ASO AC Teleconference 5 August 2010

AC Attendees:

  • Jean Robert Hountomey, JRH – AfriNIC
  • Alan Barrett, AB – AfriNIC
  • Kenny Huang, KH – APNIC
  • Tomohiro Fujisaki, TF – APNIC
  • Louis Lee, LL – ARIN
  • Martin Hannigan, MH – ARIN
  • Jason Schiller, JS – ARIN
  • Francisco Obispo, FO – LACNIC
  • Dave Wilson, DW – RIPE NCC
  • Wilfried Woeber, WW – RIPE NCC


  • Germán Valdéz, GV – APNIC
  • Ray Plzak, RP – ICANN Board
  • Kuo-Wei Wu, KW – ICANN Board
  • Olof Nordling, ON – ICANN Staff
  • Leo Vegoda, LV- ICANN Staff


  • Hartmut Glaser, HG – LACNIC


  • Laureana Pavón, LP – LACNIC

Draft minutes prepared by LP based on notes taken by DW.


1. Welcome

2. Approve minutes from past ASO AC meetings (22 June and 22 July)

3. Global Policy Proposal – ASN

4. AC Communication – wiki & website, Webex for live meetings

5. ASO Council mailing list

6. Board of Directors selection procedure

7. ITU IPv6 WG

8. Updates from IETF 78

9. 2010 AC Work Plan (second face to face meeting?)

10. 2011 AC Work Plan

11. AoB

12. Adjournment

1. Welcome

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting at 13.20 UTC. LL apologized for the Secretariat for the long wait and problems connecting up. He noted that a test Webex call is being planned for next week at the same time and that, pending a successful test call, they will switch over and hopefully avoid other problems we’ve been having.

LL summarized the draft agenda. DW suggested adding transfer policy discussion under AOB.

13:24 JRH joins the call.

LL proceeded to read through the list of open action items that did not have their own agenda item:

Action Item 0410-2: In accordance with the resolution that was unanimously approved by the ASO AC, the Chair to send a letter to Raimundo Beca thanking him for his services on the ICANN Board of Directors. DONE

LL said that the letter had been sent, apologized for the delay and said that no acknowledgement had yet been received from Raimundo.

Action item 0622-01: The Secretariat to change the status of the minutes of the 10 June 2010 teleconference 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. OPEN

2. Approve minutes from past ASO AC meetings (22 June and 22 July)

Motion to approve the minutes of the meetings of June 22 and July 22 by AB seconded by FO. None opposed and the motion carried.

Action Item 0805-01: The secretariat to change the status of the June 22 and July 22 minutes from draft to approved.

3. Global Policy Proposal – ASN

Action item 0710-02: LL to send the revised the letter of advice to the ICANN Board Secretary. COMPLETED

LL said the Board Secretary, John Jeffrey, has acknowledged receipt. It should be on the board meeting agenda for today, August 5th. There is a possibility that the board will go ahead and ratify this pending a positive outcome from the comment period, in order to avoid the need for a special board meeting, since there is not another one planned before the timeout period closes.

JS asked if the expectation is that the ICANN board will not ask for specific advice on this, to which RP replied that he cannot speak to that because no board members have expressed anything one way or another on the list. If past performance is an indicator of future performance he’d expect not, but no predicting what board members will do.

4. AC Communication – wiki & website, Webex for live meetings

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. OPEN (will be discussed when the Secretariat joins the call).

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. ONGOING

WW said he is not aware of any activity because he was offline and unplugged for more than three weeks. He has seen a couple of attempts by the RIPE NCC to get in contact with him by telephone during his absence, so either tomorrow or beginning of next week he’ll try to get in touch with them and try to find out the current situation.

Action item 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). OPEN

WW said It would really be helpful to have this info before Thursday next week to support us in trying to use Webex. Maybe we can take that offline with secretariat.

