>> MACARENA: Thank you to all participants. -- -- We ask the presenters to the messages sent to keep an eye on the time and my name is Macarena Segal and I will be your master of ceremonies and the rest of the staff will be available to help and you can follow or ask questions in the chat and in order to allow the participation to the greatest number of people, we're going to offer simultaneous translation in Spanish, English and Portuguese which will allow the participants to have a greater access to the information you can also access the web. --- to try to reach as many participants as possible and as a tool to support the better understanding of the presentation we will be providing simultaneous transcription of these sessions in three languages, Spanish, English and Portuguese and to see the live transfer go to the event website and look for the language of your choice in the simultaneous conscription menu. --- And now I welcome the moderators of the forum for policies. >> ARIEL: Thank you for being with us in this forum. >> TOMAS: Thank you for the participation of 172 people; this is an important discussion because it will help to shape the policies to be followed unfortunately given the events that are happening we have seven policies that are under discussion but we'll only talk about three of them and one of them. One of them has been presented before in LACNIC 2 and now we will be talking about two new policies; and with the remaining four, depending on how the committee feels with this forum we'll see how to present them at some point. --- And now we move to the presentation for today with Ariel. >> ARIEL: This is the first online forum and we have an email list where these policies are debated; and from there if you are looking at the web-based you see the code to enroll and it is not necessary to be a member of LACNIC to participate in this discussion. It is also not necessary to have resources the only thing that is required is an email address and as moderators we'll evaluate the general agreement about each policy and we will explain what each policy means in more detail. What are we talking about when we look for a consensus? The definition of consensus is that any proposal regardless of how simple or sure it is must be supported by significant opinions after a broad discussion and that there are no irrefutable technical objections; we do not measure how many people vote in favor or against but it is necessary to have enough support and that all proposals are broadly discussed and their must not be any technical objection that is valid. So it doesn't matter if there are 10,000 people in favor, if there is only one technical objection that cannot be overcome that means there is no consensus and the proposal will not proceed to become a policy. --- so as to not to elaborate what happened since LACNIC32? Four policies were implemented, LA-2019-2, 3, 4, 6, and you can see the link for each one of them. And they were ratified last year -- And were ratified last year -- three proposals for ratified, 2018-5, 2019-5, 9. And an abandoned proposal, 2020-2, modification of the number of moderators of the PDP from 2 to 3. It was due to the decision of the author because he changed jobs and did not want to continue to working as the author so somebody will like to take this up we can talk about this again. --- So as I said, we want to continue with three and the rest be evaulated. >> Hello? Am I in mute? No? Okay. Hello, sorry. How does the FPP work online? Not this one. >> TOMAS: The author of each proposal will make a presentation and we allow the author to explain to the best of his abilities is proposal within 7 minutes and after that we will analyze the impact resented by the staff and how does LACNIC propose to implement the proposal and then we will have 10 minutes to discuss; with the first one probably we'll have to discuss this longer. It is important that you direct your questions through the Q&A chat -- we have a slide with the questions and answers depending on the version of Zoom that you have. The author will have 2 minutes to respond to each question. Carlos Martinez handle this process. And then we have a break after 2019-7. And then return. All the times are UTC time. Then we'll see 2011, 2012, Ariel be the moderator and then we'll have the community ratify this and then we'll have an open mic through the Q&A in Zoom. --- These are the worst that are not allowed in your comments: Vote, to vote instead of "take the temperature in the room." "Policy" instead of "proposal. "NIC" instead of "LACNIC". And with this we begin with one of the authors, Jordi who talk about 2019-7 v5. >> JORDI: Can you hear me? >> TOMAS: Yes I can. >> JORDI: Since we have only a few minutes I don't want to talk about the entire text and just summarize some of the important points and I've included the entire text and compare it with the PDP in the slides that are already published. So the summary is