ASO AC Teleconference 14 October 2010

AC Attendees:

  • Jean Robert Hountomey, JRH – AfriNIC
  • Alan Barret, AB – AfriNIC
  • Naresh Ajwani, NA – APNIC
  • Kenny Huang, KH – APNIC
  • Tomohiro Fujisaki, TF – APNIC
  • Louis Lee, LL – ARIN
  • Hartmut Glaser, HG – LACNIC
    (joined the meeting 25 minutes after roll call)
  • Francisco Obispo, FO – LACNIC
  • Dave Wilson – DW – RIPE NCC
  • Hans Peter Holen, HH – RIPE NCC



  • Laureana Pavón, LP – LACNIC



  • Germán Valdez, GV – APNIC
  • John Curran, JC – ARIN
  • Nate Davis, ND – ARIN
  • Leslie Nobile, LN – ARIN
  • Einar Bohlin, EB – ARIN
  • Filiz Yilmaz, FY – RIPE NCC
  • Kuo-Wei Wu, KW – ICANN Board
  • Olof Nordling, ON – ICANN
  • Leo Vegoda, LV – ICANN



  • Vincent Ngundi, VN – AfriNIC
  • Sebastián Bellagamba, SB – LACNIC
  • Wilfried Woeber, WW – RIPE NCC
  • Martin Hannigan, MH – ARIN



1. Welcome
2. Agenda review
3. Approval of the minutes from the September 9 teleconference
4. Review of open action items
5. Global Policy Proposal – ASN
6. Board of Directors selection procedure
7. Update presentation of Internet number resource policy developments
8. Volunteer group to get together at the upcoming RIPE meeting in Rome.
9. ITU IPv6 WG
10. Update from NANOG50
11. Update from ARIN XXVI
12. Update on activities related to the ICANN Review Teams formed from the Affirmation of Commitments signed between the US Government and ICANN.
13. AOB
14. Adjournment


1. Welcome

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting at 13.17 UTC.


2. Agenda review

LL read and finalized the tentative agenda.

No further comments


3. Approval of the minutes from the September 9 teleconference

Motion to approve the minutes of the meetings held on September 9, 2010, by NA, seconded by FO. None opposed and the motion carried.

New Action Item 1014-01: The secretariat to change the status of the September 9, 2010, minutes from draft to approved.


4. Review of open action items

LL said he was under the impression the following action item has not been closed yet:

0622-03: RE to do a write up on Webex and send it to the list (including features such as chat that we can make use of).

LP said that during the previous meeting it had been noted as “taken over by events.” LL proposed creating a new action item for this task:

New Action item 1014-02: RE to do a write up on Webex and send it to the list (including features such as chat that we can make use of).

Action Item 0909-01: The secretariat to change the status of the August 5, 2010, minutes from draft to approved. DONE

Action item 0622-05: All to begin conversations with the new secretariat in the upcoming weeks, find out their preferences and limitations and come up with a proposal for the ASO AC. (Action item regarding the scheduling 2011 teleconferences with the new Secretariat, time zone issues, day of the week, etc.).  OUTSTANDING

LL asked whether ARIN is already on the secretariat list, to which JC replied that they could be added and that it might be good to have a call and walk through the ASO AC preferences. He asked whether a specific call was required to discuss the hand-off.

LL replied that it was not really necessary, as the previous hand-off had been smooth, but that it was important to make sure that the scheduling works.

JC said they will talk with the current secretary and discuss a transition plan, then have a call with some members of the ASO AC to go over the plan.

Action item 0410-3: The Secretariat to find out how much effort and cost would be involved in setting up a wiki − both as a private wiki and as a public wiki − and send that information to the list for further discussion.

LP will try to find out what’s going on.

Action item 0622-02: WW to work with PR and the RIPE NCC on the wiki. If WW needs more help he can turn to the communications committee. OUTSTANDING

LL noted that this action item is related to the previous one and said he would write to PR to see if there is anything the AC can do to help.

5. Global Policy Proposal – ASN

LL said it had been ratified and implemented on 21 September and asked if this item could be removed from the agenda now.

LL explained that the global policy will expire at the end of the year and asked LV whether he sees that as an issue coming up, something that should kick off another GPP.

LV replied that he’s not sure what situation the RIRs are seeing in terms of people specifically needing these smaller numbers, so he believes this question should be referred back to the RIRs.

New Action item 1014-03: The AC to send a possible review to the NRO EC so that they can have their staff have  a look and make sure that the RIRs won’t be running into any issues. (re. global ASN policy ratified and implemented on 21 September)


6. Board of Directors selection procedure

Action Item 0909-02: LP to send out the draft version of the board member selection procedure with the changes suggested during the Brussels meeting to the ac-coord list. DONE

The document was sent to the list but no comments were received.

LL proposed postponing this item for the 2011 work plan. As none were opposed, it was decided to discuss the Board of Directors selection procedure in 2011.


7. Update presentation of Internet number resource policy developments

LL noted that ICANN is making a time slot for the ASO at the upcoming meeting in Cartagena to present its major activities (global policies, GPDP, any major regional policy changes) and that this meeting is geared towards updating those present on policy activities, not creating a new discussion forum.

LL said that one ASO AC member had volunteered so far (NA) and asked if there were any others, adding that volunteers would receive travel support from their RIRs and stressing the need to plan quickly.

