ASO AC-ICANN Workshop 28 October, 2000
ICANN Address Supporting Organisation
28 – 29 October 2000 UTC
Workshop Notes Present: -Hans Petter Holen (HH) -Ray Pzlak (RP) -Sabine Jaume (SJ) -Cathy Wittbrodt (CW) -Hartmut Glaser (HG) -Raimundo Beca (RB) -German Valdez (GV) -Barbara Roseman (BR) -Wilfried Woeber (WW) -Joao Damas (JD) -Mouhamet Diop (MD) -Jianping Wu (JW) -Seung-Min Lee (SL) -Takashi Arano (TA) -Hyun Je Park (HP) -Louis Touton (LT) -John Crain (JC) -Andrew McLaughlin (AM) (Notes 29/10/2000) -Paul Wilson (PW) -Anne Lord (AL) -Mirjam Kuehne (MK) -Richard Jimmerson (RJ) -Geoff Huston (GH) -YJ Park (YP) -David Conrad (DC) -Gerard Ross (minutes 28/10/2000) 28 October 2000 Workshop commenced 9:15am 1. Welcome 2. Introduction 3. Open action items Actions: a. RIRs to produce second draft of resource request procedures and circulate. - A second draft has been produced but the RIRs wish to review it again before putting forward for discussion. It may be ready later in this workshop. b. HH to finalise and send reply to Mike Roberts. - Done. c. HH to refine draft agenda for Brisbane meeting and check the Mike Roberts letter for other items. - Done. d. RB to prepare presentation for the Ad Hoc group for Brisbane - Done. e. PW to publish emerging RIR draft on the website as final (version 1) - Done. f. HH to call for comments on aso-policy mailing list (comments to be archived on that list). - Done. g. HH to do post call for proposals for LA meeting presentations on public list (aso-policy). - Done. h. HH to include GAC presentation preparation in Brisbane meeting agenda. - To be discussed at this workshop. i. PW to assemble background ASO material for GAC, including MoU, Emerging RIRs criteria document, AC procedures diagram. - Done (but AC procedures diagram was omitted). j. Place an item on this workshop agenda regarding the role of the AC. - Done k. SJ, CW, and WW to prepare a discussion on the MoU review. - Done. l. LT to prepare presentation on how requests for recognition by emerging RIRs will be processed. - Pending. This is not formally a matter for the AC, but LT wishes to consult with AC. m. All to send ideas about this workshop. - Some input received. n. LT to prepare 24/8 document. - Done. 4. Agenda - There was discussion as to whether this is a workshop or a formal meting. It was explained that this is a workshop but that, if necessary, decisions could be agreed upon and ratified at next formal meeting. 5. Role of the AC - There was discussion as to whether the AC is able to initiate action or whether it can only act on referrals. The point was made that the MoU does contain a provision for any one in the world to refer a matter. There was also the suggestion that although the MoU describes a bottom-up structure that does not mean that the AC should not be alert to issues that require attention. It was further suggested that the AC should be cautious about receiving input from any interested party because the risk is that the AC would, by implication, become an appeals body. Although there was some agreement with that point, it was further explained that part of the intention in forming the ASO was to deal with perceptions that the RIR structure was not always open to outside input. - There was general discussion on whether the AC should be regarded as a part of the ASO, or whether it is a creation of ICANN and the RIRs. This was followed by further general discussion of the structures and relationships as currently set out in the MoU. - The different procedural aspects of policy making in the regions and the ability of other interested members of the community to participate were briefly outlined. - There was general discussion about the role of the Ad Hoc committee and its relationship to the AC in policy development. - There was discussion about the ability of the current AC/RIR structure to scale. It was expressed that some in the trade community feel that they have to go to a variety of different policy forums in order to have their needs listened to. There was a suggestion that there is no global authority model that industry would accept and, therefore, the AC should not seek to adopt such a role. It was also noted that the industry people who raise these concerns do not actually tend to participate in the RIR processes. - It was suggested that creating the General Assembly and the ASO-policy list does alter the original bottom-up concept. - It was noted that the role of AC to make recommendations to ICANN, but not make decisions is clear in the MoU. However, it was also noted that what should then happen with those recommendations is not made clear. - The topic of the GSM concerns was raised as an example of how issues could be dealt with by the AC and the RIRs. It was suggested that trying to solve policy issues on a global scale will often not work because such policies cannot be forced upon those who feel they have not had sufficient time to deal with the issues. - It was suggested that a possible role for the AC is to stay up to date with the respective RIR policy agendas and communicate these issues across the board. It was also suggested that the ASO web site could refer to various policy discussions in the regions and provide links to the relevant agendas and meeting minutes. "RIR views on global policy" - presentation by Richard Jimmerson - This presentation summarised the inputs to the ASO and put forward the RIR view that global policy should remain bottom-up and that policy discussions should be initiated by individuals or entities, but should not be initiated by the AC itself. - It was suggested that the issue of whether the AC should initiate issues may need more discussion. General