this. Establish some changes to the PDP process for the election of the moderators. if we look at the PDP now, there are two sections, 3.2.2 about who can be moderator and 3.2.3 to describe the process for electing these moderators and what is the change? When we have seen that the voting electoral process in LACNIC have been interfered maliciously and the normal functioning of the policies has been interrupted which is not appropriate. So these things have required us to change our procedures and not have candidates that are taking advantage of the interruption in the list and somehow are being discriminated against by other candidates that behave well. --- What are the changes that I propose? In the first two sections I list who can be a moderator and what I'm looking for the define the incompatibility of roles and this again is just a summary, the idea is that if logically for example a person in the community who is in the LACNIC directorate it is not logical for him to be also a moderator because the directorate handles things like ratify policies or handling appeals so it is not make sense of the same person would be evolved different faces of the same process because then the appeals process will not make sense. Like in the judicial system, you cannot be them both sides. --- so we also want to encourage to have moderators from different countries. And we want them to be from two different organizations to avoid anyone organization's monopoly. --- Current to moderators can be elected for indefinite periods of time and I think that there should be frequent changes; moderators are defined as having their duty for two years and I'm porposing a four-year process, two years for first election and two for re-election and then they be required to make a pause after four years. What I propose is that a candidate must them straight certain experience and to have participated in minimum of six months in the list and I'm not asking that the participate actively because it is hard to measure but at least they have to be on the list prior to this. --- And finally and this is an important process, they must explain in their campaign what are they offering and what information does the community need to evaluate? It's not just about presenting a resume that may have nothing to do with deposit but what else is a person doing that are related to our policies that provide at least a minimum experience to be a moderator. --- And on the other hand, nowadays it is not clear -- and this is something that we've been discussed over the last two days -- that the electoral process be under the response ability of the directorate and I think this next to be clear, the delegate these duties to an electoral commission. We must be clear that the directorate offers the last appeal and we must avoid electoral fraud. It is also important that a person voting must be a member by six months because you don't want to have 100 friends sign-up the day before the election and I'm also modifying some periods and details and I'm going to add a graphic without entering into the digital but this is the idea. electoral process begins three months before and the rest of the processes on the slide, it is not necessary to go into detail. And now Sergio will have the impact analysis. >> SERGIO: Thank you. This is the impact analysis of LAC-2019-7 for the moderator role. The people who cannot be applying for the role are the people in the directorate or who are staff at LACNIC. And lastly, we recommend to revise the restrictions on the candidates because there are few candidates for this role; we have to take into account that the process will not allow candidates from the same country and so that limits even more having more candidates. The proposal will not have anything changes in the LACNIC systems. >> Ariel, Tomas, can you make comments? >> One minute, yes. >> JORDI: The process was made by the electoral commission and I agree up until certain point; the community must decide how much they want to deal with the details of the electoral process and my second issue is the incompatibility of functions and to me there is another role and perhaps we have found an error in the manual. The PDP also utilizes there is a global proposal and under my point of view the role in ICANN, says they have to ratify a global proposal it might be incompatible with this and so there is an interpretation difficulty because in the PDP we do not identify that the global policies follow the same PDP but we use them and that is another aspect of the not change what I'm proposal but rather we have to take other changes and as far as the limitations and countries it says that the moderators cannot be from the same country or same organizations unless there are no other candidate so this is not a strict limitations so logically must get preference when they come from different countries and if we have elections next year and we only see Tomas and -- and there are no other