if our Members and communities require substantially more IPv4 addresses, then how will they be received and so on.  This does feed directly into and feeds from policy discussions which have taken place. In the sense of the last Member and Stakeholder Survey, we did ask for opinions on what the role of APNIC Secretariat should be in transfers.  That's something that will be monitored ongoing in terms of what the expectations are. At the moment, we're asked not to actually play an active role in transfers, but to be facilitating the information dissemination and policy development regarding transfers, which is exactly what I think we're doing, particularly in the recent past and at this meeting. Both the IPv6 and the IPv4 situation, if you like, point back to APNIC as a registry organization, not just as a source of addresses, because in the case of IPv4 there aren't so many addresses left for us to allocate. In the case of IPv6, there are many, many addresses available and the allocation system is really much easier and more straightforward than it has been with IPv4.  But in both cases, whether it's v4 or v6 or the other resources that are managed under the APNIC system, the registry is still a very critical part of what we do. As the Internet grows, as security becomes more and more a pressing issue at all levels of society, the registry function is something that we are responsible for and that we must maintain