/8, 207/8, 208/8, 209/8, 214/8, 215/8, 216/8, RIPE Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by RIPE Region ASes: 112707 Total RIPE prefixes after maximum aggregation: 58169 RIPE Deaggregation factor: 1.94 Prefixes being announced from the RIPE address blocks: 115585 Unique aggregates announced from the RIPE address blocks: 74144 RIPE Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 16988 RIPE Prefixes per ASN: 6.80 RIPE Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 8127 RIPE Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 2763 Average RIPE Region AS path length visible: 5.1 Max RIPE Region AS path length visible: 31 Number of RIPE region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 2078 Number of RIPE addresses announced to Internet: 650196324 Equivalent to 38 /8s, 193 /16s and 53 /24s Percentage of available RIPE address space announced: 94.5 RIPE AS Blocks 1877-1901, 2043, 2047, 2107-2136, 2585-2614 (pre-ERX allocations) 2773-2822, 2830-2879, 3154-3353, 5377-5631 6656-6911, 8192-9215, 12288-13311, 15360-16383 20480-21503, 24576-25599, 28672-29695 30720-31743, 33792-35839, 38912-39935 40960-45055, 47104-52223, 56320-58367 59392-61439, 196608-199679 RIPE Address Blocks 2/8, 5/8, 25/8, 31/8, 37/8, 46/8, 51/8, 62/8, 77/8, 78/8, 79/8, 80/8, 81/8, 82/8, 83/8, 84/8, 85/8, 86/8, 87/8, 88/8, 89/8, 90/8, 91/8, 92/8, 93/8, 94/8, 95/8, 109/8, 141/8, 145/8, 151/8, 176/8, 178/8, 185/8, 188/8, 193/8, 194/8, 195/8, 212/8, 213/8, 217/8, LACNIC Region Analysis Summary ------------------------------ Prefixes being announced by LACNIC Region ASes: 45280 Total LACNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 8984 LACNIC Deaggregation factor: 5.04 Prefixes being announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 48812 Unique aggregates announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 23091 LACNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1746 LACNIC Prefixes per ASN: 27.96 LACNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 505 LACNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 327 Average LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.7 Max LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 24 Number of LACNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 722 Number of LACNIC addresses announced to Internet: 120667944 Equivalent to 7 /8s, 49 /16s and 63 /24s Percentage of available LACNIC address space announced: 71.9 LACNIC AS Blocks 26592-26623, 27648-28671, 52224-53247, 262144-263167 plus ERX transfers LACNIC Address Blocks 177/8, 179/8, 181/8, 186/8, 187/8, 189/8, 190/8, 191/8, 200/8, 201/8, AfriNIC Region Analysis Summary ------------------------------- Prefixes being announced by AfriNIC Region ASes: 9844 Total AfriNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 2338 AfriNIC Deaggregation factor: 4.21 Prefixes being announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 10440 Unique aggregates announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 3614 AfriNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 584 AfriNIC Prefixes per ASN: 17.88 AfriNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 186 AfriNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 127 Average AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.6 Max AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 16 Number of AfriNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 6 Number of AfriNIC addresses announced to Internet: 42905600 Equivalent to 2 /8s, 142 /16s and 176 /24s Percentage of available AfriNIC address space announced: 42.6 AfriNIC AS Blocks 36864-37887, 327680-328703 & ERX transfers AfriNIC Address Blocks 41/8, 102/8, 105/8, 154/8, 196/8, 197/8, APNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 4766 2933 11556 905 Korea Telecom (KIX) 17974 2431 826 46 PT TELEKOMUNIKASI INDONESIA 7545 1815 301 90 TPG Internet Pty Ltd 4755 1654 381 171 TATA Communications formerly 9829 1415 1156 42 BSNL National Internet Backbo 9583 1183 88 501 Sify Limited 7552 1138 1062 11 Vietel Corporation 4808 1128 2056 318 CNCGROUP IP network: China169 24560 1035 385 165 Bharti Airtel Ltd., Telemedia 9498 1030 307 69 BHARTI Airtel Ltd. Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-APNIC ARIN Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 7029 3193 994 216 Windstream Communications Inc 6389 3129 3718 139 bellsouth.net, inc. 18566 2082 382 180 Covad Communications 22773 1944 2932 131 Cox Communications, Inc. 1785 1938 678 124 PaeTec Communications, Inc. 20115 1687 1607 623 Charter Communications 4323 1591 1153 395 Time Warner Telecom 30036 1381 291 721 Mediacom Communications Corp 7018 1290 10533 854 AT&T WorldNet Services 7011 1206 321 685 Citizens Utilities Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-ARIN RIPE Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 8402 1765 544 16 Corbina telecom 2118 1424 97 15 EUnet/RELCOM Autonomous Syste 34984 877 211 228 BILISIM TELEKOM 12479 868 777 64 Uni2 Autonomous System 13188 756 95 129 Educational Network 31148 741 38 13 FreeNet ISP 6830 715 2313 436 UPC Distribution Services 20940 712 229 549 Akamai Technologies European 58113 633 70 378 LIR DATACENTER TELECOM SRL 8551 611 367 39 Bezeq International Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-RIPE LACNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ----------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 10620 2264 386 207 TVCABLE BOGOTA 28573 2213 1298 69 NET Servicos de Comunicao S.A 7303 1673 1139 201 Telecom Argentina Stet-France 8151 1599 3016 352 UniNet S.A. de C.V. 6503 1537 435 67 AVANTEL, S.A. 27947 761 85 93 Telconet S.A 3816 661 309 71 Empresa Nacional de Telecomun 18881 608 716 18 Global Village Telecom 11172 603 85 68 Servicios Alestra S.A de C.V 7738 579 1178 33 Telecomunicacoes da Bahia S.A Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-LACNIC AfriNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ------------------------------------------ ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 24863 873 275 36 LINKdotNET AS number 36998 772 48 3 MOBITEL 8452 684 958 13 TEDATA 6713 485 602 20 Itissalat Al-MAGHRIB 24835 291 80 8 RAYA Telecom - Egypt 3741 267 906 225 The Internet Solution 12258 194 28 66 Vodacom Internet Company 15706 191 32 6 Sudatel Internet Exchange Aut 29975 191 667 21 Vodacom 16637 181 697 88 MTN Network Solutions Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-AFRINIC Global Per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 7029 3193 994 216 Windstream Communications Inc 6389 3129 3718 139 bellsouth.net, inc. 4766 2933 11556 905 Korea Telecom (KIX) 17974 2431 826 46 PT TELEKOMUNIKASI INDONESIA 10620 2264 386 207 TVCABLE BOGOTA 28573 2213 1298 69 NET Servicos de Comunicao S.A 18566 2082 382 180 Covad Communications 22773 1944 2932 131 Cox Communications, Inc. 1785 1938 678 124 PaeTec Communications, Inc. 7545 1815 301 90 TPG Internet Pty Ltd Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet Global Per AS Maximum Aggr summary ---------------------------------- ASN No of nets Net Savings Description 6389 3129 2990 bellsouth.net, inc. 17974 2431 2385 PT TELEKOMUNIKASI INDONESIA 28573 2213 2144 NET Servicos de Comunicao S.A 10620 2264 2057 TVCABLE BOGOTA 4766 2933 2028 Korea Telecom (KIX) 18566 2082 1902 Covad Communications 1785 1938 1814 PaeTec Communications, Inc. 22773 1944 1813 Cox Communications, Inc. 8402 1765 1749 Corbina telecom 7545 1815 1725 TPG Internet Pty Ltd Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-CIDRnet List of Unregistered Origin ASNs (Global) ----------------------------------------- Bad AS Designation Network Transit AS Description 61309 UNALLOCATED 5.1.96.0/21 41562 Host4all Sarl 59505 UNALLOCATED 5.2.65.0/24 50673 Serverius AS 59505 UNALLOCATED 5.2.66.0/24 50673 Serverius AS 59530 UNALLOCATED 5.8.182.0/24 31261 GARS Telecom 61408 UNALLOCATED 5.56.0.0/21 174 Cogent Communication 61395 UNALLOCATED 5.83.56.0/22 3292 TDC Tele Danmark 