candidates, there will be no other options. That is all. Thanks. >> TOMAS: Now we will have a discussion like we asked earlier and there are two people with their hands raised. If you would like to make a comment is through the Q&A that appears in the Zoom menu. Let's open the space, 10 minutes and probably this will be longer, a topic with a lot of discussions so I'm passing this on to Carlos Martinez. >> I have one commentary, it is extensive so I'm going to summarize. Ricardo says that he has opposed this is a very version; there are things that are disquieting for him. He understands that there were different versions and there was no progress and he says this might create legal issues and there are things that have only been defined in other processes. his recommendation is that the policy be abandoned. There is a question that just arrived let me change tabs. Ricardo also says that the -- Ratifies global politics. >> Ricardo is correct on that. >> CARLOS: Please make brief comments. >> JORDI: Quickly because we have discussed this 100,000 times. The idea is to publish comments not a decisions and the electoral committee can decide whether to publish them or to even verify them. the norm does not require this, it simply says you can do so and if the electoral committee receives a comment that says maybe someone has been jailed and cannot be a moderator and this is public information it is obvious that the electoral committee can say that this person is disqualified because it was spent 10 years in prison and this is something that is obvious and reasonable. What Ricardo says about other processes defined in other places I've explain this before; The community is sovereign and it is our decision is a committee and it has nothing to do with LACNIC as an organization. It is logical that the organization oppose if it causes serious damage, or legal or financial hardship which is not the case. >> Carlos? >> TOMAS: Second comment. I think that the publishing by the parties about a candidate can be eliminated but I agree with the main points, 3.3.2 and 3.3.23 the additional text. >> CARLOS: Dice -- Ricardo says, this is public? >> JORDI: No, that would be entirely the opinion of the committee, for example if someone is jailed that information is public and we can ask for the background information. there are situations where we will ask you to do whatever you think is proper, we are not forcing you; If you want to vote for somebody in jail you can do so, we do not require you to do otherwise. >> TOMAS: Carlos? >> CARLOS: Fernando says, I'm in favor but if there is a new presentation I propose to remove or simplifying the part about third-party comments. Do you want to comment? >> Jordi: If he says that they could be a new version it does not making sense. >> CARLOS: Ricardo says it's not like that, you're trying to simplify. >> JORDI: To be able -- is a very specific phrase in Spanish. >> JORDI: We went over 5 minutes. >> TOMAS: So let's take the room temperature. >> ARIEL: According to the agenda we have one more minute. >> CARLOS: Arturo says the policy adds more complexity and do not offer any new benefit, the issue in question has already been decided by the electoral committee so it is not necessary to do anything at the PDP level. >> JORDI: I can easily respond; the abuses happened three years ago and since then nothing has a modified so this is what I think we need to do. >> TOMAS: Now let's take the room temperature, sorry Ricardo that you asked another question. In Zoom you will see the voting. You now see a survey where you can respond what you think about the proposal. We are issuing acomment on LAC 2019-7 v5. Panelists cannot vote. >> We're commenting whether we are in favor, against or we abstain. We now have more than 200 people participating. >> JORDI: It's a record. >> TOMAS: Yesterday during IPv6 we had 400. >> JORDI: I was referring to the forum. I think we should all stop traveling and keep getting together like this. >> TOMAS: Maybe this is a better way to work. >> JORDI: We could have greater participation. >> ARIEL: One more minute. >> JORDI: We need a counter to see the votes. I'm joking about the 3-4 minutes that we have to wait. >> Panelists and staff cannot vote. >> TOMAS: For everyone, the results are now on the record. I'd like to sday that the proposal 2019-7 v.5 in its initial discussion will comply with the required waiting period on the 28th of May. And then the moderators will reach consensus so we invite you to continue the discussion on the list of policies. >> JORDI: Thank you everyone. >> TOMAS: Thanks Jordi for your participation. Now we have a break if I'm not mistak en. >> MACARENA: We invite you to take a 10-min. break. Don't disconnect. >> JORDI: We're missing the virtual coffee machine. >> TOMAS: I have a tea pot. >> [Descanso de 10 minutos] >> MACARENA: Welcome to the more than 180 participants in the policies forum. >> ARIEL: Let's invite Edmundo Casares for the