ASO AC Teleconference 9 September 2010

AC Attendees:

  • Jean Robert Hountomey, JRH – AfriNIC
  • Vincent Ngundi, VN – AfriNIC
  • Naresh Ajwani, NA – APNIC
  • Tomohiro Fujisaki, TF – APNIC
  • Louis Lee, LL – ARIN
  • Martin Hannigan, MH – ARIN
  • Jason Schiller, JS – ARIN
  • Sebastián Bellagamba, SB – LACNIC
  • Francisco Obispo, FO – LACNIC
  • Dave Wilson
  • Kenny Huang


  • Laureana Pavón, LP – LACNIC


  • Ray Plzak, RP –
  • Nate Davis, ND – ARIN
  • Kuo-Wei Wu, KW – ICANN
  • Olof Nordling, ON – ICANN Staff
  • Germán Valdez, GV – APNIC
  • John Curran, JC – ARIN


  • Wilfried Woeber, WW – RIPE NCC
  • Hans Petter Holen, HPH – RIPE NCC


1. Welcome

2. Agenda review

3. Approval of the minutes from the August 5 teleconference

4. Review of open action items

5. Global Policy Proposal – ASN

6. AC Communication – wiki & website, Webex

7. Board of Directors selection procedure

8. ITU IPv6 WG

9. Updates from APNIC 30

10. 2010 AC Work Plan (second face to face meeting?)

11. 2011 AC Work Plan

12. AOB

13. Adjournment

1. Welcome

After waiting half an hour to achieve quorum, the Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting at 13.30 UTC.

MH suggested that each RIR should be responsible for verifying members’ contact information to make sure that there is quorum.

2. Agenda review

The agenda was read and it was decided to skip item 6 (communications) and discuss any updates on the mailing list.

LL proposed adding the global proposal for handling IP address space post-runout as item 5a.

JC proposed discussing following item under AOB: ASO reporting at ICANN meetings.

3. Approval of the minutes from the August 5 teleconference

Motion to approve the minutes of the meetings held on August 5, 2010, by FO, seconded by NA. None opposed and the motion carried.

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

4. Review of open action items

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.) ONGOING

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

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.

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.

It was decided not to discuss Action Items 0410-3 and 0622-02 (communications related) at this time.

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). OVERTAKEN BY EVENTS

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

Will be discussed under it’s own agenda item

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. DONE

5. Global Policy Proposal – ASN

ON said that no action had been taken during the previous board meeting, that the public comment period had concluded with only one comment (of a neutral nature), and that the proposal is now in the hands of the ICANN Board.

RP said that the Board had decided to send it to the EC and suggested that ON send a message to Diane to find out what’s going on. ON said he would do so and get back to the list once he receives a reply.

5a. Global proposal for handling IP address space post-runout

LL said that the only update he had on this issue was that it had been presented at the APNIC 30 meeting, where it did not reach consensus and was sent back to the authors for work. He added that the next RIRs to have a crack at this will be RIPE, ARIN and AfriNIC.

There were no further comments on this agenda item.

6. AC Communication – wiki & website, Webex

It was decided to postpone discussion of this agenda item.

7. Board of Directors selection procedure

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

LP noted that she had prepared the draft and sent it to LL, DW and AB for comments and that she had received feedback from DW.

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.

8. ITU IPv6 WG

JC said that the ITU IPv6 WG had met on 1-2 September in Geneva, that the RIRs had collectively sent a small contingent led by Adiel. He said that the final minutes of the meeting haven’t been published yet and that the ITU has rules regarding what can be discussed with people not present at meetings (constrained to the minutes of the meeting). He added that from the draft minutes he’d seen it’s fair to say that the WG had not achieved consensus as there were two very distinct views: one, supported by the RIRs and many member states, in the sense that the registry system is performing fine and that there are no material problems with respect to IPv6 management; and a second view, supported by a very small group of member states, who believe that there are significant issues but were unable to provide any statement about who had been unable to obtain IPv6 addresses, only that they had detected problems in the system relating to the fact that it did not respect sovereign control of addresses − which is what they desire.

JC added that, because there was no consensus, the resulting report will reflect both views and will probably be introduced by someone at the ITU Plenipot in October. He said that the good news is that an opportunity was provided for people to report real problems regarding the ability to obtain IPv6 addresses and none was reported, and that the downside is that some countries feel their lack of control over the process is a sovereignty issue.

