22nd May, 2023

Opening Plenary

2I p.m.

MIRJAM KUEHNE: Welcome, everyone. There is still people coming in so waiting one moment. I don't hear a bell but I think there's staff running around getting people into the room. I hope you can all find space. I can't believe we are filling this conference centre and getting bigger and bigger every year, I will show you some numbers ‑ quite impressive.

All right. Let's get started, I think most people have found the seat. My name is Mirjam Kuhne, I am the Chair of the RIPE meeting and we had Niall here but now he has disappeared again. Niall O'Reilly, he is the vice‑chair of the RIPE community, we have been in office since September 2020 and we are basically here to help you run this meeting or facilitate this meeting so if there's anything, find us

NIALL O'REILLY: Now you know who we are.

MIRJAM KUEHNE: Exactly. You may leave again, thank you: Now, Niall is going to help monitor the Meetecho chat also and I am doing things in the background.

This is the 86th meeting already, 86th RIPE meeting. We have been in Rotterdam here in RIPE 79, just before the pandemic was the last meeting before we went for the online so it's great to be back in a bigger venue now, brand new venue, we have now actually participants both online and off‑line ‑‑ online and here on‑site from 67 countries, which is quite amazing. We have people from 25 countries here at the meeting physically at the moment, these are kind of statistics I just got before the session so I'm sure people will still come in during the week. We have in total 1150 registrations both here on‑site and on‑line and furthermore 350 newcomers and we had a great session earlier today, many new people, lots of stud etc., many people from the country but, 466 have already checked in at the moment, I still see people coming in and they will be ‑‑ there will be more people coming during the week, I'm sure.

Now, coincidentally today also marks the 50th year of Ethernet and I was told, I was looking that up, it's 22nd May, 50 years ago it was first mentioned in by Robert Metcalf somewhere so I just thought a piece of history here relevant to this community.

Back to the present. This is the meeting plan for this week. The most up to date meeting plan is always online, you have a meeting plan also here on your badge, some things might still change, for instance, we swapped the rooms for the BoFs incase you are confused, but just always double‑check the one on the website.

But in general, you know the drill, Monday, Tuesday is usually plenary sessions. Wednesday and Thursdays are Working Group sessions and then in the afternoon Thursday we have a Community Plenary and that was a session which I will come back to. On Friday we have more plenary sessions so it's a packed agenda again and a lots of interesting topics.

Just to make sure you are all aware of this, I think you should have seen and registered, checked when you registered, we have a RIPE Code of Conduct in place for sometime already. Remember to treat eachother with respect, we have quite a diverse community, different genders, religions everything, listen to each other, be tolerant of each other. I am super happy to announce the very first Code of Conduct team we ever had, you remember we had trusted contacts before that were available to you to go if something went wrong or you felt the Code of Conduct was breached but now we have actually a Code of Conduct team, these are the people, they are all here except for Randy who is online but the team has had training, they have communications set up, there's the mailing list, there's a forum you can use so don't hesitate to contact them either here during the meeting or use some of the on‑line channels where you can reach them.

And I would like to really thank also the trusted contacts that have served us so long for so many years while we were getting this ‑‑ the documentation in place for the RIPE Code of Conduct reporting and the RIPE Code of Conduct teams and I would also like to thank the trucked contact Taffe to help us get through the community and we have all relevant documentation now published as RIPE documents and I have sent them to the list before the meeting.

More faces here, these are the current Working Group Chairs that you will see later during the week, in the various Working Group sessions. Some Working Groups will also ‑‑ are looking for new co‑chairs and will hold selections during the Working Group sessions so your chance if you are interested in some of the Working Groups to maybe become a Working Group Chair and contribute more actively to the community.

And there's one Working Group I'm not allowed to talk about and I tried to ‑‑ at the last RIPE meeting to tip the rail a little bit, not looking at anybody in particular, a bit of a presentation I try to demistify that Secret Working Group at the last meeting, I thought I would do something different at the beginning of the week. Now is the time for you to think about if you might want to contribute something because this is really the way for us as a community to also self‑reflect, look at ourselves, see if there's funny going on and be creative during the week. We have set up this e‑mail address that you can contribute your input to and magically the Secret Working Group will form and react and handle the input. So this is a call for you to think and be creative during the week and observe the meeting.

Now, apart from this, I just wanted to put some highlights on the screen of topics, we have the usual topics that the RIPE community is dealing with but I noticed there's also some topics that will be recurring, more on public policy, more EU regulations that will come back during the plenary but also during the Working Group sessions and I think that's a topic that will stay with us and we as a community need to be alert and aware of the increasing number of regulations and proposed legislations that are coming our way that might affect our community and the Internet infrastructure at large. So I am glad there's a lot of activities going on in the RIPE community to monitor these developments, and you will see that coming back on the agenda.

And yeah, you see some other topics here that you will see back on the agenda during the week.
One of which we will come back, in the diversity session on Thursday after the Community Plenary, there's a diversity and tech session, this time we want to focus on age diversity, so a different aspect and encouraging youth and young people to come to our meetings. I was very pleased so see so many young people at the newcomers tutorial, and so we are going to have a discussion about that, how we can include you more and what we can do better or different in the future to get more new people on board.

This is not a new person, this was our first Chair on the slide, Rob Blokzijl, the, he has passed away a few years ago and there's a foundation set up to hand out an award in the name of Rob Blokzijl and the foundation board, they are putting together a committee now for the next award and they will be ‑‑ there will be an announcement in the coming plenary about the awards committee and you can find more information on the website and also talk to the board members here if you are interested.

Now, something more fun, maybe ‑‑ the socials. Always important for the RIPE meetings, we have lots of space to social, also social engineering and talk to each other. Tonight, we are going to have a reception, on a Monday evening after the sessions here at the venue. On Tuesday, tomorrow, we will have our networking party events in the in the old industrial building. You can find more information on the website where that is and what's happening there. And on Thursday we have our traditional RIPE dinner on the boat. I believe it's not actually moving, that boat, so you don't have to be afraid that you can't get off. So it's just there to go and have a nice view over the water and the city.

I would really like to thank our sponsors because we couldn't do it without the sponsors. So you see here lots of name, gold sponsor, silver sponsors, coffee sponsor, connectivity, coffee breaks are also sponsored. So thank you very much and give of a big applause to the sponsors.