next proposal, the author will have 7 minutes to explain his proposal. >> Good afternoon. My proposal is very simple; it doesn't propose big changes. For just want to change the ASN for end users. Many end users with it oh require an ASN and they do not need to use this. Or simply they don't want it in some see this as a requirement, and sometimes they simply do not continue with their application to join when we tell them that they require an ANF. This is the current policy with two paragraphs and in the first part we establish the requirement to have an autonomous number, will and I propose a change the wording like this, Not requiring the ANF any more. This is the entire proposal and here's the text for the proposal. >> Thank you Edmundo. Now Sergio will establish the impact analysis, four minutes, >> SERGIO: Thank you Ariel, can you see me? This proposal does not have very many changes, it simply eliminates the requirement that end-users should have an autonomous system and many times and in user centered does not require this, but that does not mean that they don't have to advertise this but not necessarily through an autonomous system, they could use another system, so there are no significant changes and we do have a recommendation. If the proposal is approved and ratified, there will be small systems in the LACNIC system. That is all. >> ARIEL: It was a brief presentation. Thank you Sergio. We invite you to share your comments and questions. Carlos will help. >> CARLOS: We have four comments. Sergio from Telefonica -- says, if the end-user does not have AND but only signatures, how would the signature be? Edmundo? >> I don't know how you would sign. >> I think I can reply. Jordi is against. We have an example with Covid-19, many entities have needed the connection service; the service (indiscernible) and the cost of an ASN is minimal. Edmundo? >> We're talking about different circumstances and different places; unfortunately not every country is homogenous and not every user is a missing circumstance and this is why we can talk about what amount of money is considered insignificant. Also there are many places where there are end-users that do not have any more providers; but there are different concentrations of providers in different regions and sometimes there is no more than one provider so the minimum is not acceptable. I think it's a good thing to have two lings and be able to do PDP and other things. >> CARLOS: Fernando says, it does not make sense to have an organization receive an assignment but no ANF. (indiscernible) Fernando says that (indiscernible) -- I don't think it should be eliminated because every IP assignment must be announced. The solution is not to charge for the ANF but this must be discussed by the assembly. Edmundo? >> EDMUNDO: The providers probably have the capability and they talk about this bed for many users they do not have the desire to manage a network and they pay for services and the only one for the services to work. It's a reality; the majority of end-users on the Internet do not care to know what protocol or how the services they provided or if they are using BGP or whatever, all they want is for their Internet to work and for this to work as well as possible when they need it and because of this many of those end-users are not going to manage a network but they still need the addresses for the network to work. >> CARLOS: another comment from Roger, what would happen if tomorrow the applicant needs the autonomous system in the future because of changing need? Is this considered? >> There are no limitations. >> CARLOS: Silvia Chavez from Mexico says it should not be limited by we should support the end-user to see what the needs are and then decide whether to grant the ANF or not. >> CARLOS: Sergio -- from Mexico says I like the proposal because it allows portability to the end-user. >> Thank you for the support Sergio. >> ARIEL: It would be very good if those who may come into and Q&A express their support or not. >> CARLOS: (indiscernible). Nancy Cordoba -- the assignment should not have an (indiscernible) -- (reading very fast). Jordi says this should be resolved by the membership and not because of poor practices in our policies. The addresses can be assigned by the ISP (indiscernible). Jorge -- I propose (indiscernible), utilized or not, free of charge to maintain good practices. >> ARIEL: Would anybody like to make any other comments? >> Can you hear me? I understand that in your role as secretary you do not want to to provide more information but to avoid leaving some unanswered items, in my role of being in the registry service, I'd like to add that the MILACNIC platform allows resources to be a sign that only with IPs. -- (indiscernible). >> TOMAS: >> CARLOS: At what percentage should the cost be reduced and under what circumstances? >> Well that is not part of the proposal. Just the requirement have to assign an autonomous number. >> CARLOS: Having