LL said that we are looking to schedule a test call at the same time next week. JS asked if we have documentation talking about the costs and benefits, that is something we could discuss in the test call or an official meeting with quorum and minutes is required. LL replied that he thinks we could have discussion on the call, though not every one will be there.

LL asked anyone who is not expecting to make the call please speak up. DW said he may or may not make it but has no problem with people discussing it in his absence. If a decision is needed by the AC, then we need a meeting and quorum, but he doesn’t see that a decision is needed.

13:37 MH joins the call.

LL recounts that we are talking about Webex, a test call is scheduled in a week’s time, and RE is to write up something for the list.

Action item 0622-06: The Secretariat to update the ASO website regarding ASO representatives elected to the ICANN Board. CLOSED.

5. ASO Council mailing list

LL proposed also discussing the ASO-announce mailing list. The ASO-council mailing list up until recently had a very old membership and LL has asked that all the ASO-AC members be added that were not already on there. LL said he was curious as to whether people think we should even keep that list anymore, given that it was created for our communications but we’ve been using ac-coord for private communications and nothing we say on ac-coord is open to the public.

WW provided a bit of background: Initially we had the expectation that the Address Council would need to communicate on a regular basis with the community at large. Initially ac-coord was installed to help with coordinating internal activities, schedule meetings, discussions regarding ongoing work which were not relevant to be seen by the general public. It then transpired that there was no real traffic to be put on the public list, and on the other hand we didn’t see any discussion topics coming into this list from the public. So it more or less starved to death. We gradually moved to coordinate all our activities on the ac-coord list. The public things we have to distribute from time to time are being sent through the announce list. WW’s feeling is that, for formal reasons within the framework of ICANN, we need a list which can be publicly written to and is fed to the Address Council, and on the same list either the AC formally or individual members should be able to react to such messages. Whether we want to embark on an advertising campaign to make it more well known or not is in WW’s opinion a different discussion.

LL noted there’s also the aso-policy list, maybe more what WW is talking about rather than aso-council.

WW said there was also another one, called address-council, which was installed to support the process of selecting the ICANN board of directors, where info could and should be exchanged only between AC members, explicitly not including secretariat, observers or people from regional registries. This one was more or less replaced by nom-com.

13:45 NA joins call and requests to be excused from meeting due to an emergency at home.

LL said we will open up discussion on this on list and the Communication committee can send a recommendation.

JS added that we also discuss on list whether we should have a PR campaign about what the lists are for, at least the public ones, and also what we covered in our face to face meeting about providing updates to governments.

6. Board of Directors selection procedure

Action item 0622-04: The Secretariat to look at the notes from this meeting and produce a draft version of the procedure to include the modifications that were discussed and send it to the list for feedback and discussion. ONGOING

LL said there was already some initial activity between Laureana, Dave, Alan and himself, and that they’ll probably have one last look at the procedures drafted up before having Laureana pass them to the mailing list. We’ll table this action item for next time.

AB was disconnected at 14:47, rejoined at 14:49.

At this time DW noted that LP had written to ac-coord asking to postpone the call. MH noted that we have quorum and note-taker. It was decide to proceed with the meeting.

7. ITU IPv6 WG

LL said he believes this topic started during our face to face meeting and asked if someone wanted to kick this off. No comments were heard and LL said he would research this topic a little more – he apologized saying that he’d been been ill.

8. Updates from IETF 78.

LL invited any AC member who attended IETF 78 and would like to speak up to do so.

LV presented an update on IETF 78: He wasn’t there himself, but this group might be interested in a draft circulated in ops area WG, which calls for a /8 to be set aside for use as some kind of carrier IPv6 transitional network block to be shared by ISPs. He offered to send details of the draft to the ac-coord list in a few minutes.

LL asked if they’re talking about doing this at IANA level and not RIR level.

LV replied affirmatively: this would be defining a new class of address space, so they’d take an unallocated IPv4 block and defined it not as private address space but something similar, to be shared by ISPs who need to use it for transitional technologies, to provide some kind of NATted connections to their customers.

