ASO AC Teleconference 3 September 2009

AC Attendees:

  • Jean Robert Hountomey, JRH AfriNIC
  • Naresh Ajwani, NA APNIC
  • Dr. Kenny S. Huang, KH APNIC
  • Tomohiro Fujisaki, TF APNIC
  • Martin Hannigan, MH ARIN
  • Jason Schiller , JS ARIN
  • Hartmut Glaser, HG LACNIC
  • Francisco Obispo, FO LACNIC
  • Dave Wilson, DW RIPE NCC
  • Hans Petter Holen, HPH RIPE NCC
  • Wilfried Woeber, WW RIPE NCC


  • Chris Buckridge, CB : RIPE NCC
  • Nick Hyrka, NH : RIPE NCC


  • Ray Plzak, RP : ICANN
  • Raimundo Beca, RB : ICANN
  • Olof Nordling, ON : ICANN
  • German Valdez, GV : APNIC
  • Einar Bohlin, EB : ARIN
  • Nate Davies, ND : ARIN
  • John Curran, JC : ARIN
  • Ricardo Patera, RP : LACNIC
  • Filiz Yilmaz, FY : RIPE NCC


  • Louis Lee, LL ARIN
  • Sebastian Bellagamba LACNIC


  • Vincent Ngundi AfriNIC
  • Alan Barrett AfriNIC

Draft Agenda

  1. Welcome
  2. Agenda review
  3. Approval of the minutes from the 6 August 2009 teleconference
  4. Review of open action items
  5. ASO AC election of candidate to the ICANN Nominations Committee
  6. ICANN Board Election Process Committee update
  7. Communications and Procedures Committee update
  8. Global Policy Proposal for the Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries
  9. IANA Policy for Allocation of ASNs to RIRs
  10. AOB
  11. Adjournment

1. Welcome

The Chair opened the meeting at 13:10 (UTC) and welcomed attendees.

HPH congratulated KH on his re-election to the ASO AC.

2. Agenda review

HPH went through the agenda, noting that the AOB item would include highlights from APNIC 28. There were no further additions or corrections.

3. Approval of the minutes from the 6 August 2009 teleconference

The Chair noted that there were no comments on the minutes received on the mailing list.

Suggested motion: Proposed by DW. Seconded by HG. Motion passed.

HPH proposed the motion “The ASO AC approves the minutes of the 6 August 2009 teleconference as presented to the list by the Secretariat.” The motion was seconded by WW and there were none opposed so the motion carried.

Action item 0909-01: Secretariat to change the status of the minutes of the 6 August 2009 meeting from draft.

4. Review of open action items

The Chair said he would review only those action items that are not part of the agenda elsewhere:

Action: 1211-01: The Chair to send a message to the NRO EC Chair with a list of items pending a response from the EC.

LL reports that there is no update on this item.

Action item 0809-01: Secretariat to change the status of the minutes of the 25 May 2009 meeting from draft.

LL reports that this has been completed.

Action item 0809-02: The Chair to send his proposed presentation to the Asia Peering Forum to the ASO AC for its comments.

LL reports that this has been completed.

Action item 0809-03: The Secretariat to send an announcement to the mailing list opening the nomination period for appointment to the ICANN Nominations Committee and the period to close when the next meeting begins.

LL reports that this has been completed.

Action item 0809-04: The Chair to send the draft procedures regarding the ICANN Nominations Committee election process to the mailing list.

LL reports that this has been completed.

5. ASO AC election of candidate to the ICANN Nominations Committee

HPH nominated WW for this position. WW accepted the nomination.

DS nominated MH. MH accepted the nomination.

There was a question about whether this candidate can be from the same region as the Chair. There was no such limitation on the role.

DS asked for clarification from the Secretariat that there had been no other nomination emails. The Secretariat confirmed that there have been no further nomination emails.

HPH noted that LL sent an email to the list on 15 August regarding the procedure. HG asked for clarification on what would happen with in the case of a tie. It noted that the procedure dictates that in the case of a tie, there be a run-off between the two tied candidates. MH suggested that, even though there were only two candidates in the election, an initial vote should be held, followed by a second vote if necessary.