IP addresses and ISPs is what is recommended but it is not cast in stone. (indiscernible) could be negative. >> TOMAS: We need to incentivize this option more. A couple of people are in favor. Samuel Santos, I support the proposal, would help the small private initiatives in Guatemala. I confirm what Sergio said, we can only do this with the support from the provider. Carmen Denis, in favor. Rafael, against. >> ARIEL: If you have a comment please make it now. >> CARLOS: If the problem is the cost, I want it removed. (indiscernible) I'm not just reading the ones in favor. They're all recorded. -- I approve the proposal, a common situation in Latin American countries. Fernando Fredianni says this is a one-time charge and should not be the dealbreaker. >> ARIEL: Thank you everyone for sharing your opinion so let's take the room temperature. There were some people that said that they did not receive the survey; let's try to see what happened. And how this work during this next survey. Zoom will give you the option to vote. We don't really vote, just take the room temperature. And the consensus is evaluated with the forum comments and this is not a voting process so let's proceed to the survey. And we will provide a few minutes for this. >> TOMAS: Be sure to turn off any pop-up blocks. We now have 212 participants. >> Lots of questions. >> ARIEL: Brief presentations allow for more time for questions. >> TOMAS: Lia Solis says that the survey did not show up in her mobile phone but on the computer it did. And Nick says, pop-up blockers is not the issue; Arturo says that the pop-up is not coming through; that are two people With their hands raised. About the proposal should be done in the Q&A but you can also send a email to the forum mailing list if you need to. >> ARIEL: We're closing the survey. The propsal LAC 2019-11 v.1 has already met it's eight-week winning time and so now the moderators to communicate the results to the community so we encourage you to continue the discussion. >> CARLOS: I'd like to ask that everyone speak slower because simultaneous interpretation is is having trouble following. >> TOMAS: We will continue on with the third proposal, LAC 2019-12 v2 and the author is Ricardo Patara and he has 7 minutes to explain the proposal. >> Can you hear me? Good. Thanks to everyone it is a pleasure to be here in this virtual form; the truth is that I miss you all and the environment. The idea is something that came from a similar proposal presented in another region. It is something that basically allows LACNIC to emit documents called routing authorization objects with ASN 0 and I'd like to explain what this is. This signal lysis and organization that a group of IPs cannot be used. RPKI is a digital certificate infrastructure with its own structure and information about its resources and the ASNs assigned to an organization, responsible for the certificate and also to create a hierarchy by validating the certificates and documents that I mentioned. And in addition when there is an assignment generated automatically in that model of the RPKI for that organization shown in the certificate and the destination can generate documents but it can also validate objects and announcements; it is a form of avoiding problems in the routing table. ROAs have IP blocks and ASN with which you can originate the roots and the users on the other hand are called Relaying Parties that validate the information of the roots against the RPKI system and if there is a ROA that coincides with the announcement it is marked as a valid route and there is a match. There are other circumstances where this can take place. What is the proposal? Adding a section in definitions for IP blocks that are not assigned or cannot be utilized. I propose that LACNIC designate rules for these IPs that have not been assigned according to the RPKI protocol. Any ROA that has ASN0 is a signal that it cannot be used. And in the proposal we see very simple wording so that when LACNIC assigns an IP block the ROA is removed and a new ROA is generated. When the designation is made we take out that IP block and assign who will be responsible for issuing and you ROA> The proposal would allow LACNIC to continue being in church and to determine the amount of ROAS, the validity and the maximum values accepting roots from a prefix X to I and all that will be up to LACNIC to define. --- the purpose is to facilitate the filtering of loss of not been assigned and today there are ways of doing this but it requires a certain workload to verify what was assigned and what was not so this was done automatically and for people who use RPKI as a validator for the routes. --- That's it, thank you for your attention and I'm available for questions. >> Now without mute. Thank you Ricardo, I liked the previous background that you used before. Sergio will talk about the impact. >> SERGIO: Can you tell me if you see it? >> Yes Sergio. >> SERGIO: Good. This would apply