There is no host this time on the slide because the RIPE NCC is the host, and Hans Petter is going to talk a bit more about this in a second from the local host's perspective. Normally you would see a local host on the slide. If you want to be one of the next local hosts, this is your chance. We have just issued a call for hosts for not the next two meetings, they are already pretty much settled, but RIPE 89, 90 and 91, we are looking for hosts, if you think you would like to host a RIPE meeting in your city or country or your organisation can contribute to that, please come talk to me and the meeting team here during the week and we can provide you more information.

I think that was all from my side. And now Franziska Lichtbau, the Chair of the Programme Committee is going to talk and introduce you to the Programme Committee.

FRANZISKA LICHTBLAU: So, welcome, everyone, to Rotterdam again. I am the Chair of the RIPE 86 Programme Committee and I would like to give you a little bit of an overview on what the Programme Committee actually is, what we do, how we operate and maybe interest you in our work.

So, these are all the lovely people I had the great pleasure to work with in order to get the programme done. They have all the nice RIPE PC Programme Committee. If you meet anyone of us, please approach us if you have questions to the Programme Committee, if you are a speaker, if you want to submit something just talk to us. But what do we actually do? Because we are doing this for a long time but apparently we are not as good at getting across what we actually do and what we are responsible for. So if you look at the meeting plan that Mirjam showed you, you have plenary sessions, BoF sessions, tutorial sessions and working group sessions, and the Programme Committee is responsible to compile everything that has plenary, BoF or tutorial, we fire out a call for presentations to the Internet and then you lovely people send us a bunch of presentations submissions and we usually take two or three sessions to evaluate all of them and compile a nice engaging programme. Our general idea for the plenary is, it should be interesting for all the people in the room like have rather widespread interests that everyone can somehow relate to, real world content like what our operations community works with on the day‑to‑day basis, new technical interesting developments, things like that. If you have something that is very specific that is a deep‑dive in technology, policy, all the other things we do, find an appropriate Working Group, talk to them, they are also very nice people and will happily accommodate you.

The other thing that we do is that you will see us doing on Monday, Tuesday and Friday, we actually chair plenary sessions. So what does that mean? We make sure these things run smoothly. Se we make sure that you orderly queue at the microphone, that our speakers don't overrun allotted time slots, we tell you who our speakers are and make sure that everything runs smoothly.

So, if you want to know more, you can talk to all of us. And of course we have a charter, it is all written down in RIPE 600. If you want to know what the Programme Committee does in detail, what the term limits, things like that, have a look, it is quite a nice read.

Why am I telling you this? Yes, there are two seats up for election this year ‑‑ this round, and you can nominate yourself or somebody else, maybe ask them before you do that, that would be nice, until Tuesday, 3:30 I guess. Just send us a mail to pc [at] ripe [dot] net, provide a short bio, maybe a picture that we can put on the website, then every one of you please go and check out the voting link and vote until Thursday and we can announce the results for the new elected PC members on Friday.

And to give you a small idea on the amount of interesting stuff we get. This time we received 42 full presentations, so those are the longer 30 minute presentations that you see during the plenary time. We were able to accept 16 of of them. Usually what we do, we have a look at how much time we have, allot the respective slots. We get a lot of lightning talks because submissions are still open because right now we are allotting ones for Friday. Please keep submitting, we will let you know probably by Wednesday or Thursday what we will accept. We got, until now, 28. We were able to accept 6, and you can see they were not that many tutorial or BoF submissions so we accepted most of them. If you have something to tell us that is in that realm your chances to be accepted are very, very high. So please, vote for the Programme Committee, not Nate yourself, we would really like to work with a new, interesting bunch of people for the next meeting. Thank you.


MIRJAM KUEHNE: Many thanks, Franziska, and the Programme Committee is doing a great job and I would also like to say we actually received a really good selection of talks this time which made life more difficult for the PC but it was great to see so many submissions which has tremendously increased since the pandemic which was really good to see. So, Hans Petter Holen, the managing director of the RIPE NCC, he is going to speak at the local host of this meeting and give you some more specific information how to interact at the meeting.


HANS PETTER HOLEN: So, thank you, Mirjam. Usually I am up here just to give some practical information but this time RIPE NCC is actually the local host of the meeting. Our office is in Amsterdam, Rotterdam is close by, so here we are, welcome to Amsterdam ‑‑ not Amsterdam, welcome to Rotterdam.

You know, they have also assigned me a handicap room at the hospital so I guess I get the hint here.

You may know the Dutch weather is unpredictable, one thing I have learned from living here for three years there's an app telling me what the weather going to be, the resolution on the Dutch AP is in the next ten minutes and it will tell you when it will rain and stops to rain so I can tell time walking to work in ten minute slots not to get wet. The meeting team has done their best to arrange some sunshine for you so fingers crossed and hopefully the connections with the weather master's are as good as we are on the network side.

So, first some few words on RIPE and RIPE NCC for those of you who haven't attended newcomers sessions for a while. RIPE is a community, that's all of you, from 1989 but after a few years we figured out, it's actually before my time, that we needed a secretariat so RIPE NCC was set up as a membership organisation to be the secretariat of the RIPE community. It's run by staff overseen by Executive Board elected by the membership. We provide services, one of the services is to be regional internet registryistry for Europe, Middle East and Central Asia, we do community building and outreach and try to bring as many as possible to these meetings here but we also hold meetings in other parts of our service region where it's not so easy to travel to the big meetings.

And as, you know, the community sets policy, you can participate in the Address Policy Working Group on Wednesday and when there's consensus they are implemented by the RIPE NCC.

Since RIPE 85 a lot has happened. We have had a regional meeting, the first Central Asia forum in Kazakhstan in November, we had hackathon in December, we had a MENOG meeting, the 22nd in a row, in Bahrain and SEE meeting in split in Croatia and we had a DNS hackathon yesterday and I have been told there is some interesting output coming in the DNS Working Group later this week.

The RPKI publication service is live so before you had the choice of having your ROA assigned by the RIPE NCC, now you can sign it by your own certificate but use our publication service to publish it, so you don't have to set up your own publication point.

We have published Nordic country reports and it's always pleasing to see Norway has more IPv6 deployed than Sweden. Unfortunately, we are behind both Finland, Denmark and Sweden on RPKI deployment so there is still work to be done even in Norway.

Sanctions research has been published, we have funded some research and there is a report coming out there, a new security, BGP e‑learning course is out and an associate exam is ‑‑ associated exam is launched. We have micro learning so if the big courses are too much to you, you can do a micro learning on RPKI and we have a new season of RIPE Labs podcasts coming out.