HPH noted that the person elected to this role should be willing to serve on the ASO AC for the upcoming year, willing to serve on the ICANN NomComm and willing to attend the first face-to-face meeting of the ICANN 2009 NomComm. MH and WW both agreed to these three conditions, though WW noted that he did not know when the first meeting of the NomComm would happen – it was clarified that it would be in Seoul, Korea in two weeks time.

LL clarified that this will be the ICANN 2010 NomComm, and the meeting will be held in Seoul in two months, rather than two weeks.

HG noted that the candidate should be willing, if possible to serve for two years (though the ICANN position is for one year). WW and MH both agreed to this, though MH questioned the need for this prerequisite.

WW received seven votes, and was declared the appointee to the ICANN Nominations Committee. He was congratulated by the ASO AC. JS thanked HG for his service.

6. ICANN Board Election Process Committee update

HPH noted that NA has recently circulated draft to the committee list, and that this is work in progress. HG noted that it would be good to have a timeline, that it will be necessary to elect the new ICANN Board member in early 2010, and that the new process will need to be in place by then. HPH noted that it should be good to have the process prepared by the next meeting.

JS agreed with the timeline, but suggested that there be an ad hoc conference call to discuss the changes. ND agreed to this, as did DW. HPH suggested that the committee submit comments on the draft via email, and that a call be arranged for next week (10 September). NA also suggested a Chair of the committee be selected, and that this could be done on the mailing list. It was also suggested that the changes to the election process be placed on the agenda for the October ASO AC teleconference.

JS suggested staying with a Thursday 13:00pm (UTC) timeslot for the Committee call. DW will not be able to make the call, but is happy to submit his comments via email.

7. Communications and Procedures Committee update

This item refers to the following open action items:

Action: 0209-04: WW to work on draft charter for the Communications and Procedures Committee and present it to the ASO AC.

Action: 0409-02: The Communications and Procedures Committee to investigate providing a way for external organisations to easily link to the ASO website.

WW noted that both action items remain open. For 0209-04, there is a draft that was circulated on the mailing list, but it has not been formally presented. This needs to be done within a week. Re. 0409-02, WW intends to work with the Secretariat to provide artwork etc. and make this available on the new website.

Re. 0209-04, HPH suggested that the ASO AC could simply approve the previous draft. WW noted that he still needs to review and incorporate any comments made at that time, and that it should be properly written up and re-submitted.

8. Global Policy Proposal for the Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries

DW noted that he has there has been no change from the RIPE perspective in the last month.
ON noted that in AfriNIC the proposal has gone through Final Call, APNIC has adopted the proposal (with EC approval in May 2009), in LACNIC it has gone through Final Call. The proposal is still under discussion in ARIN, as well as in RIPE community, which is awaiting ARIN’s modifications to the proposal.

There was a question about the likelihood of the policy being accepted or modified in the ARIN region. ND noted that it is hard to judge what will happen. EB noted that the ARIN AC is working on the text now and should have a revised version in the coming week, after which there will be another round of discussion.

DW noted that the ARIN and RIPE communities are now discussing a different text to that agreed on by the other three regions. HPH noted that either this new text will have to be agreed on by all five regions, or it will be agreed that the changes made by the ARIN community are so minor that the approval of the original text can stand, with subsequent review and reconciliation of the two versions by an editorial committee. It is likely in this case, however, that the new policy text will have to be agreed on by all five RIRs.

DW would like to agree on how to proceed, specifically from the perspective of the NRO NC. JS noted that there have been discussions about the NRO NC’s role in “shepherding” global policy, and that this may be an appropriate case for such shepherding. JC encouraged those in each region to get a clear statement of why a particular policy statement has been changed – he will ensure that the ARIN AC provides a clear rationale for the changes made to the text of this proposal. JC suggested that the important thing is to bring the reservations of any single region into the global discussion.
HPH suggested attempting to align the time periods in each region (ie. synchronize Final Call phases). WW supported this suggestion.