discussion followed on the position in the PSO. - It was generally agreed that the AC could initiate "discussions" but not propose policy. - There was a question about redevelopment of the flowchart. It was suggested that the flowchart should continue to be used but that it should be accompanied by a companion document to make it easier to understand. - There was a discussion about the underlying cultural difference that lead to varying regional policies and a suggestion that preparing a document describing policy differences and offering reasons could be misleading if such factors were not adequately dealt with. - There was a discussion about whether an AC member and the AC itself were "individuals or entities" in the terms of the MoU. - The general consensus was that the wording of this presentation should be amended before it is made public so as to not conflict with the wording of the MoU. - There was discussion that the RIR view of the AC is as a facilitating body, not a policy initiation body. It was suggested that a small group be formed at this workshop to help define the common view. Break 11:05 Reconvene 11:25 "What is global policy?" - presentation by Hans Petter Holen - The presentation mentioned the distinction between regional IPv4 and global IPv6 policy. - It was discussed that there needs to be an understanding of the difference between "policy" and "procedure". - It was suggested that there is a need for more study of the nature of the resources involved and a comparison with other models for distributing other public resources. - It was suggested that it could be problematic for the AC or the RIRs to not be able to explain why differences exist. - It was suggested one way of considering things is that there is only really one global policy - that all who need an address can get one - and that other policies may be different but still coherent with that basic principle. - It was suggested that if there is a move to put together a document explaining differences then it should be done by someone with experience in seeking resources from all RIRs, not by RIR insiders themselves. - It was further suggested that such a document should focus on practice rather than policy. It was also discussed that to a requestor going to different regions, the procedural issues do manifest themselves as differences in policy. The point was made that in some cases the problems arise from the supporting information not from actual policy differences. - There was a strong suggestion that a potential threat to the RIR system could come from businesses used to investing in multi-billion dollar spectrum auctions. It was explained that the registry system does not have the level of sophistication to deal with such issues and that perhaps the ASO should consider a research function in order to help get ready for this problem. - There was a suggestion that there are two questions that can be asked: 1. To what extent should there be global policy? 2. To what extent should different regional policies be encouraged to be aligned? - There was discussion of preparing a document of RIR policy differences and comparing that document to RFC2050. RFC2901 was discussed as a possible starting point for this process. - There was a suggestion of appointing someone to go through the process of applying for address space in each region and preparing a report. However, it was also argued that taking a company's point of view is coloured by the existing relationship with the RIRs. - There was a suggestion of making an open call for input into the experience of applying for addresses. - There was discussion as to whether this task may distract from the need to look at the future and the big problems, such as cable. However the general consensus was that a project like this may help to identify possible approaches that are being taken to deal with the future problems but which may not be properly communicated across all regions. - It was also explained that APNIC's structure includes NIRs, which may have procedural differences. Summary of actions proposed: - Initiate a process to identify differences and similarities in current policies and procedures. - Ask RIRs to prepare a draft one month before the next physical AC meeting (to be held in conjunction with the GA). - Circulate the draft as a public document for comments. - Then do what is appropriate under the terms of the MoU. Summary of process proposed for the comparison document - A four phase approach was proposed: 1. Each RIR should identify the policy and procedure documents to each other 2. The RIRs review the docs of the others 3. Identify differences 4. Compile information and draft a document which is set out as identifying common practices - distribute the implicit procedures. - Timeline, complete phase 4 by 1 January. "Net 24 Policy" - presentation by Louis Touton - The presentation gave an overview of the background and status of cable assignments made by IANA from Net24. - There were various statements that this is an operational matter and does not involve policy issues. - There was discussion about how to deal with the paper that has been prepared. The general consensus is that the AC needs to formulate a decision that this is an administrative matter, then publicly announce that it will be referred to the RIRs in accordance with the procedural flow chart. - There was discussion about whether to put this document through the full process in order to show an example of the flowchart in operation and to ensure transparency of process. - However it was agreed that this paper presents an administrative issue only and the AC needs only to ensure that the process by which it is