WW said that after hearing this summary he’s starting to think about what this really means, does this mean that the IETF is in a position to develop resource distribution policies on a separate track apart from the regionals, apart from the global policy development process? WW said he thinks this has nothing to do with technology, this has nothing to do with protocols, nothing to do with classes of addresses; judging only based on the summary, this is just an attempt to satisfy some operational need for some expected ISP environment, and his gut feeling without having the background is that this would fall into global PDP rather than IETF-land.

LL said he has similar thoughts.

JS said he also had similar thoughts. He asked if they should consider this input for a global policy proposal, should they suggest somebody craft global policy that reflects what the IETF draft suggests and submit it through the bottom up process. Is that something the NRO EC should take on? How does this relate to the N=1 policy where we’re already putting aside one /8 for each RIR for special use endgame which most regions have specified as some sort of transition mechanism?

LL replied that once they see the draft they can, if not as the Number Council or Address Council, at least as individuals inform the authors that the available processes are already in place and see if they want to play that way.

14:56 The Secretariat joins the call.

LL goes back to action item 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. This action item is OPEN.

LP said she knows the technical staff are working on this, figuring out the costs for the wiki. LP will find out and get back to the AC later.

JS asked if DW was still taking notes, DW replied that he is still taking notes and agreed with LP to continue doing so for the rest of the call.

9. 2010 AC Work Plan

LL said that for last face to face meeting there was some sentiment about being disorganized and that he is in part to blame for that being that the agenda was not sent out until very very late. He said that’s also due to deciding to have a face to face meeting before having an agenda, or at least a list of things to work on beside it. He asked if they are to have a second f2f meeting and, if so, what do they want to work on.

WW said he thinks answering LL’s question would be easier if we would have an idea at what time or location such a  second face to face meeting is even logistically feasible. He fully agrees that we should at least have a list of work items before we finally agree on meeting at one place or another. He asked which are the logistically viable options.

LL said that if we were to meet at an ICANN meting, the next public meeting is in Colombia, which may be logistically not possible for some folks as for him and other some other ARIN folks there may be some security concerns.

MH said there are definitely no travel restrictions and he thinks we ought to be careful with this one because ICANN went to extremely great lengths to portray the venue as a very safe place. He said that attending a meting anywhere in the world is a personal decision and suggested sticking with the theme that it is perfectly safe and individuals can make up their own mind.

WW said if everything continues according to expectation and plans, he supposse that at least he and Hartmut will be present at the ICANN meeting for the nom-com.

In addition to Cartagena, other meeting opportunities were brought up: a RIPE meeting in Europe (Rome in November), an AfriNIC meeting (Johannesburg in November). WW said that there are at least three locations and three events where it’s expected to be logistically possible to have a meeting, all towards the end of the year, which would give us reasonable lead time to work on the work items and work with travel arrangements and logistics.

10. 2011 work plan

Regarding agenda items, DW said that this is likely to be the last face to face meeting before IANA depletion and we should cover transfer policies and if there is any action the AC should take.

LL said we could work on the board-selection procedure, as next year we don’t have to put up a member to the ICANN board it would be nice to clean this up. He asked that any other items for 2011 work plan be brought to the list.

JS mentioned a couple of things we could talk about at the face to face: depletion in general, making sure we’re communicating a clear message to the community about what we’re doing; transfer policy in face of depletion; transition technologies and transitioning from a v4-only world to a dual stack world or how v6 only sites will be able to talk to the v4 content. That would also loosely cover some of the discussion in the IETF draft as well.

At LL’s request, the following action item was decided.

Action Item 0805-02: LP to take all the discussion points brought up during this teleconference and send them to the mailing list for building an agenda for a potential face to face meeting.

MH noted another item for a face to face meeting: A discussion about the role of the ASO-AC in processing global policy.

JS said they could add to that the NRO-NC as well.