RPKI certificates. We are almost at 20,000, the presentation I reviewed this morning it said 19,988, no, it's 19995 so five more please during the week so we can celebrate 20,000 certificates issued.

And why is this important? Well we want to secure the routing infrastructure so you can sign a statement saying please only accept addresses from my AS

At RIPE 86 we will have a lot of my colleagues presenting here, I think at this meeting we have more than 100 RIPE NCC staff dropping by since it's so close, we have encouraged everybody that hasn't been to a RIPE meeting before to turn up for at least one day to get the feeling and experience. Normally we would be roughly half of that but I think it's important that everybody working at the RIPE NCC understands what the community is all about and what we are doing here.

So later today, Vesna will talk about environmental impacts of the Internet in the BCOP task force. Daniel is organising a BoF tomorrow on AI. Angela is talking about doing a policy update in Address Policy, Gerardo is talking about training that we are doing in abuse space and Theo also talking about the interactions we are doing with law enforcement agencies. Then we have the regular updates in RIPE NCC Services and for those of you who have been following the discussions about where does all the money go for in the RIPE NCC, that's going to be the main topic of my talk there so I'm not going to be giving the regular slide deck that I am giving but more talking about what's happened since 2013 when it comes to financials and where we are spending the money and I will continue that into the GM in more details, not because we are going to do the budget at this meeting but it's an introduction to the activity plan and budget process that we normally do in the autumn meeting and we really want your feedback on this because we are built, we are depending on your trust and your support for what we are doing and where we are spending the money.

A.m. eel is talking in the MAT Working Group about the measurement services that we are doing ‑ is giving a report in the DNS Working Group and Ed is giving the database update and Maria is talking about different use cases from the RIPE database from the legal side. So there's quite a lot on the agenda, I know I am just giving advertising from the RIPE NCC as to the local host, right, so you know where to see us and what we are actually doing for you because this is not something we are doing for our own sake, this is something we are doing for the members and the community.

You can meet staff here, there is a services DNSSEC, learning and development has a desk, there is a tech team here which before I took this position I used to say the RIPE meetings is kind of the best technical infrastructure at meetings that I have ever attended, I hope that's still true but that's not my credit, that's for the tech team.

And we are here to talk to you so please contact us.

Meetecho is the main platform for online and on‑site attendees. I guess if you are off‑line you are not really participating so you may not be an attendee then but anyway. You need meeting registration, then you get an e‑mail with the link in, please book mark that or store it for some other, whatever is convenient to you.

There is also live transcription active so the stenographers here that you can see if you can't understand I'm saying, they understand what I'm saying or what I should be saying so that's up there. And then everything is recorded on archives later on, if you miss a miss a session you can always watch it later.

You can ask for ‑‑ to ask questions, you can click the buttons here to get in the audio or video queue, if you don't want to be speaking directly you can ask and add your questions in the Q&A functionality in Meetecho and you can chat with others in the chat group but if ask questions in the chat they may not be read by the session Chairs so please use the Q Q&A button for that and you can also see the stenography in Meetecho.

Covid measures: I dream that this is past us but it's still a concern, we have self‑tests and face masks available at the registration desk, please test yourself if you experience any symptoms and then please then stay in your hotel room so you don't infect others. And there are also triangles on your badges here red, please keep distance, yellow square for elbow bumps only.

Fine with handshakes and hugs. I still don't think we have accommodated for Julf's request to havew a black one to please keep five metre distance, he always ask for that. Julf is from Finland, by the way.

That was it from me, and I guess there are no questions at this stage. If not, I will hand back to the Chair.


MIRJAM KUEHNE: Are there any questions at this stage for any of the speakers that you have seen so far?

In this case I will hand over to Franziska, she and the ‑‑ shell take it on from here and you won't see as much from me any more. Enjoy.


FRANZISKA LICHTBLAU: Thank you. So, our first speaker is going to be Rudolf, and as Mirjam already pointed out in our web cloud we are very, very much concerned with EU regulations these days so he will give us an a nice overview on the whole EU Gigabit Act.


RUDOLF VAN DER BERG: Good afternoon. My first RIPE meeting was RIPE Prague in 2001, it was RIPE 40, so that's quite a long time ago. It brought me into contact with this community and taught me that I liked policy of the Internet way more than my graduation thesis and that was good for many reasons because all the scandals with the Dutch tax service I never wanted to be part of that. It cured me of public speaking and any jitters I had because I was supposed to present a Dutch‑German internet exchange in east of the Netherlands to the European Internet Exchange Working Group which still existed and I made a calculation that well, there are about 20, 30 internet exchange points, so if all of them send two or three people, it's a room of 60, maybe 90 people, I can do that, I have stood in front of groups like that. And then it turned out it was the main room and there were 400 people sitting in front of me, and I was 25 and I was jittering. But, you know, that went well and it was fun. And years later, here I am, I still like the Internet, I like public policy, I love the EU, just not this particular thing they did. The EU is working on a gigabit Internet package, and last week somebody from Deutsche Telekom tweeted the best the EU wants to do and the region with the best connectivity is the region with the best innovation, that's basically the background. We are what the EU is trying to do with its gigabit package and I think that's a very good description.

So the EU has a bunch of digital decade goals, stuff they want to achieve by 2030. They basically want better connectivity for better lives which is a part of raising of the slogan of the OECD which says better policies for better lives. And I think that's still one of the best slogans I have worked on. When I was at the OECD, I also organised the meetings on IP interconnection in 2011 and 2012 to bring regulators in the IP world together because well, regulators hadn't ever regulated peering in transit so they didn't know who the people were doing the peering in transit. Which was fun to bring them together and many, at least some of you who I see here today were there then as well.

The Digital Decade Policy Programme of the Commission has a goal that all end users should be able to use gigabit services by 2030 and all market actors benefitting from the transformation should assume their social responsibilities and make for a fair and proportionate contribution to goods, services and infrastructures for the benefit of the Union.

And four targets: Skilled population, digital transformation of business, digitalisation of public services, but the most important one for us probably is a security resilient performable and sustainable infrastructure. All end users at a fixed location should be able to get a gigabit and mobile networks, should be 5G or better and who can be against this, basically? This is what we all want, and perhaps better.

