ASO AC-ICANN Workshop 28 October, 2000

ICANN Address Supporting Organisation

Brisbane Workshop

28 – 29 October 2000 UTC

Workshop Notes


-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

a. RIRs to produce second draft of resource request procedures and
- 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

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

- 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

- 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

- 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

- 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

- 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

- 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

- 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
- 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

- 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.

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

1.  Comprehensive definition of the "ASO".
   The following interpretations were discussed:
     ASO = RIRs + ICANN
     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

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

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

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

15.  Section 4(b)(iii)
- It was noted that there is no service for AS numbers and
that, therefore, the parenthetical forward should be removed from the

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

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