ASO AC Face-to-Face Meeting 15 March 2011

ASO AC Attendees:


Fiona Asonga, FA

Alan Barrett, AB, Vice Chair

Jean Robert Hountomey, JRH



Naresh Ajwani, NA, Vice Chair

Tomohiro Fujisaki, TF


Ron da Silva, RD

Louie Lee, LL, Chair

Jason Schiller, JS



Sebastian Bellagamba, SB

Hartmut Glaser, GS


Hans Petter Holen, HPH

Dave Wilson – DW


  • Einar Bohlin,  ARIN



German Valdez – GV


John Curran, JC

Nate Davis, ND


Olof Nordling, OD

Leo Vegoda, LV


Raúl Echebarría


Andrew de la Haye, AdlH

Emilio Madaio


Wilfried Woeber


Francisco Obisbo

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 9:13 PDT. The presence of quorum was noted. The Chair acknowledged Kenny Huang’s resignation. The Chair acknowledged that Dave Wilson was attending the meeting via teleconference.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair announced that the lunch would be provided but will be reduced to 30 minutes, so that the Council can work through. He stated that items 8 and 9 would likely be sent to the ASO AC’s list, instead of being discussed at this meeting.

3. Approval of the Minutes

It was moved by SB, and seconded by NA, that:

The ASO AC approves the Minutes of February 3, 2011, as written.

The Chair called for any comments. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

New Action Item 0315-01: Secretariat to remove ‘Draft’ from the February Minutes.

4. Open Action Item Review

0622-02: ASO AC WiKi.  WW to work with PR and the RIPE NCC on the Wiki. If WW needs more help, he can turn to the Communications Committee. ON-GOING.

The Chair stated this would be tabled until the next regularly scheduled meeting due to WW not being available.

0203-01: SEC to remove ‘Draft’ from the January Minutes. OPEN.

EB confirmed this had been done. The Chair stated this item to be Closed.

5. Status of Global Policy For IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post Exhaustion


Note: Martin Hannigan was on this team, but has since resigned from the ASO AC. The ASO AC needs to call for a volunteer to replace Martin Hannigan as a member of the Policy Proposal Facilitator Team (PPFT).

The Chair asked for the status of this item. AB stated that the previous version failed to reach consensus in November, and the new version was posted for discussion on the AfriNIC policy list. The Chair stated that APNIC decided to abandon this policy, and as such it cannot advance as a global policy. ON stated he will update the ICANN proposal page.

ON noted that a similar global proposal did advance at APNIC and asked if they can be reported on in the same report? The Chair suggested that they remain separate because they are different proposals. JS suggested referencing the other proposals in their reports.

The Chair asked for volunteers from ARIN to take over MH’s spot. JC notes that these proposals can be long lived, if the ASO AC wishes to get them off the AC’s agenda, they should look to get them withdrawn in the regions. The Chair noted a request from RIPE NCC regarding the withdrawal of the global proposal. The Chair stated that the ASO AC could inform the NRO EC that a proposal will not advance. JS stated the AC needs a formal procedure for this. AB noted there is no procedure for withdrawal, or for items that fail to move forward. JC noted that each RIR has their own definition of how global proposals are submitted through their Policy Development Processes (PDP). You will need a generic mechanism for how to deal with this, because you will not know authoritatively what each RIR has to do to get rid of them. JS stated it was adopted on 12 Jan 2011 in the ARIN region. JC replied that ARIN is awaiting the conclusion of the ICANN process.

ON clarified that the AC was confusing the proposals. The earlier one was declared by the NRO EC Chair as abandoned, which is reflected on the ICANN global proposal site. This item has been adopted by ARIN, abandoned by APNIC, under discussion in the other RIRs.

ON notes that there is also one more proposal, so there is one abandoned, and two under discussion. SB noted the ASO MoU, Paragraph 4, Ratification of the Common Text. When there is a common text, the NRO EC will forward it to the ASO AC. So the proposal is not at the ASO AC level unless there is common text given to the ASO AC. JC so it’s not on the ASO AC work queue; then you cannot dispose of it at all. SB stated that the Council is following the global proposal in order to be ready to receive it from the NRO EC.

AdlH noted that that the proposal abandoned at APNIC has recently been withdrawn in the RIPE region, and that the proposal abandoned at APNIC has recently been withdrawn in the RIPE region. JS suggested clarifying the three global proposals. RdS stated the Council needs syntax to keep clear which proposals are in our queue, and which ones we are following. SB notes we have no role regarding the ones we are following; it is clear what our role is and when it starts, when the EC gives us a proposals per the ASO MOU global PDP. HPH did not agree stating that the Council has followed proposals from the beginning and needs to continue doing so.