And if you then look which countries are leading in innovation or at least building the infrastructure, well, I took the OECD's data which has a bit more countries than just the EU but I like the people and they do good work. So, Spain, Sweden, Portugal, France, they are ahead. Since there's a bit of Scandinavian rivalry, Sweden is ahead of Iceland and of Norway and Norway is ahead of Finland so and Denmark ‑‑ Denmark is a bit further behind so you guys can have fun during drinks about that.

The way it was explained to me at the OECD once by our Danish Chair was in Denmark, when we look at OECD reports we always look are we in the top 10, yes, awsome, but he said we always have to look where are Sweden and Norway, because if you are behind Sweden and Norway it doesn't matter, we could just as well have been last. There will be parliamentary questions and we will have to explain why we failed.

So the European Commission is worried because 10% of Europeans may not get a gigabit and that's 45 million people, that's quite a lot. So, they did three initiatives, two really proposals and one questionnaire and first sight they look logical, oh, yeah, I have to also give you some disclaimers because I'm a consultant for Stratix, so I consultant for the Dutch association of municipalities on the Gigabit Infrastructure Act and I have consulted for Google on the questionnaire, and I have also consulted with a regulatory agency in Europe on the questionnaire and I discuss stuff like the recommendation with my clients as well. So I'm probably biased one way or another, just know that I have been basically saying the same thing for the last 15 years, and you can find stuff about it.

But just so you know. So the Gigabit Infrastructure Act basically says let's make it easier to roll out networks, which sounds like we can't be against. It's a successor to the Boradband Cost Reduction Directive which tried to do the same, but it's an act so you don't have national implementations, you just have to follow what Brussels says, so countries can't muck it up themselves, they just have to follow. And one of the things we want is a single single portal for permits, if you want to roll out fibre, and mandatory access to public infrastructure.

So, from a distance it sounded interesting. The gigabit recommendation says who needs to give access to networks and to who and under what conditions? And the Commission wants to give guidance so that the rules are done uniformly. And the questionnnaire is: How do you see the future of the connectivity infrastructure? What are the technological and market developments? What's fair for consumers? What are barriers to the single market and to do business? And how can we get everybody to make a fair contribution? Which, on paper, all sounds logical to ask.

What I am a bit more critical because it seems it's mostly built around how to make an incumbent's life easier? And if you wonder what an incumbent is, if a telecom firm used to have a country name in front of the word 'telecom', that's an incumbent.

Royal Dutch KP ‑‑ Netherlands, you know, KPM. So, the Gigabit Infrastructure Act, and now I say this also with my municipal hat on, was a magic single information portal where you can do all your permit applications, which sounds nice but municipalities do a lot more permits than fibre roll‑out, that is basically a one‑off, maybe two times but doesn't have that regularly. In many countries already kind of done, as you could see Spain, great that you build single information portal for fibre roll‑out but they are 90% done. How much extra fibre do you think it will deliver? The Netherlands will be done in 2028, quite a few other countries as well.

So, you invest in a portal that doesn't actually deliver fibre, and there are weird things in there like a three‑month stand still after you apply for permitting so that other firms can join you, but that is a tactic used by mostly incumbents but sometimes by others to stall whatever a competitor is doing so you say I'm going to roll out and ask for a permit and another guy says, after three months Hi, I want to do it too, could we have a meeting? So instead of you digging already for three months you are now spending the next three months talking to them in a room whether you can cooperate or not.

So, BEREC is not too hapy with it, municipalities aren't too happy with it, put a position get together with the Danes and the Swedes saying don't do this. The Gigabit Recommendation tells regulators how they can regulate but it has these minor little things in there like there's a new regulation to give access to competitors, if there is a prospect of infrastructure competition. Now, a prospect is not well‑defined but it might just well be if somebody applied for a permit or says that he might roll out somewhere here in the near future, then you can't have access regulations, which means if you are an alternative provider and want to get access you might not get access because there's prospect ‑‑ this one is actually I think the one that the incumbents are really after because if you get 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 euro more per line per month per customer, that's quite a lot of money after a year, that's 12 million; you can do the math.

And then there's the consultation and great, a questionnaire, but it appears to be aimed at big tech as a source for money and make big telco bigger in name on the market and if you don't trust me on this you can just read BEREC, the group of European regulators, their responses to this. They have been pretty scathing of the protocols.

If you look at the questionnaire, it doesn't seem to want answers. It's not clear on what infrastructure. It makes this Blockchain with 5G, you know, if things ‑‑ which is the incumbents telco group members invest when you look at the statics that they themself publish each year it shows alternative networks have invested more to fibre to the home, it wants a single market with pan‑European firms but we already have a pan‑European market, you are allowed to operate in any country, but somehow the pricing isn't the same even though it's often the same firm and we have seen that for 15 years already.

And for some reason it doesn't ask for hard data but only relative percentages but not relative to what so it makes it incomparable. If you wonder if the questionnaire can be this bad well question 40 ask how much networks invest to handle traffic growth and how much this exceeded the planned investment but you can't have a negative value. So, your investment to traffic can only have exceeded what you already planned, so if you have actually saved because you overestimated, yeah. It's not on the list.

And what EU Telcos say, (EU Telcos) can't handle traffic any more and as a result they need to get rid of transit and move to the telephony model of sending party networks pays. They can't handle traffic any more. It costs them 40 billion a year, they say, to handle traffic and traffic growth at the moment. And they want about 35 billion a year from big tech they say, their math is quite simple, CAPEX is 50/50 a bit more, 65% of the bytes are from big tech, 65% of the costs should go to big tech because it's interesting it's a fixed infrastructure that has a 30% lifespan and if you can get somebody else to pay 60% but not get 60% of the shares, you know, it's like building a house and somebody else pays 60% of your house and you get full ownership, yes, please, if anybody is willing to do that with my mortgage, come by after.

So, they use statistics from the likes of sand fine which shows big tech has decreased. BT came out with a statement that every terabyte ‑‑ well, the guardian didn't get it, sometimes known as the ‑ because of the many spelling errors, this was one of them, every terabit per second of data, cost about 50 million their CEO said what is interesting because that means the KPM in the Netherlands are charging too little but I will show you that later. Of course to their investors they said gigabytes don't matter, gigabits do but really we can handle this easy, investors and I sometimes think it's legally allowed to lie to regulators or at least to politicians, I mean, but not to regulators and shareholders so that will play a role.