There was a question as to whether this policy change is critical to the operation of the Internet – if not, then there is less hurry. WW noted that the contentious issue is whether returned address space can remain within a specific region, or must go back to the IANA to be distributed (potentially) to other regions. He argued that this is not simply an editorial change, but is a fundamental shift. JS agreed with WW’s characterization, but noted that the ASO AC is not in a position to say whether the policy is or is not critical to the Internet. JS argued that the ASO AC discussion should be fed back into the various community discussions.

JC felt that it would be worthwhile for the ASO AC members to reach out (formally or otherwise) to their respective communities when they see a global policy being changed, and remind their communities to be clear about their rationale for any change. DW supported this sentiment, and noted that it is possibly the ASO AC’s most important job. He noted that policies are often driven by their authors, and that it may be most useful to go back and talk to the original authors. HPH noted that it would be very helpful if the author could be convinced to make appropriate changes.
RP noted that the intent of the NRO MoU was that the text for global policies presented to each region be as close to identical as possible, so any substantive changes would move between the regional versions of the proposal – only when substantive differences have been resolved should the global policy proposal move to the NRO NC.

DW noted that this policy seems to be diverging in various regions, so at this stage it may be useful to go back to the authors and solve the divergence by re-submitting text in at least some regions.

RP noted that he has already given some input to the revision process, but his position on the ICANN Board precludes too much involvement. JC noted that the policy in the ARIN region, once submitted, is held by the ARIN AC, though JS noted they will tend to work with the originator of the policy.
DW thanked RP for his contribution. JC noted that there was a large drafting committee working on this proposal. HPH suggested that it would be useful to work with all of the original authors, rather than just the ARIN-based authors.

JC highlighted the need to find common ground on how the RIRs feel about returned address space, and suggested that this process is helping to map this out. RP noted that he will still be available for consultation or comments on the original thinking of the policy’s genesis. JS noted that it is the communities, not the RIRs, that need to agree on common ground. JC agreed, and noted that the NRO EC cannot act without ensuring that their communities agree.

HPH noted that, absent this policy, there is no policy dictating that the RIRs should return space to the IANA. JS pointed out that the IANA will not have any policy for re-allocation of returned space after the exhaustion of the IPv4 free pool anyway. JC noted that prior practices would not be applicable. HPH noted that if nothing is done, then each community will simply keep the address space that it has.

DW suggested that all members go back to their communities and help further the discussion, and that they engage the authors from their respective regions. MH suggested that DW develop a message that the ASO AC members can take to their communities, and suggested that the authors of the policy appoint someone to deal with DW. He noted that the ASO AC position needs to maintain neutrality, and try to encompass all concerns raised.
MH noted that this kind of engagement had been the point of the PPFT. JS noted that the charter doesn’t specify this.

Consensus opinion was that ASO AC members should do what they can to shepherd the policy in respective regions. DW noted that he has no official motion to propose, but he will share his input to the RIPE community with the ASO AC mailing list. JS will also try to summarize the concerns raised in the ARIN region and share this on the list.

9. IANA Policy for Allocation of ASNs to RIRs

ON summarized the status of this policy proposal. He has circulated a draft; consensus was reached at the APNIC meeting, and it was moved to Final Call. It was introduced in AfriNIC, is in discussion in ARIN, where it has been accepted by the AC, was introduced in LACNIC (under the Expedited Policy Approval Process) and moved to Final Call, and is in Final Call in the RIPE community

ON will post an updated report on the global policy proposal tomorrow.

10. AOB

KH provided an update on the APNIC 28 meeting, and suggested that the presentation given by the NRO NC members from the APNIC region be forwarded to the NRO NC mailing list.

CB noted that Tomohiro Fujisaki’s name was not called during the election for the ICANN NomComm. HPH noted that he had asked for comments, but there were none. TF agreed to have his vote recorded as an abstention, and the result was upheld. HPH asked that further discussion of the election process be placed on the agenda of the next ASO AC teleconference.

12. Adjournment

WW asked for a motion to adjourn. TF seconded the motion, the meeting adjourned at 14:24.

Last modified on 29/01/2020