declared administrative is properly minuted and put on the public record. Break 12:55 Reconvene 14:15 6. "Process for resource support to ICANN/IANA" - discussion led by John Crain - There was a discussion of the issue of assignments to ICANN, including the questions of self-assignment. The general consensus was that the process of making assignments to ICANN, including self-assignments, should be publicly reviewable. - This raised the issue of which RIR ICANN should approach for assignment approval. It was explained that ARIN has recently adopted a policy for making such assignments. - Concerned was expressed that ICANN requests that go through the accepted ICANN channels should not be vetoed by the ARIN membership; however, it was explained that this is not possible. - It was argued further that if the internet community broadly determines that something should be done, then it should not be subject to veto by one or more RIRs. However it was strongly suggested that such a scenario is unlikely because such issues will already have passed through the RIR consensus process. - There was general consensus that that assignments to ICANN should be subject to scrutiny under the same rules as any other assignment. - It was suggested that the global community is broader than a protocol community, so when it expresses its view through the proper processes, then the specific communities must accept that. There was general confusion in the group as to what sort of situation this might cover and how it could arise. - There was a suggestion that this discussion might be about a problem that may never actually exist. It was further suggested that ICANN should agree to go through the registry system and only raise this matter as an issue if a problem ever arises; in the meantime, all parties should move forward with the idea that trust exists. This suggestion achieved full consensus. 7. How to further improve the openness and PR of the AC - It was suggested that the AC review its procedures in light of the MoU. In particular, the publishing of meeting agendas 30 days in advance should be adhered to. - It was suggested that there could be private workshops to get things started but that actual decisions be made in public circumstances. In other words, votes should be open but not the technical discussions. However, it argued that the intention behind the MoU is that the really useful work should continue to take place in the existing forums. It was also argued that if the AC does a good job of publishing minutes and decisions then the suggestion of open meetings for voting is not necessary. It was also noted that there is nothing in the MoU to require holding open meetings apart from the General Assembly. - There was discussion of the objections of Mark McFadden and others, who are calling for all important decisions to be made in a public forum. - It was suggested that part of the PR job on this issue is to explain the regional policy processes and clarify the role of the AC. - It was also suggested that the perception of transparency depends very much on details, such as how quickly minutes get out and how early agendas are posted. - It was suggested that although the AC is not obliged to hold meetings at ICANN meetings, it would be advisable from time to time to organise ASO opening meetings during ICANN conferences. Not only this is also an appropriate framework to discuss global policies, but it would enable a better interaction with ASO representatives on the ICANN board. - It was suggested that the web site needs a lot more information in order to help with transparency. There was also suggestion to include more detail about who the AC members are. - There was discussion of the mailing lists and it was suggested that the use of lists is not as is intended in the MoU. For example, many things that happen on ac-coord should actually be on aso-policy. This was generally agreed to. - Further discussion of the mailing lists followed. It was noted that the Names Council has a list to which members only can post but the public can read. Several people expressed interest in such a list. Summary of proposed changes to mailing lists: | ASO-ac | AC-coord | ASO-policy |ASO-announce _________________________________________________________ Who can | AC,RIR, | AC,RIR, | all | all subscribe| ICANN | ICANN | | _________________________________________________________ Public | yes | no | yes | yes archived | | _________________________________________________________ Who can | AC,RIR | AC,RIR | all | ASO post | ICANN | ICANN | | secretariat _________________________________________________________ Break 16:15 Reconvened at 16:40 8. Emerging RIRs "Status of LACNIC" - by German Valdez - The main points from the LACNIC presentation given at the APNIC member meeting were restated. - It was explained that LACNIC is in the process of getting documents translated into English. - It was suggested that work needs to be done on the formal process for transferring ARIN members to LACNIC. "Status of AfriNIC" - by Mouhamet Diop - It was argued that there needs to be a formalising of the relationship between ICANN and the emerging RIRs and that AfriNIC needs more feedback from ICANN about its progress. - It was explained that funding issues still need work. - It was noted that the document the RIRs are working on will provide a great deal of support to this process. - There was a suggestion that the ASO web page should make it clearer that the emerging RIRs have been recognised with observer status on the AC. - It was noted that some in the community have commented that if RIPE NCC and APNIC had had to meet the requirements of the current criteria then