Vodafone was really nice in their investor presentation, 50% traffic growth, CEO said no. Over 3 years 70 percent on mobile, CAPEX was stable and costs are done. Costs per gigabit which makes you wonder who did the calculations there because of course we build networks around gigabits with capacity but still, it gives you a bit of an idea, it works different. Okay, P who did a regulated offer in the Dutch market, 6 megabits per customer and we charge 139 for it, which is about a quarter of what BT said the terabit would cost so either KPN in the Netherlands is really efficient or they are doing a last leading offer on this but given that K PB is really good at finance, I don't think they are. The Telcos hired a whole lunch of Commissions who said peering and transit is stupid ‑‑ is from the school of economics or somebody from ETNO said they won a Nobel Prize to which I responded he didn't win it, that was his colleague. But that's how the game is played, we have an Austrian guy saying high spread broadband and I asked for a retraction of that article and that didn't happen either, it gives you a bit of an idea of how the game is played and in the last week we saw multiple papers coming out quoting the papers saying you see the economists say that we need to do this and everybody needs to pay for incoming traffic.

How much? Well we don't know the numbers yet, but GSM A and ETNO last week: Anyone who does more than 5 peak traffic should pay. So I assumed that's roughly more than 1‑3 terabits on incumbents and those should pay. ‑‑ we have examples of smaller networks being forced to pay by big Telcos who shouldn't pay any more, I have put the question out, be careful what you wish for. But this does give an a bit of an idea and it doesn't talk about caches or anything. So this basically is an Internet traffic tax, and I am worried approximate this because this has been proposed ever since 1996 and every five years it comes up. A friend of mine, a professor of law, calls it the zombie debate, every time you think you put it in the grave it comes back again. I have studied sending party network pays quite a bit and it's a mess, it's used for interconnection, you pay whatever the network at the end wants to have, and when Orange started in the Netherlands with mobile network and it lost money it just increased its rate by 25% rate to 25 cents a minute. So anybody on another network who called one of its customers who have would pay 25 cents a minute which is just brilliant. If you lose money you make somebody else's customer pay. But this was what was supposed to be used for ISDN and 3G and all the digital services we were using over it, and it's a monopoly, a termination monopoly, which means regulators have to regulate it, and they do, and, in general, you can say high rates is low usage and fraud, international calling to in other countries and there's a lot of fraud on it ‑‑ termination rates.

And under your choice of transit because irrelevant because the terminating network determines costs, there's no need to optimise costs like we have with transit. Everybody will end up paying more and the Telcos are saying, it's not for broadcasters or for newspapers or sports ohs, governments and everybody else, it's just American big tech. But of course if you take 5% there's also all the sports streamers and gaming and well, if you use alphabet, Acme, Amazon, etc., then you probably end up paying as well because they will put that in their pricing so of course maybe you don't use any of these but CDNs are also a way to bypass this, their proposals says they are not included except if they are used by heavy users of traffic. So now the CDNs will have to publicly tell anybody who the customers is and how much traffic they are doing so we can at least do the math. Streaming is a problem except of course when you do the Telcos on I ‑‑ small networks are just too small to peer so they will have to pay anyways so we end up with everybody paying.

These are a bunch of slides I won't go into now because that's just who am I and you know who we are and you can figure that out later. Any questions?


JAN ZORZ: Thank you, Rudolf, scary, stuff.


You always talk about scary stuff?

RUDOLF VAN DER BERG: Yeah, nobody ever invites you to talk over a fun proposal that actually is going to deliver or is going to work.

JAN ZORZ: Thank you. Please, questions.

JAN ZORZ: I thought there would be people running to go the mics after this.

FRANZISKA LICHTBLAU: Not even the Internet wants to talk to us. The queue is empty.

JAN ZORZ: Nobody in the queue.

FRANZISKA LICHTBLAU: We have Carsten Shefner who says no question but a big thanks for pointing out this so eloquently. I agree.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: It would have been nice if you could actually ‑‑ Alastair Woodman ‑‑ if you could show the breakdown of cost, I think there's a lot of special pleading in your argument. You are talking about essentially, you admitted you are representing Google and other folks it does sound like you are trying to diminish the load they put on the network and not actually talk about the cost transfer that's coming from those hyperscaleers and it looks like you are trying to protect the small and access middle guys but it doesn't actually think it looks like that so economics would have shown the picture as opposed to the legal pleading.

RUDOLF VAN DER BERG: Oh, I can actually do the math ‑‑ the numbers and I have done presentations at LINX and other places but I figured here it was, timewise a bit more constrained.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: You wanted to keep that information from people and just plead ‑‑

RUDOLF VAN DER BERG: No, no, if you really want to know, here so KPN says only its network, it's wholesale customers are charged 139 for 6 megabits, but that's what the customers themselves already pay. That comes with the line. BT said every terabit extra will cost them 50 million. Now, if you do 6 megabits at 139, and then get calculate it through to a terabit, you end up, like over five years, at 12 million. So, BT is four times more expensive, and maybe you are off a bit, but let somebody do the math quickly. If we then look at what the traffic really is, official statistics from Arcep in France was that in 2021, all of France was doing 43 terabits, including from CDNs. A Nokia router does 230 terabits. So the four big operators did 43 terabits and you can do 230 on one router, you shouldn't do it on one router but still. Normally you build a network that distributes it over 10, 12 locations, and you do local interconnection also with the Netflixes, etc., of this world so you don't have to backhaul all that traffic. If you then look at what the costs are for the network of actually handling this traffic, and the complaint of the Dutch ISPs was that KPN was already charging way too much at 139, then we are literally talking at, you know, less than a euro that the customer already pays should be able to carry this traffic. If we don't look at the wholesale price of this, transit is, here inr Amsterdam 5 cents, Deutsch Telecom seems to charge 80 cents, but even at 6 we are talking about 30 cents to €4.80. So, no, we don't have a problem.

If we then look at the terastream network of Deutsch Telecom, it was designed for 40 megabit per household in 2013. So current traffic is 6 megabits. If you designed a network in 2013, and incurring traffic levels is 6, you should be able to handle it. So, yes, I know my numbers, I didn't put them in this presentation but if you want we can go over the regulatory models for wholesale access that regulators have put up and what level the traffic is in there, we can also discuss the yearly reports of the Telcos and how that is allocated with traffic because he they don't mention traffic in there, so, yes, I know what I am really talking about and I try to get my numbers straight. If you have better numbers, please come up to me.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: I think you have your numbers right, I think you are obfuscating where the profit goes and hiding behind this discussion, so we will take that off‑line. Thank you.