61395 UNALLOCATED 5.83.60.0/22 3292 TDC Tele Danmark 59414 UNALLOCATED 5.102.144.0/21 15576 Nextra backbone in D 59395 UNALLOCATED 5.133.16.0/21 3549 Global Crossing 59407 UNALLOCATED 5.134.16.0/21 51167 Giga-Hosting GmbH Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-badAS Prefixes from private and non-routed address space (Global) ----------------------------------------------------------- Prefix Origin AS Description 128.0.0.0/24 2876 Jump Management SRL 128.0.24.0/21 41794 Altline LLC 128.0.64.0/22 49466 Declic Telecom SAS 128.0.68.0/22 49466 Declic Telecom SAS 128.0.72.0/21 23456 32-bit ASN transition 128.0.80.0/20 52041 Timer LTD 128.0.104.0/23 51848 FOP Gabidullina Ludmila Nikol 128.0.106.0/24 23456 32-bit ASN transition 128.0.128.0/20 29285 AMT closed joint-stock compan 128.0.144.0/22 59675 >>UNKNOWN<< Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-dsua Advertised Unallocated Addresses -------------------------------- Network Origin AS Description 27.112.114.0/24 23884 Proimage Engineering and Comm 41.222.80.0/21 37110 Moztel LDA 41.223.108.0/22 36966 >>UNKNOWN<< 62.12.96.0/19 38478 SunnyVision Limited 62.61.220.0/24 24974 Tachyon Europe BV - Wireless 62.61.221.0/24 24974 Tachyon Europe BV - Wireless 64.66.32.0/20 18864 >>UNKNOWN<< 64.187.208.0/24 174 Cogent Communications 64.187.209.0/24 23005 Power Pulse 65.111.1.0/24 32258 SDN Global Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-add-IANA Number of prefixes announced per prefix length (Global) ------------------------------------------------------- /1:0 /2:0 /3:0 /4:0 /5:0 /6:0 /7:0 /8:18 /9:13 /10:29 /11:87 /12:244 /13:477 /14:857 /15:1544 /16:12483 /17:6562 /18:10967 /19:21593 /20:30927 /21:32879 /22:44170 /23:40758 /24:229702 /25:1349 /26:1744 /27:868 /28:182 /29:80 /30:17 /31:0 /32:26 Advertised prefixes smaller than registry allocations ----------------------------------------------------- ASN No of nets Total ann. Description 7029 2622 3193 Windstream Communications Inc 18566 2032 2082 Covad Communications 6389 1776 3129 bellsouth.net, inc. 8402 1493 1765 Corbina telecom 30036 1288 1381 Mediacom Communications Corp 22773 1276 1944 Cox Communications, Inc. 11492 1147 1183 Cable One 6503 1055 1537 AVANTEL, S.A. 1785 1022 1938 PaeTec Communications, Inc. 7011 954 1206 Citizens Utilities Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-sXXas-nos Number of /24s announced per /8 block (Global) ---------------------------------------------- 1:650 2:715 3:3 4:13 5:687 6:3 8:487 12:1940 13:3 14:701 15:11 16:3 17:6 20:27 23:221 24:1795 27:1435 31:1321 32:54 33:2 34:2 36:7 37:1091 38:844 39:2 40:141 41:2768 42:179 44:3 46:1714 47:3 49:513 50:627 52:12 54:28 55:8 57:28 58:1069 59:553 60:236 61:1307 62:1039 63:2021 64:4370 65:2207 66:4498 67:2081 68:1187 69:3338 70:933 71:557 72:1894 74:2632 75:471 76:290 77:1032 78:1005 79:518 80:1208 81:977 82:633 83:535 84:531 85:1155 86:459 87:960 88:352 89:1741 90:304 91:5362 92:602 93:1664 94:2002 95:1639 96:487 97:322 98:969 99:40 100:31 101:288 103:1922 105:517 106:117 107:202 108:508 109:1699 110:821 111:972 112:461 113:746 114:642 115:901 116:888 117:777 118:965 119:1255 120:376 121:679 122:1723 123:1173 124:1322 125:1291 128:551 129:200 130:300 131:641 132:319 133:142 134:255 135:62 136:215 137:234 138:343 139:167 140:181 141:301 142:510 143:355 144:493 145:89 146:521 147:294 148:738 149:331 150:153 151:237 152:399 153:187 154:22 155:441 156:229 157:380 158:257 159:677 160:335 161:419 162:377 163:193 164:584 165:450 166:475 167:567 168:993 169:131 170:1006 171:164 172:6 173:1704 174:626 175:443 176:870 177:1484 178:1743 180:1351 181:185 182:1123 183:301 184:632 185:125 186:2107 187:1465 188:1893 189:1606 190:6154 192:6094 193:5819 194:4653 195:3656 196:1244 197:284 198:3998 199:5157 200:6014 201:2030 202:8839 203:8731 204:4477 205:2572 206:2780 207:2825 208:4072 209:3661 210:2897 211:1528 212:2101 213:1871 214:888 215:74 216:5176 217:1606 218:596 219:320 220:1257 221:542 222:336 223:365 End of report