to the resources that are not distributed or are pending to be assigned. And the proposal is to create objects with zero ROA for objects not distributed or not assigned and we have a few recommendations and this is what you see here, three points also published in the LACNIC forum, politicas.lacnic.net. It's not clear what it means maximum values and prefix validity. Ricardo comments that it would be the possibility of LACNIC he proposes that we be more specific and improve the text here. The second issue says that we recommend the text in the last paragraph where it says LACNIC will invalidate ROAs that have such resources and will issue new ones where the resource will not apply. And our third point is that we recommend to mold the text that says, " the parser transmit RPKI would look at this ROA as an introduction to validate the roots for the prefixes in the network that appear in it and we are posted to put this in another part. If this proposal is approved and ratified it will require significant changes in the RPKI structure. That's it. please put them there and not in the main chat. I'm leaving you with Carlos. >> CARLOS: Thank you Tomas. We have a few questions already. I'd like to remind you that all Q&A text, if favor; He says it is important to mark those RPKI that is not being utilized. Fernando says that LACNIC will create authorizations Which becomes an obligation and only LACNIC would have the authority to create ROAs, because it is something permanent in the manual. >> Regarding the first comment, The first version was like this allowing LACNIC the right to create and that changed to "it will create the authorization," an authorization to create ROAs. And what I wanted to say was that LACNIC would create ROAs only for the object under its responsibility. You do not have in your certificate any blocks that are not assigned to your custody. It's more for formalizing this. >> CARLOS: Jordi is in support, not in favor in version 1 but my comments have been incorporated in the latest vesion and I'm in favor. There are errors in the (indiscernible) -- these recommendations do not cause a problem. Max mentions that it could be promoted in other areas; Max says that could be in other (indiscernible). Ricardo? >> Yes, that is something interesting, and in some way it's already like this although it is not a global proposal because global instructions with ICANN are instructions to (indiscernible) but it is not a global proposal so it is interesting for the (indiscernible). AFRINIC also has some discussions in progress so the community in some form will benefit because it looks to me like the idea is interesting. It is something that we already see happening. >> CARLOS: Sergio from Mexico asks, what happens with the prefixes assigned by LACNIC to NILs (sounds like)? >> That is an interesting question; there are two things to say. Nowadays the pull from IPv4 is unique; it's under the LACNIC control and he could issue the ROAs for the IPv4 prefixes without problems. For IPv6, it's not a unique pull. It will still be under LACNIC's control and it could be coordinated the same way it is done elsewhere so I cIt as a article issue. >> The proposal changed from the community and they now ask the (indiscernible) to create a file instead of using the (indiscernible). The right committee cannot reach consensus. In RIPE, Natalie says, the authors change the proposal based on the feedback received from the community and now the proposal instead of asking RIPE to create ROAs with 0, that it create a slang (sounds like) file for ROAs. I don't know if the term "slang file" is a text archive that is not signed but it could be used as a white list or blacklist in a validator. >> Thank you Carlos for the explanation. Important. I have already followed the comments in the community and there are people who don't want to issue ROAs with access zero but from my point of view this is a culture that is already there and the validators would not have trouble creating a structure. There is already a validity chain in place. >> CARLOS: Jordi says that we can also create the system mentioned by Natalie, but it is not signed and does not generate any security information. Segio makes two comments, I prefer to have ASC 0 than the archive. Sergio also says, this coordination between NIRs and LACNIC should be in the policy. >> I don't think so. these are operational details that could change. >> Two more minutes for questions or comments and more. I'd like to thank everyone for the comments and questions and we would like to take the room temperature online. We remind you that the Zoom tool will give you the option to vote but we are not voting we are simply taking the temperature and the survey results simply indicate whether the proposal moves to consensus or not. this should not be considered as a voting process, so we are measuring the room temperature. We have four minutes. >> TOMAS: We will see what the consensus of who