they may never had become a RIR. Further discussion of that point followed, taking issue with that opinion. - It was noted that AfriNIC had established the consensus required, but that there needs to be more formalised expressions of support from RIRs in terms of funding and other support in order to meet the initial needs. - It was explained that it is hard to get the initial funding commitments without getting formal recognition, but that the recognition is hard to get without the funding commitments. It was suggested that AfriNIC should put together a detailed business plan and get prospective members to sign up to it. From there ICANN can establish the level of support. - It was explained that many African ISPs are not currently members of ARIN or RIPE NCC because they were set up by large international providers. Further discussion of emerging RIRs - There was a suggestion that both emerging RIRs should now send a formal letter to ICANN seeking recognition and asking that ICANN point to the problems it perceives so that they can be addressed. However, there was also comment that ICANN needs to discuss the emerging RIR document first. It was also noted that ICANN/IANA will need to go through a public process to determine the level of support in the respective regions, including the intention to provide financial support to these organisations. It was explained that the approval process is likely to be a gradual one, but that it will help applications if there is some kind of plan for transition. - It was noted that ARIN has made available a list of members to LACNIC. LACNIC has so far gained support from 60 percent of those members, with the remaining 40 percent still to contacted. - There was discussion of the issue of transferring funds. The general consensus was that this is a matter for the respective memberships. - There was discussion about the process of writing to ICANN to establish that the criteria had been met. - It was advised that the emerging RIR document is still up for comments. It cannot be put to the board until December. The board would be unlikely to take action on it until March. However, it was explained that the emerging RIRs could still make a formal application in the meantime. - It was noted that this process is different to emerging TLDs because it affects existing registries and so the relationship of the RIRs to the emerging RIRs is going to be one of the most critical factors. Therefore an acceptable transition plan is very important. - It was generally agreed that the emerging RIRs will work closely with existing RIRs on their plans. The RIRs will help with the applications to ICANN and communicate their level of support. There was also a suggestion to form a contract or MoU between each emerging RIR and the relevant existing RIRs. - It was suggested that ICANN should give some kind of power to the new RIRs. It was explained that this kind of power comes from recognition and allocations. - The question was raised as to how to ensure that members of existing RIRs moved to new RIRs. It was explained that because all RIRs are required to work along continental lines, then the existing RIRs would not take on new members from their former region. However it was noted that the lack of power to compel members to switch does pose a problem of funding for the new RIRs. - There was discussion about asking ICANN for a formal branding of "emerging RIR" in order to help overcome the problem of obtaining initial member support. However, LACNIC sees no advantage in receiving provisional support from ICANN. On the contrary, their target is to apply directly for a definitive recognition, as soon as the emerging RIRs document is approved. - It was noted that AfriNIC and LACNIC are in different positions in that LACNIC wants to move ahead quickly but AfriNIC requires further support. - There was a discussion of the transitional mechanism which is used in the AP region. It was explained that the emerging registry could gather the information and provide support, then forward that to the RIR for "second opinion" approval. Such a mechanism would mean that the emerging RIR can start to provide services and even receive membership fees before it has its own resources. - It was suggested that moves be made to formalise what is now done informally. However, it was argued that while this is a good idea, it should not go too far or it will become a top-down process rather than a bottom-up. - It was confirmed that there are currently reserved blocks in ARIN for the LACNIC and AfriNIC regions. - LACNIC and AfriNIC representatives confirmed their satisfaction in communications with existing RIRs. 18:00 Breakout sessions to workshop the following topics: - prepare GAC - prepare ICANN open meeting (prepare input to the RIRs to prepare comprising document) 29 October 2000 "Ad Hoc Group activities" - presented by Raimundo Beca - The presentation was a review on the Ad Hoc Group activities. - After discussion, it was decided, on one hand, to post this presentation to the ASO's web site. - It was also suggested that the RIRs include on the agenda of their next open policy forums the relevant issues identified throughout the Ad Hoc exercise and that they should invite the members of the editorial group to actively participate in those forums IRP NomCom - This item was deferred until next meeting. RIR document comparing RIR policies - It was suggested that the document should focus on the users' perspective, of how the RIRs look like to address seekers. However it was also noted that the AC should not give the RIRs too much direction and that the RIRs should determine how to make the comparisons. - Goal for the first draft is first week of January 2001. Discussion of ASO MoU - It was discussed that CW, SJ, and WW have been working to develop comments on areas of ambiguity or confusion and that these comments could be considered when discussing whether there is a need for any changes to the MoU. 1. Comprehensive definition of the "ASO". The following interpretations were discussed: ASO = RIRs + ICANN or ASO = RIRs + ICANN + AC - It was noted that the terms "ASO" and "Address Council" are sometimes used interchangeably in the MoU. - It was therefore suggested that the MoU could be amended to use the terms consistently throughout. 