LL said he knows of one group that when they meet they have dual roles, and when they finish a meeting they stand up, close the meeting and sit down again to start the next meeting.

11. AOB

11.1 Review team

LL presented the following update on the ICANN review team: He is doing conference calls every other week with the whole review team for accountability and transparency aspect, and in addition to that we also have four working groups (of which he’s participating in two), we have outside work on that to a small subset of the full review team, and we are meeting on those on a semi-regular basis. Moving along we are expected to sign a contract with the Berkmann team over at Havard in Boston, and they will work up some reviews of actual events that took place and help the review team produce our report by the end of the year. We expect to have the report mostly completed in Oct/Nov timeframe in time for the Cartagena meeting, though final tweaking will be allowed until the end of the year.

The selection process for the whois review team and Security Stability Resiliency team is still ongoing. Of the AC we have Wilfried volunteering, and there is one other person from outside the AC who also volunteered on behalf of the ASO. LL forwarded those two names to the NRO EC to put their endorsements on the submissions. Whether they do one or both is up to them, but LL suspects WW will definitely be endorsed. They have until Sept 12th to do so but LL is asking them to do it sooner if they can.

For the other review team, we have no AC members volunteering. LL sent out a message to the list asking if anyone is still interested to please submit right away. In the past week one person submitted from outside the AC, and he did not seek endorsements from any supporting organization or advisory committee. His name was passed on to LL for possible endorsement by the ASO. Whether they will do so or not he don’t know for sure, but suspects not. It is possible the ASO will not endorse anybody if there are no volunteers from the AC or the addressing community. If anyone still wants to participate on the security and resiliency team, please do so right away. If anyone still needs more info about applying or being on the time, please let LL know and as Wilfried has most recently started on the process he can also offer his support Wilfried’s.

WW said that he’s happy to discuss these applications with anyone, though he is not really an expert on that. He explained that he just submitted his application and a couple of days later he received an acknowledgement that it was received, but other than that he is still waiting for the next steps.

11.2 transfer policy

DW asked LP to take notes for this particular agenda item. LP agreed.

DW said a colleague had asked about post-depletion, what will really happen when depletion hits. DW said he did not have a very good answer but that this had provoked a question regarding transfer policies in the different regions. He said he understands that three or four regions have transfer policies and thanked those who acted on that. DW said he has an ongoing question about whether inter-RIR transfers should be allowed and how that might be accomplished. He added that this hasn’t been discussed in his region yet but that he’d be interested in knowing what the AC thinks about that − whether it’s desirable and if it seems feasible.

JS said it’s important to point out that this would likely be a globally coordinated policy, not necessarily a global policy. He added that this could be in the purview of NRO-NC to try to move forward.

DW said to him that certainly seemed reasonable.

LL asked for thoughts about how we want the NC to move this forward, to which WW replied that his thoughts are currently circling around the issue of how big − or how frequent − the need would actually be to formally transfer address space between RIRs. With no real data to back it up, WW’s feeling is that it would probably be of interest to multi-region operations and they probably could still remain as a customer of one of the regions’ Internet registries and still use the address space freely around the globe within their organization, but I may be wrong.

RP said it seems to him that when you talk about transfers between two regions you get two aspects: 1) the one WW is talking about, which is the transfer between two registries, and 2) a transfer between two parties, ISPs in two different regions. RP said he thinks the ASO should differentiate that as they go forward in their discussions. WW agreed.

LL mentioned that his company has been approached to buy IP addresses from a large carrier that is getting rid of address space and are looking to make some money. They did phrase it such that it’s for us to actually buy the address space. LL doesn’t know that they have formally replied yet but the advice in-house is that we don’t want to participate in something like that. He noted that the company that’s selling did not make a distinction regarding in which region they are looking for buyers, a buyer may be in another region.