REMCO VAN MOOK: I am a long time sufferer of telco debates, let's say, I was there with Rudolf at his first RIPE meeting when he was doing a presentation talking about building a transnational internet exchange and to ‑‑ the problem, the first comment was from a lovely gentleman from Deutsch Telecom, I won't go back into that, you can read the minutes of RIPE 40 in 2001 if you are really interested.

This really takes me back to 2011, which is ‑‑ I mean, I may have ignored one round of debate but where we were at this point, and I think the point that that is worth making and kind of surprised that it's not in your presentation, is, it's not ‑‑ it's not big tech, whatever that means, trying to illegally stuff bits down someone's network. You actually have Telcos who have like, like big advertisements at bus stops and so on saying hey, we have this fantastic Internet package you can buy, or we sell you a gigabit, asterisk, of internet access, asterisk, for 49.95 a month ‑‑ that's in France, that's in France, those are lucky people. If you show these kind of prices in the US where the market is somewhat differently organised, people will start crying, literally. So, I think the point worth making is, those customers who are paying for the advertised services of these telecoms, so they are already being paid for, are simply consuming the product that was sold to them and they are consuming it in the form of watching cat videos on YouTube, and bingeing series on Netflix, doing other streaming things that we don't want to talk about. I would be very interested to see what kind of pricing arrangement a company like Pornhub would end up having with Deutsch Telecom, super interesting to see that. How do you think that if this plays out as the European Commissioner wants, what kind of structure would that look like? I'm somewhat intrigued.

JAN ZORZ: We have two minutes ‑‑ we need to wrap it up in two minutes and the queue is closed now.

RUDOLF VAN DER BERG: The other question, maybe I can combine them.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Is it market failure, regulator failure or they missed the boat on the Ethernet because they are doing now fawn switch, whose failure is that?

RUDOLF VAN DER BERG: Well, so, I think the Internet came up with a brilliant way of allocating costs because there are 75 K networks, autonomous systems, active at the moment, I don't know how much are routed, but the way the Internet was built was around the idea you built the network you pay your own costs. If you want to interconnect with everybody else you get transit and if you think transit is too expensive then try to lower it by peering or building your network out or doing whatever. And that model has worked really, really well and it has resulted in competition, in Korea you pay for traffic you terminate and as a result services stop in Korea or people go to interconnect in Japan instead of doing it locally and that model I like because always requires lots of economies, lots of regulators and I have never understood why, if we have a model that works so well, we want to break it, and I am fine with Telcos not wanting to peer, you are fine if you want to run everything through one place, it's your network, you are allowed to break it in any way you want it, it's your customers, as long as there's a competitive market, do what you want, maybe you are smarter than me and maybe you are better at it. But there's the great thing of how the Internet currently works, it's your network, you pay for it, you need to get transit, that's your cost, it's your customers, if they don't pay enough, your problem. So, yeah,.

JAN ZORZ: Thank you, Rudolf, very much, it was very informative talk and I hope that.


Vesna, we would like to hear about the environmental impact of the Internet, basically.

VESNA MANOJLOVIC: We are in a climate emergency, we have to stop using fossil fuels in order to preserve the life on the planet.

Before I go on, I want to cover some logistics. I work for RIPE NCC as a community builder, however today I'm speaking for myself as engineer, as an activist and as a mother and part of the RIPE community.

My time slot is short and my slides are long, so, please download the PDF version that is also on there with a lot of references and details and here, I am just going to try to focus on the highest possible obstruction level, so that is some people call political and some people call it cultural perpetuity, so bear with me, there won't be many numbers in here.

We are living in a poly crisis, that means there are multiple overlapping catastrophic events going on at the same time and they are reinforcing each other. To name just a few, it's economic crisis, geopolitical crisis, environmental crisis. All of them can be life‑threatening for some people and in these kind of existential crises people often rethink what is important to them, so for me, that is sharing, justice and livable planet.

And also in these kind of situations, there are a lot of strong feels. I feel them now but I have to contain them because this is a professional set‑up and I'm also nervous, but mainly what the pictures that I didn't want to show you but that you can imagine and see from the news and stuff, about this poly crisis, invoking me, is grief and love and rage. I really get angry. And what do we do when we feel strong feelings? We call for an immediate discussion. This is a bit of comic relief and it's a quote from my favourite Monty Python movie. It's what happens. We all know we have these poly crises, and still we keep on talking about it, and this has been going on for a long time, so, the scientists have known the connection between greenhouse gas emissions and the increase of the temperatures for centuries. The researchers have been measuring the temperatures and the CO2 emission numbers for decennia and the UN has been on it, the governments have been getting together to come up with plans and they had made agreements there was a key oat to protocol, there is a Paris agreement and you can see them all on this graph and while all of this is going on the emissions keep on growing and the temperatures keep on growing.

And that kind of graph of like up and to the right is also very familiar to the people on the Internet, but we have to focus on a different graph, which is this one that kind of goes down, here, and it shows what kind of reductions in emissions we need, which ones did we need from the beginning? So from the 2015 Paris agreement, we were supposed to cut down emissions per year with 7.6%. This is one of the numbers I will mention, it will keep on coming back. If we started decreases emissions in 2020 that could have been 4% per year but we have wasted so much time and now we should go like 50% per year, that is really like unimaginable, what's even worse is to imagine what will happen if we don't do it.

So this is a news graph from a report with a lot of acronyms, IPCC, assessment report number 6 from March this year, and so they are saying that if we cut down emissions right now, we are locked in the 1.5 degree warming by the end of the century. If we go on with business as usual, the warming can go up to 80 degrees or 10 degrees globally so that means in other places it will be even hotter by the end of the century.

So what shall we do? Well, there is a lot of space in between and we really have to take immediate actions to make as much reduction as possible, as soon as possible. Otherwise, if we continue with business as usual, we are condemning future generations of humans and more than humans, to the unimaginable suffering and a lot of extinction, not only of humans but also of plants and animals and squirrels and we don't want that, at least I don't want that.

So, the actual workshop that Internet architecture board organised in December with the topic of the environmental impact of the Internet, made me very happy. I thought, yes, finally, people who care, we will all get together so there was a lot of researchers and engineers, some civil society representatives and activists getting together, submitting papers, having discussions, immediate discussions, and it is going to go on at the next IETF meetings and at future RIPE meetings, so the general goals were to bring some understanding of what is the impact of the Internet, and to come up with recommendations of what should we do. For me personally, it was a task to bring these kind of subjects to the RIPE community and I'm happy that the PC has accepted this talk.

Going back, there is mailing list discussion here if you want to join.