2. "General Assembly" - It was noted that it is not clear whether there should be "only" one GA per year, or "at least" one GA per year. - It was therefore suggested that the MoU could be amended to clarify this issue. 3. Section 2(a)(i) - It was noted that the MoU suggests that RIRs hold one policy meeting per year, whereas in fact the RIRs hold multiple policy meetings each year. 4. Section 2(a)(v) - It was suggested that this provision states only one exclusion, but that perhaps other exclusions should be considered. 5. Section 2(b) - This section is to be replaced by Amendment 1 (setting AC terms to begin January 1). The question was raised as to whether the relevant wording should be replaced or deleted in the primary MoU document. 6. Section 2(c) - Removal - The question was raised as to whether an RIR can remove AC members only once, or as often as it wishes. - It was suggested that there needs to be an open and transparent process for removal, perhaps setting out some firm criteria for removal (such as continued non-attendance at meetings). - It was also suggested that there may be a need for RIRs to have the ability to appoint a member of AC to fill an open seat and that the MoU should therefore have a provision for temporary replacement. 7. Section 2(d) - It was noted that the MoU provides for face-to-face or telephone meetings only. It was suggested therefore that the MoU should be amended to include explicit provision for electronic voting. 8. Section 2(e) - Web site - It was discussed that the AC is responsible for the content of the ASO web site. 9. Section 2(f) - Secretary - The question was raised as to whether there is a need to clarify the role and services of the Secretariat. However it was agreed that there is no need for this as the current informal system works well, thanks to commitment of RIRs. 10. Section 2(g) - It was agreed that this section does not "prevent" reimbursement of expenses by RIRs. 11. Observers - There was a suggestion that the MoU should allow for three observers for each emerging RIR (currently, there is one observer and two listeners). - However, it was also suggested that this may not be an important issue as there is no likelihood of new emerging RIRs in the near future. 12. Section 3(b) - It was suggested amending "the General Assembly" to "a General Assembly". 13. Section 3(e) - It was suggested that there is a need to clarify the role of ASO-elected Directors, as they do not "represent the ASO." 14. Section 4 - It was noted that this section does not distinguish between "AC" and "ASO" and that this needs to be clarified. - There was a suggestion to change the heading to "Duties of the ASO and AC". 15. Section 4(b)(iii) - It was noted that there is no in-addr.arpa service for AS numbers and that, therefore, the parenthetical forward should be removed from the sentence. 16. Section 4(b) - It was suggested that it would be more logical for the definition of limitation of ASO/AC duties to be in another section or footnote. 17. Section 4(b) - It was noted that this section only describes input from ICANN Board and does not describe how to handle input from general public. 18. Section 5 - Annual Open meeting (General Assembly) - It was suggested that the MoU should be clarified on the issue as to whether there should be only one, or more than one GAs. 19. Section 6(b) - It was suggested that the section needs to clarify the meaning of "ASO policy". 20. Section 8 - It was suggested that the following sentence does not make sense and should be removed: "Should any difference of opinion arise during the term of this MOU regarding the interpretation of this MOU the conditions prevailing prior thereto shall be maintained." 20. Other notes - It was suggested that the AC should have the possibility to invite individuals to work with it on particular issues. Currently there is no framework for invitations to form such things as committees, groups, task forces, or workshops. - In relation to section 9, the question was raised as to whether the criteria for emerging RIRs also apply to existing RIRs. - It was noted that apart from the MoU, there will also be an ICANN-RIR contract, including funding issues, and IANA address obligations. It was also suggested that the ASO needs to keep in mind the distinction between policy and implementation. - There was discussion of the IANA policy of delegating /8 blocks. It was suggested that this should be documented in an open policy document, particularly with respect to the level of justification that is required. It was pointed out that the document being formed by the RIRs deals with the administrative issues surrounding this but that there remains a need to set out the policy. - There was a comment that to the NIRs, the RIRs can seem a little bit unfair in their policies. It was suggested that there is a need for a document specifying how to allocate address space. Next agenda items: - Status of Ad Hoc Committee - IRP NomCom - ASO Action Plan - Report on address space consumption Workshop closed.
Last modified on 03/03/2020