9 years, 6 months

Re: [pacnog] [Pacific IGF] WCIT 12 ICANN and ITU

by Bill Woodcock

>> Given the disorder and confusion surrounding the process during the last plenary session, I'm not sure the news is quite as good as it's being portrayed in this article. 8^) Some more news coverage: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57558819-93/exclusive-itu-failed-says-form… A former telecommunications policy maker at the international organization, which is holding talks in Dubai to expand regulation of the Internet, warns that the group's conference is "absolutely absurd." The International Telecommunication Union is "the most failed body in the history of international telecommunications," a former policy chief has told CNET, describing secret talks, Russia's close involvement with the group, and the ITU's Global Cybersecurity Agenda. https://www.cdt.org/blogs/ellery-biddle/1212wcit-watch-day-10-definitely-ab… Confusion reigned as the 10th day of WCIT debate staggered to a close (at 1:29AM local time on Day 11), with Conference Chairman Mohammed Nasser Al Ghanim muscling a contentious resolution on the Internet through a “temperature-taking” process that left some bewildered delegates feeling feverish. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121212/23365121371/itu-goes-back-multipl… In response to all of the earlier criticisms and to stave off ongoing criticism, ITU officials had made a few promises leading up to the World Conference on International Communications (WCIT). Among them: (1) changes to International Telecom Regulations (ITRs) would be done via consensus, rather than simple majority vote and (2) that the whole thing was not about internet governance. In one move, the ITU appears to have proved both of those claims to be blatantly false. -Bill

9 years, 6 months

Current Status of WCIT Votes

by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro

Hi, This is what is being reported - awaiting detailed publication but here's what's being said from Civil Society who are monitoring the situation vote 77 for, 33 against, 8 abstained Kind Regards -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851

9 years, 6 months

WCIT 12 ICANN and ITU

by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro

*A new season of cooperation between ICANN and ITU* December 5, 2012 · by itu4u <http://itu4u.wordpress.com/author/itu4u/> · in Broadband <http://itu4u.wordpress.com/category/broadband/>, Lee-Roy Chetty<http://itu4u.wordpress.com/category/contributors/lee-roy-chetty/>, WCIT-12 <http://itu4u.wordpress.com/category/wcit-12/> **** [image: Description: ICANN_ITU]<http://itu4u.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/icann_itu.jpg>The World Conference on International Telecommunications<http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/default.aspx>( #WCIT-12 <https://twitter.com/search?q=%23WCIT12&src=typd>) currently taking place in Dubai is now in full swing.**** A number of high ranking officials and dignitaries are in attendance at the conference, including Mohamed Nasser Al-Ghanim, Director-General of the UAE Telecommunications Regulatory Authority <http://www.tra.gov.ae/index.php>and Chairman of the Conference; Fadi Chehadé, President and CEO of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers <http://www.icann.org/> (ICANN); and ITU <http://www.itu.int/en/pages/default.aspx> Secretary-General, Dr. Hamadoun I. Touré.**** Addressing what he described as a historic opening ceremony, Fadi Chehadé is on record stating that his presence at WCIT-12 is due to his and ICANN’s firm belief in the power of engagement.**** Mr. Chehadé went on to say that it is a new season of engagement at ICANN<http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Documents/speech-wcit-12-chehade.pdf>, and for cooperation between ICANN and ITU, which started recently at a meeting with Dr. Touré at the Internet Governance Forum<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/>in Baku. **** ICANN – under Mr. Chehadé’s stewardship – has recognized ITU’s deep impact on the development of the telecommunication industry and broadband infrastructure, which has specifically impacted the developing world tremendously.**** Mr. Chehadé believes that ITU and ICANN have complementary functions to facilitate and in the future, will cooperate in good spirit, while clearly respecting each organization’s distinct roles.**** ICANN therefore – along with other Internet organizations, which include; ISOC <https://www.internetsociety.org/> (the Internet Society), IETF<http://www.ietf.org/>(the Internet Engineering Task Force), and other regional Internet registries – plan to continue their deep commitment to servicing the world’s needs for Internet governance.**** Mr. Chehadé also added that when building any organization, there are two options. You could either build it as a fortress or as an oasis.**** ICANN chooses the latter option when it comes to their organization.**** The President and CEO of ICANN pointed out that oases are open and vital, and that it is important to remove the walls, open the windows, and build organizations that are welcoming and transparent.**** Dr. Touré thanked ICANN and Mr. Chehadé as well as Steve Crocker, ICANN’s Chairman, for accepting the invitation to come to WCIT-12.**** Dr. Touré said he looked forward to the exciting opportunities that lie ahead <http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/speech-toure.aspx> and all that can be achieved by ITU and ICANN together, in a positive spirit of collaboration.**** This is indeed a welcome development and bodes well for the world’s users who can only benefit from such strengthened cooperation. A good news story to watch and one the ITU4U will be sure to return to.**** For more highlights from the WCIT-12 opening week, please visit http://www.itu.int/osg/wcit-12/highlights/dec03.html**** [image: Description: medium_chetty]<http://itu4u.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/medium_chetty.png>By: Lee-Roy Chetty<http://itu4u.wordpress.com/category/contributors/lee-roy-chetty/> **** Lee-Roy Chetty is a proud citizen of the Republic of South Africa. He works as a researcher and writer for ITU**** ** ** -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851

9 years, 6 months

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

pacnog December 2012