So, what were the recommendations? We couldn't really come up to the one specific agreement so there is a very pretty picture of what not to do, and from my side, I would say all the companies, corporations, communities, have to reduce everything by 7 .5% per year for the next 100 years, and that is emissions, energy usage, material usage, water usage, all the companies, with IETF and with RIPE. Then further, as a community, we could have the Net zero emissions Working Group and like the smallest thing we can do is add sustainability considerations to every Internet draft RFCor best current practices document.

What else can we do? Well, we can learn from other movements, one of them is de‑growth, de‑growth is political, economic and social theory or movement, based on environmental anti‑consumerist and anti‑capitalist principles. Some of those principles are listed here and some of them are actually familiar and overlapping be RIPE; for example, cooperation, we have a Cooperation Working Group. Joyful living, we are very good at partying, and the next one that we could pick up is sustainability, we could create a sustainability task force.

However, de‑growth is very pluralistic movement so this is a subset of books that I have used to research while preparing for this talk, and de‑growth as a concept is very hold, well in the kind of western science, it is started in the 70s with small is beautiful and limits to growth, a report from ‑ but in other cultures, it is actually just a way of living in balance with our more than human neighbours. And so they don't have a word for it and now trying to translate it into language is actually a hard process. So, the de‑growth is overlapping with a lot of other movements, for example, aqua fennism or deColognial environmentalism, yeah, others too, there's a whole literature about it.

Well, with ICT we like to talk about a lifecycle. So, we start with the equipment, which has to be produced, then it has to be shipped to the other end of the world, then it needs to be operated using the energy and storing the data and then disposing of it at the end of the lifecycle. But all of them, all of these processes, are actually based on extract I'vism, exploitation, fossil fuels, pollution and injustice so that to me sounds more like a death cycle.

What can we do to minimise the impact that the Internet has on the environment? The least we can do is just reverse all of those for every component, so when producing, we can have the most sustainable practices for getting the materials, we can resource them more locally so we reduce the shipping, we can reuse some of the existing materials, and very important, stop using fossil fuels for all of the processes. Move towards renewable energy. But that's not a perfect solution. We also have to reduce the amount of energy used for running the networks, for producing equipment, for shipping the equipment and finally, at the end of the lifecycle, we can prolong the use of the equipment by repairing, repurposing, recycling and also by removing the way of thinking which is a planned ‑ and there is movement in Europe for the right to repair so there are ways that we can do this in small incremental ways.

However, we are not doing it. Why aren't we doing it? Well, there is listed here in this research paper the 12 reasons for delay. Delay is the new denial. And from these 12 reasons, I see three that are kind of prevalent in technical communities: Which is what aboutism, perfectionism and techno optism. So how to counter them.

What aboutism is: why should we do it, they are worse, they should do it first. Well we all have to do it, including the car industry, the aviation industry, the building industry but within we within Internet industry have to do our part and this is where we have the power and the agency. So, we have to do it. And we could also be examples to other industries.

Perfectionism, oh, let's measure some more, let's find the best way that we can tackle this so that we actually target the best possible way of dealing with it. We don't have time for this. That time is over. We have to do everything right now, all at the same time. And timely the techno optism, that's the hardest one, we do believe technology can solve a lot of problems but if you look historically on those graphs that I showed before, the tech did not save us until now, so we have to do something else; I am suggesting de‑growth.

Which is a problem, because the tech industry is addicted to growth. Everything is growing; the number of users is growing, the wealth is growing, and the energy consumption is growing.

About the wealth:

Among the top five richest companies in the world, four are big tech, the fifth is big oil ‑‑ not the greatest company to be in. So we as an Internet industry, we have great power and we also have great responsibility to do something to decrease the environmental impact of our industry on the planet.

There is a choice again. We can do it by self‑regulation or we might get regulated by national, regional and international treaties, that are already in place so there are standards, there are agreements, ISPs have to follow them, data centres have to follow them, EU just had a big conference called beyond growth, so this is happening, people are doing it, we have to speed up the way that we are doing a good for the planet.

In simple pictures, this is the graph. We have to reverse the graph that goes like this and it has to start going like this, so again, the magic number used to be 7.6% but now, I'm asking you to go better, choose 10%, put it in all of your metrics and all of your OKRs that every year the energy consumption of your company, of your industry, of your country has to go down 10%.

Or, if you appreciate my graphic design skills, then you can see the more detailed picture, which shows multi solving so you can choose one action that is actually going to solve multiple problems, and you have to do it on all kinds of axis, so whether you do something on a personal level that is going to do the ‑‑ more local impact or the more global impact but whatever you do, it's going to have to be a lot because we have big problems and we have to find very good powerful solutions for them.

So, for RIPE, just to repeat, the suggestions are, the recommendations are:

Use the 7.6% decrease, create a sustainability task force and for anybody in the position of power who can make decisions, demand that there is sustainability considerations section in every presentation, every paper submitted, every funding proposal, every solution that you implement at your work, that's the least you can do.

Because until now, we have been kind of playing by the rules, but now it's time to move away from that and towards civil disobedience and then it also becomes personal. So this is a picture of my daughter, Alisa at her first RIPE meeting, there in my hands and below is her at Amsterdam airport at the protest against private jets. She got arrested, it was not the first time.


It won't be the last time, and yes, she is very brave, I am very proud of her, thank you for the applause. And I'm also sad and angry that she has to do this. How did it come to that that the new generations, that joined the RIPE meeting in 2004, now have to go and protest against us, against the governments, which ‑‑ who did not do their job to provide the future for these young generations.

But she's not alone. There is many more people that are going to the streets and using the civil disobedience as a tool in addition to de‑growth, to ask for big changes. So, I'm inviting you to join the scientist rebellion.

And to conclude: I want you to be alarmed. We are in a poly crisis. Do the de‑growth, join the existing movements, join other communities and also, take responsibility for the global impact of what we do locally, stop using fossil fuels and imagine a different world; imagine a world with climate justice, a world without fossil fuels, a world that we can live to the future generations, we can do it together.


FRANZISKA LICHTBLAU: Thank you, Vesna, thanks for standing up. I think we already have questions in the on‑line queue. Jan will take care of them. We have a couple of minutes left. So let's take one online question first.