SB clarified stating that we have a clear role per the ASO MOU procedure: the role to follow and be ready. The Chair agreed that the role is to follow the global proposals as they are progressing. ON reviewed the three global proposals. The first one, abandoned, intended to replace the current global policy. There are the two newer ones: HP 2010-5 is the only open global proposal in the RIPE region; it’s the next item. AH noted that one hour ago, 2010-5 was withdrawn.

The Chair again asked for an ARIN volunteer to replace MH. RdS volunteered to replace MH on the PPFT. The Chair acknowledged and thanked him.

The Chair noted that the next agenda item might not have been submitted yet. AH noted that in RIPE region, two global proposals have been abandoned and withdrawn, there is a new one yet to be submitted.

JC stated that a table needs to be established on the ASO AC site to list the global proposals, and ARIN as the SEC will do it. Need to work on naming schemes too, and they will link to the RIR proposals. He noted that the ASO AC is tasked by the ASO MoU to ensure that the RIR PDPs are followed. Actively following the global proposals needs to be done.

HG joined the meeting at this time (9:40 a.m. PDT).

SB agreed stating that after the proposal is given to the AC by the NRO EC it is formally in the AC’s queue. NA noted that ON prepares reports, and this may be exactly what he needs. JC noted ICANN’s work in this area and stated that the AC needs a simple list on their site as a quick reference chart for them, and the community.

New Action Item: 0115-02: SEC: Establish Table on website listing global proposals and work on naming schemes.

SB left the meeting at this time (9:50 a.m. PDT).

ON noted that his report has the RIR identification numbers and status. NA stated that he shares ON’s report with the community, and asked if ON can show the status box here at the meeting. AB suggested that the AC give these global proposals its own identifiers, eg. GPP-2011-1, etc. AB thanked JC for putting up a list of the global proposals.

DW requested discussing getting the proposal off of the AC’s work plan. JC noted that the AC’s work queue formally starts with adoption of the same text in the 5 regions per the MoU, up until then, they are tracking development but it’s not a work queue item. If the SEC were to work with the RIRs to assign a global policy number, then you would have a list for tracking, and ON could add this to his tables.

The Council reviewed ON’s report/table of the GPP. ON noted that it is updated month to month, and that the ICANN Board requests tracking of GPPs. He explained that this occurs after the ASO AC recognizes that a new GPP exists. It would be good for the AC to track them earlier. HPH noted that this is covered in the operating procedures, and suggested adding an item to the procedure, as follows:  “add a global number to the GPP.” The PPFT is required to ask each RIR to add a GPP within 10 days of recognition by the ASO AC as a GPP.

6. Status of Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA


JS noted this is ARIN-prop-137 in the ARIN region, and that it is currently under discussion and review per the ARIN PDP. HG stated there was no update from LACNIC. HPH stated there was no update from RIPE. TF stated it was discussed at APNIC 31 and reached consensus. It is currently in the call for comments phase. FA noted that it will be posted to the AfriNIC list, and it will be discussed at the upcoming AfriNIC meeting. The Chair noted that the authors have been asked if they want to work together. He will request a background report for this GPP.

7. ICANN Review Teams: Related Activities Update

A) SSR RT Update. HG reported that the first full working day is the day after tomorrow – March 17th. There are 16 members. There was a very short meeting yesterday to put the agenda together. ON noted there was short meeting in Cartagena as well. Yesterday we discussed how to assign the workload. There will be a public meeting on the 17th. At this time there is no plan to bring in others from the supporting organizations and address organizations (SOs and ACs) – that will occur later on.

B) WHOIS RT Update. The Chair noted that the WRT is reporting to the SOs and ACs today. ON noted that the WRT posted questions for feedback. They are having short meetings with the SOs and ACs and Registrars. The public session will also take place tomorrow. The Chair asked him to send the list of questions to the ASO AC’s list. ON agreed.

The Chair noted there was a question of scope. Does the WRT include both DNS Whois and Numbers Whois? JC stated that he, RE and WW were able to discuss it. RE had said that there are different characteristics with Number Whois. The understanding with Emily Taylor is that this will not include IP Whois, but she asked for information about IP Whois, how it works, etc. JC stated the review team charter seems to specify DNS Whois. They will probably seek input, wisdom, and lessons learned, from the ASO AC. JC believes that the scope will remain DNS Whois. If the WRT requests a signoff of the entire ASO, that could take time.

8. Status of 2011 ICANN NomCom

This item was tabled because WW was unavailable.

9. Status of ASO Review

RE noted that the NRO put out a request for proposals call for people interested in conducting the ASO Review. The NRO received 5 different proposals. Adiel Akplogan has been leading the work at the EC level and should have a decision this month.

10. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business items.

NA asked if the ICANN Board is presenting today. JC stated he had asked several times that the ICANN Board and GAC keep their schedules open so they can attend tomorrow’s AC workshop.

11. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 10:24 PDT. HP moved to adjourn, and AB seconded this. The meeting was adjourned with no objections.

Last modified on 29/01/2020