will proceed. We have 216 participants now. Almost a constant rate of 200+ participants. Thank you for that. I'd like to thank everyone for participating. Jordi complains. He says that they have an advantage because they knew beforehand. Not everyone; Ariel found out last night. Two more minutes. >> CARLOS: Explain Carlos. >> TOMAS: I was talking about the survey. >> CARLOS: Looks to me like a proposal stays. >> ARIEL: >> RICARDO: It would be interesting to see who is in opposition in the list of policies. >> TOMAS: Who will "sing"? Since I'm losing, (indiscernible) will be chosen at the end. Thanks for participating in 2019- RPKI y and the proposal has met the required eight weeks and so in two weeks the moderators will notify the community. And now we want to move to Ariel's ratification. He's been reelected and under our current policies we must as moderators need to ask the community if various an objection to the electronic process through which he has been reelected as co-moderator of the policy forum and if there are any objections to his post this in the Q&A and I will give you 2 minutes to do that. >> TOMAS: (Commenting on how slow one minute is.) Jordi says that if doesn't sing he won't be ratified. There are no comments. We could do that and thus I don't have to sing. I am the only moderator and ratify Ariel as co-moderator, he will continue in this role for two more years. We could applaud. But all we have is raising our hands. Let's congratulate him for the elction. >> ARIEL: Thank you all, there are many people with raised hands. If you wish to make comments please put them in the Q&A box. >> TOMAS: They are applauding you, with one hand. >> A pirate's applause. >> TOMAS: Great, all yours Ariel. >> ARIEL: Okay, having discussed all three proposals and before we close we would like to give the opportunity for any commission member to make any comment or question regarding the proposals. We have five minutes for the Q&A. >> CARLOS: I have no comments on the Q&A. >> TOMAS: They keep asking via private chat that I sing songs by Rafael. That would be too much, besides I'm a fan of the Gypsy Prince. >> CARLOS: A couple of comments. Jordi commented it is important to clarify (indiscernible) the importance of a poll and it only works on the web and not on the mobile phone although some people did say that they did see this in their mobile phones. The poll is only a tool. Fernando says that he hopes his methodology will be adopted permanently because it is obvious that it improves participation. Valerie Romero says that this was a great presentation with a good debate and participation. I think that this on my format is important to repeat as a complement to the events in person and it is important to leave the microphone open so that participants can speak as if they were in the same room. >> ARIEL: We have learned a lot ao about the online forum. We hope that we'll be able to continue to do this. We have one more Mafalda minute. >> TOMAS: The community wants us both to sing. Jorge? >> CARLOS: I have two additional comments. This is a good exercise for those of us who are beginning to participate in this form policies and Nancy agrees that some of the policies are too lengthy and not clear. >> TOMAS: There is a change in the room temperature and they want Carlos to sing because he did not have his video on. >> CARLOS: I was told that elsewhere so here is my video, my apologies to my Mafalda hair cut due to the obvious reasons. Eduardo says congratulations to everyone for their participation and the organization of this forum. >> TOMAS: That's good. >> ARIEL: Well, we're ready to close before we transfer the microphone to the staff we conclude the first online policy forum and we would like to thank all of the authors and the staff and the people who participated and those who asked questions, thank you for everyone, this was a challenge particular for the staff who worked very hard to polish as much as possible this process so we could make it happen and it was very successful I think and thank you for grading the sessions. Tomas? >> TOMAS: The LACNIC staff has worked very hard, and as community members the support was constant, there are always things that we can do better but the moderators and LACNIC are all very happy with this. >> ARIEL: An applause is warranted, it was great work. >> TOMAS: I'm going to sing. (music). (singing). Thanks to everyone. >> MACARENA: Thank you for your presentations. We have concluded today and the presentations have been published on the website event and the next hours the video and the transcription in the appropriate language will also be posted. You can also download the event and stay up-to-date on the permission and thank you all for participants in in this first online LACNIC with more than 190 participants in tomorrow will begin at 14 UTC and you will also receive the Zoom link and password and we ask you to use the email that you used today to register.