JC emphasized the importance of this report at ICANN meetings for the future of the ASO, stating that they’ve been asked directly by board, staff and GAC to provide better communications about what is going on with the number resource policies. JC said that this is their response: to provide a presentation that they can all attend, where the most important thing is that the ASO is able to make a solid presentation of all the policy developments that are going on and how to get involved, otherwise we may receive guidance that what we’re doing is insufficient and that policy issues that are currently being discussed in the regions would be better discussed within ICANN. He concluded by saying that although he loves ICANN meetings he would not like to have policy discussions also at ICANN.

HH asked if this was any different from what they used to do years back, to which JC replied that he is not sure whether or not the past presentations covered what’s being sought now, specifically what policy discussions are currently under way (global and regional) and how members of the ICANN community can get involved.

HP said he supported the idea, adding that although he would not be able to do it in Cartagena he would like to volunteer for future events closer to his region.

LL said that the majority of the AC can make the ICANN meeting, so he asked for at least one member from each region to present the regional part after he himself presents the global part. He also offered to represent the ARIN side.

FO asked whether they would receive support from different RIRs for preparing the presentations. After LL’s affirmative response to this question FO offered to participate on behalf of the LACNIC region.

LL asked everyone to look at their agendas and decide really soon how we can have someone from RIPE and AfriNIC.

AB said he’s been working with his team and that the proposal is under discussion in the AfriNIC mailing list.

DW volunteered for future opportunities, saying that it was not possible for him to do it at Cartagena.

After further discussion, volunteers were as follows: NA for APNIC, LL for ARIN, FO for LACNIC.

LL concluded the issue by saying that the remaining volunteers (RIPE and AfriNIC) should be worked out by the end of the week.


8. Volunteer group to get together at the upcoming RIPE meeting in Rome.

LL said that some members had volunteered to meet and do some work in Rome, organize a f2f meeting. This f2f meeting won’t happen before the end of this year, but he would like to see one happening at the first 2011 ICANN meeting (in March, in San Francisco), so he asked all members to try to make it to that meeting.


9. ITU IPv6 WG

JC presented the following update:
The ITU IPv6 WG has basically settled down, having produced two correspondence groups or mailing lists (one dedicated to capacity building and one to study perceived inequities in v6 availability for developing countries, the latter dormant until an actual situation can be reported as none has been reported so far) and a final report.
The final report has been 97% settled, there’s some dispute among a couple of member states (countries) regarding the phrasing, but suffice to say that the recommendations of the final report has reached consensus. We knew that the recommendations of the final report of the IPv6 WG were not going to be an issue at the ITU Plenipot meeting, which is going on right now in Guadalajara, Mexico (4-22 October). There’s a lot of discussion about Internet standardization, number resources, etc. but suffice to say that, while the Internet community and the ISPs of the world know who the RIRs are, the vast majority of countries at diplomatic level have no idea. Some proposals have been introduced to indirectly or directly assume control of ICANN and of the number resources system. There are currently people from the RIRs and ISOC at the Plenipot actively trying to educate delegates from member states so that they can make the right decision, but in the end the decision is more political than based on the technical documents so, even though we did a great job with the IPv6 WG, it’s still possible that we’ll see something at the Plenipot that will have an impact on the Internet number registry system, we’ll know that in the next 9 days.


10. Update from IGF2010

LL said that this topic had already been covered during the last teleconference time.

JC made the following observation: The IGF is a non-binding discussion forum and the important thing to think about is the future of the IGF and whether it remains an informal multistakeholder group or whether it becomes something more formal. This will be discussed in New York at the UN next month. We’ll see the IGF re-chartered for another 5 years, potentially this may become a forum in which we’ll have to participate in mandatorily so we need to watch this next month in NY.


11. Update from ARIN XXVI

LL presented the following update:

– ARIN Advisory Council reviewed discussion on global policy proposal for IPv4 post exhaustion and delayed making a decision until their November call.
– One of the v6 transition tech proposals went to last call.
– Jason was re-elected to NRO NC.


12. Update on activities related to the ICANN Review Teams formed from the Affirmation of Commitments signed between the US Government and ICANN

LL presented the following update:

– The accountability and transparency review team just met in Boston. We have divided our work into 4 different work groups each of which will soon be posting post recommendations for public comment. The reason we’re in Boston is that a center at Harvard university is helping us do some of the review work as they have expertise, access to other organizations that are either similarly set up or demonstrated that have features we can compare to. That should be coming out soon.

– WW is on the whois review team, which has not yet started to work but will begin relatively soon (first meeting within the next month).

– HG is on the security, stability and resiliency team. HG confirmed that this group has not yet began working but are discussing the best timetable.

HG mentioned that Martin Hannigan, although not in representation of the ASO, is also on the security and stability review team.

LL asked HG if in his opinion his team would be meeting in Cartagena, to which replied that perhaps ON would have more details.

ON summarized by saying that the ambition would be that the f2f meetings of the review teams could be held in conjunction with the ICANN meeting (whois review and security review team), but the review teams themselves will be the ones to decide. He concluded by saying that these meetings are very likely.


13. AOB

HG announced that this year, for the 1st time, LACNIC will have a second meeting within the same year − LACNIC XIV, which will be held in Sao Paulo next week. There will be a LACNOG meeting along with the LACNIC meeting, a new experience which will be evaluated to decide whether or not LACNIC continues to hold two meetings per year.

LL replied that he looks forward to hearing whether having 2 meetings is a successful experience. He concluded by saying that the only RIR meetings scheduled for this year RIPE in Rome, LACNIC in Sao Paulo and AfriNIC.


14. Adjournment

Motion to adjourn by HG, seconded by DW. There being no objections, the meeting was adjourned at 13:50 UTC.

Last modified on 29/01/2020