WW said this is not directly related to inter-region issue but more related to people starting to think about spending money on addresses. In the European region about a month ago one organization tried to buy vanity space of the amount of a /24 out of the legacy class B blocks. The offer was roughly around 5k US$ for a /24 with a nice combination of three number. He added that there is a lot of thought going in this direction. JS noted that same request is also going around in the ARIN region.

WW said that there are also some more technically oriented questions and that whoever agrees to such a deal, and depending on what the size of the encompassing block and block being given away are, there might be interesting operational issues as well as financial and policy aspects − in terms of punching holes in CIDR, on the routing plane starting to inject more specifics that might be filtered around the globe on certain points, regarding reverse DNS, because if it’s a /24 out of a /16 legacy then probably the full reverse block is delegated on a /16 boundary, so probably the user of the smaller block not only has to pay money for it but also has to agree on how to deal with mutual responsibilities of reverse DNS delegation plus a couple of security and incident management issues.

MH reiterated WW’s comments. He said he’s not sure what this has to do with transfer but it shouldn’t surprise anyone that this is going on because it’s been documented for some time. Regardless, there are multiple business models surfacing out there, MH has spoken to many legacy address holders researching what people think they’re going to do with this stuff, and almost unanimously they feel they’re going to profit. Moving back into the transfer discussions, MH pointed out that the most recent global policy has a condition based on some kind of global policy that would make the current proposal, if accepted as a policy, do different things. MH said he thinks it is a good idea to have a discussion about transfer.

JS mentioned there are two other points in the case that RP pointed out where the transfer is between a member of one RIR region to a different member, two other interesting questions: 1) When the block is transferred, who then maintains that block? Do they have to go back to the original RIR region or does it get managed out of the receiving RIR region? and 2) Which policies are applied to that block? (e.g. if someone wants to verify that the resources are being used under RIR policy, which RIR policy applies?)

DW says he’s operating on the assumption that people will do what they want to do and that they have the following options: 1) find a way to enforce our policies, 2) adjust them to be easier or better than a black market, 3) Accept that there will be chunks of space where our policies are not applied. DW wondered whether our community should now be working on finding a fourth option or choosing one of these reactions.

MH agreed with DW’s comments and said he thinks they are a topic worthy of discussion. He presented an example: if for some reason he personally got his hands on a /8 he is confident that he could anchor it and be aggregated without any concern of interference from an RIR. He concluded by saying that this is a problem.

JS added that it’s also necessary to get people to route it, not necessarily under the purview of the RIRs or NRO, that there may be some difficulty in routing some of that space and there may also be the possibility that people may come under pressure to route things they don’t currently route. He also noted that RPKI is an interesting twist: If the RIRs become RPKI anchors and ISPs start securing the routing infrastructure with that RPKI data it may make it more complicated for third parties to route space they purchased on the black market; on the other hand it may make it easier if everything is controlled by keys, and someone silently hands over a key for an aggregate.

MH agreed and said he thinks there are different business models developing for different approaches. For example, if someone buys a /8 on the black market they’ll probably have trouble doing stuff with it, but if they lease it from someone who provides all the anchoring and other services and provide them with an LOA to route that stuff with their upstreams, there are definitely ways to get around policy and networks today. From all that was said, MH understands 1) that there are holes in how we handle these things and 2) they may not necessarily be the responsibility of the NRO, the ASO or the RIRs.

JS noted that, in view of all that was said, this is a very good topic to discuss.

LL said the AC will keep this on the agenda probably for a long time, as in his opinion the issue will not go away.

JS said the AC could discuss what are its concerns at this stage, take those concerns back to their RIR communities to try and start discussions on the mailing lists and bring them up at RIR meetings. If there are concerns or questions we’d like community response to, JS offered to take them to the ARIN meeting and try to get some comment.

No further business was brought up for discussion.

12. Adjournment

Motion to adjourn by WW, seconded by AB. There being no objections, the meeting was adjourned at 14.35 UTC.

Last modified on 29/01/2020