JAN ZORZ: It works. You look who is in the queue, not look at me. Okay. Let's go to the first question, Carsten Schiefner, what could be ideas of delabelling the Internet as a green lifestyle per default? Is regulating the smartphone industry an approach? In such way that renewing one's smartphone every two years might not be the best idea ever. What about innovation then? An honest question: What is better were it to ESG attending the RIPE meeting on‑site or online? Has this been examined? If not, will it?

VESNA MANOJLOVIC: Great suggestions, yes to all of them, and the question is it better to do this or that, this is again going back to this kind of measuring, like what is my personal impact going to be and how can I avoid to have the negative impact myself? That is important to consider; however, it's even more important to our energy and innovation in finding more systemic solutions that are going to work for more than more people than us who have a choice of attending the meeting one way or the other.

We don't have time for those kind of questions any more, we have to consider the bigger picture, basically, and other people who are in more dangerous situations already.

JAN ZORZ: We have six minutes for Q&A. I am closing ‑‑

FRANZISKA LICHTBLAU: We also close the microphone queues.

VESNA MANOJLOVIC: Can we hear the questions without me giving the answers and if there is one minute I can say because I already spoke a lot so it's your turn.

FRANZISKA LICHTBLAU: If you will remember. Let's see.

Blake Willis: I wanted to do something a bit similar but I ran out of time for a lightning talk. I freely admit this is a comment not a question: This is a €4 million European Union fund software development for energy and debt, technical debt correlates directly with energy consumption very, very often, which is a really good way to get your boss to recognise that you need to spend money to get 15‑year‑old garbage out of your network, it's SD I believe, I put some of that in social network feed as well.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Thanks ‑‑ Giovane Moura, SIDN Labs and TU Delft this is a talk ‑‑ I am on your side, to be sure, I recycle my garbage, I don't have a car, I am just going to throw something here, I agree we have a board, maybe don't agree on the way you want to solve that with de‑growth movement, what other people have said. So there is this professor in Harvard and argues the growth is more negative and should be doing more engineering so reducing like energy consumption only makes sense for the current situation we have, if you pick him up 100%, don't need to reduce anything, that's him saying, the solution is more engineering and less pessimism


AUDIENCE SPEAKER: I am ignorant.

VESNA MANOJLOVIC: That was a solid answer.

CHAIR: We will run into the break a little bit because we think it's an interesting one.

BENEDIKT STOCKEBRAND: There is something we should be aware of as an industry actually. Saving energy at any cost is simple straightforward solution that makes thing worse if people start to commute again. With the impact of Covid and it's bad enough we had to have a Covid pandemic to get us there, we have started to move less ‑‑ to commute less for work and the Net benefit is quite significant, so there is no simple solution for discussions like this, but whatever we do, we have to keep in mind that if we reduce what we do, other things might have to ramp up again and the Net effect will be bad. On the other hand, think about what Bitcoin is and how it works and how it burning resources has turned into some kind of currency, that's plain sick, as far as I'm concerned. Thank you.

VESNA MANOJLOVIC: Completely agree.


VESNA MANOJLOVIC: However, see what aboutism.

Rudolf: I am quite interested in this topic and on the mailing list we have discussed a bit, I was quite critical of some Telcos in Europe but they do do quite a bit already, KPN has set itself to reduce its energy use by 40 or 50% over ten years and has delivered on it in the last decade. Deutsch Telecom announced it had saved 90 gigawatt hours, which is about as much as you need for mobile networks in the Netherlands, by switching to direct current in Germany and it's ‑‑ in its locations. Basically, European Telcos have a flat energy use over the last decade. What can this industry do more to deliver more savings on energy?

VESNA MANOJLOVIC: The measurements disagree. There is the ‑‑ international energy agency published these numbers global trends, all of them are increased, at least 10% over the last 6 years, in global so maybe some specific companies are doing good on their commitments, that is great, they should continue doing that. Everybody should follow them but, in general, the energy consumption is growing.

FRANZISKA LICHTBLAU: I see you wanted to reply, we don't have the time for back and forth right now, maybe take it to the mailing list.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: My question is: If we all know that servers and network equipment all burn through energy like there's no tomorrow, that is true, but on the other hand the Internet enables all of us to share information, not only in this industry but the other industries, presumably making everything more efficient, also more green, I would hope. So basically the question is: If you could go back in time, is the Internet, on a whole, a good thing or not for the environment because it could make other industries more green? If you could go back in time would you say no to the Internet or still go on with these projects and experiments?

VESNA MANOJLOVIC: It's very hypothetical but we can go back in time from the future to right now, so saying no to unnecessary luxurious Internet, and I am going to name I dislike 5G, VR, crypto mining, video calls, we could reduce our usage while still enabling communication between ourselves.

FRANZISKA LICHTBLAU: Thank you. I would remind everyone who is getting up, the queue is closed because we are running over time.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Janac Ericsson, also one of the co‑organisers of this work that got mentioned here. Thank you for this. Just two quick points. I wanted to advertise a BoF tomorrow, tomorrow evening on IETF, and one of the topics is what can standards organisations do to help some of these issues? And they don't solve all problems, you all should know that but sometimes they can help, enable standards that allow implementations to be sleeping and powered off at times when that's possible and there's cases where that has had a significant effect, you mentioned 5G by the way, 4G and 5G the power difference is like 10X less power usage per bit in 5G and that was in part because we can sleep more. So that's... that's one thing.

The other thing that I want to mention is that there's some reason for optimism in the sense that this isn't just an activist thing, this is a business thing; like, everybody that I talk to is very keen on reducing their power bills and so I think we are ‑‑ maybe the stars are aligned for some good things here, thank you.

DMITRO KOHMANYUK: Dmitro Hohmanyuk, Hostmaster. UA. I spoke to the company today which claimed their data centres are all powered by the green energy, I don't want to give them the free ad, I employ only use clean Swiss energy and also support v6, maybe we should praise those who do use green power, nuclear is green power as accepted by European Union. Likewise, the RMCP use are much better than using video call on your phone with low powered CPU may be better. So some behaviours can be more power‑efficient. So maybe we should be conscious of those and maybe have a gallery of green companies in our region. Thanks for the presentation and bringing awareness to the environmental issues.


AUDIENCE SPEAKER: I don't own a single Bitcoin and never owned one, I just wanted to say from somebody who has been to prison twice, thank you for raising your daughter to stand up for what she believes in. It's not a question, just a thank‑you.


FRANZISKA LICHTBLAU: Thank you, Vesna, very, very much and with that, I would like to remind you to rate the presentations you have seen until now, you can rate all of the other one, we appreciate your feedback and enjoy your coffee break.