JC said that it’s possible that the ITU may discuss this at the Plenipot in Guadalajara, where the agenda for the following 4 years will be set. He said that an unlikely but possible recommendation to come out of that meeting would be for the ITU to get involved as an additional IPv6 registry, despite the fact that the RIRs, ISOC, ICANN, the US, Canada, and UK governments, Cisco, Juniper, among others, are against ITU involvement.

LL asked whether the draft minutes mention the proportion of people for / against, and JC replied that the draft minutes are clear in that numerically there’s overwhelming support for the existing system. However, JC added that the ITU process says that all member states − i.e. countries − need to agree with a recommendation for a study group to put a consensus report forward, and that it takes just one nation to not agree with the report to be able to file a minority report. He said there’s one member state that’s aggressively doing that, possibly because it’s the position of the ITU staff that they should be more in charge of the administration of address space. In reply to LL’s question, JC said that the report is being drafted by ITU staff but must be approved by all member states.

JC said that the real problem is that the study group is still alive and will remain open. he noted that the ITU believes it can decide this matter without any further approval from the RIRs or ICANN. He explained that if the ITU votes consensus recommendations (which could happen at council when all delegates are present), all member countries would need to enact laws to make the ITU recommendation take effect (basically all countries including US, Canada, UK, would have to go along and implement such laws). JC said that this is unfortunate because it could end up being an ITU decision that they become an additional RIR and that they issue per-country IPv6 blocks. JC concluded by saying that they are actively working on educating all countries who have a delegation at the Plenipot, but that it’s difficult.

LL thanked JC on behalf of the AC members for all their hard work.

DW also thanked JC and asked if they should each do something in their own countries, to which JC replied that RIPE had sent a message to its government contacts in their region, that ARIN’s preparing one, and that if they know any ITU representatives that are going to Guadalajara they should try to contact them, put them in touch with their RIR.

MH said that in recent discussions the ITU has become a “boogie man” and asked JC how what the ITU is doing fits into what the ASO is on a day to day basis, to which JC replied that basically the ITU is a 600 million dollar organization with 2k+ employees that derives its principal support from membership paid by the ministries of telecom of 180 governments around the world. JC said that things like Skype and Webex are cutting down international termination revenue and that some governments are substantially concerned about this. He added that the ITU does not want to have its role diminished without finding another way to gain revenue and maintain importance. He said that it’s very important for the ITU to survive, and that they’re doing it by trying to get popular vote, e.g., when they come up with an issue that seems to be a hot button they can get a lot of support (the briefing paper of one member reads “developing countries will not be able to get IPv6 addresses, we must not be left out with IPv6 as we were left out with IPv4, we can’t let the registries and ICANN get it wrong again as they did with IPv4. If you’re a developing country now’s the time cast your vote to make sure that you have your own address numbers at your door.” He said that it doesn’t matter that the possibility of running out of IPv6 addresses is astronomically small, there are more than 100 developing countries in the ITU, and that if they find other cases where the RIRs aren’t being fair, are not following policies, they will use this as a mean to highlight that they need to have a role. Bottom line, the ITU doesn’t want to disappear as an organization and the Internet is dramatically impacting them.

MH said he is having a difficult time identifying what is legitimately something they should be concerned about and what is an attempt of inserting hyperbole into the discussion to try to drive it in a certain direction.

JC replied that they must provide open, transparent and fair management of the addresses, that they don’t need to worry about the ITU claiming otherwise any more than about anyone else. He concluded by saying that if an allocation policy is biased or discriminatory, it’s not an ITU specific set of hot buttons, but the ITU is looking for cases where we are not following our own policies or cases where someone got left out, all things we should care about regardless of the ITU.

9. Updates from APNIC 30

LL said that something had been sent to the mailing list soon after the meeting concluded and asked whether anyone had anything to add.

KH said that 4 policy proposals had been presented, including one global policy proposal, but that none reached consensus:

– prop-084 Frequent whois information update request

– prop-085 Eligibility for critical infrastructure assignments from the final /8

– prop-086 Global policy for IPv4 allocations by the IANA post exhaustion

– prop-087 IPv6 address allocation for deployment purposes

He added that they had set up a BoF session which resulted in two working groups being set up, one for the GAC for APNIC, the other for equal voting rights for all Members in APNIC.

LL noted that Randy Bush was no longer the Policy SIG chair.

GV observed that they had elected a new Policy chair, Gaurab Raj Upadhaya, who will take over Policy chair duties. He added that NA was re-elected to the Number Resource Organization Number Council (NRO NC) as a representative for the APNIC region, a position he will hold for the next 2 years.

10. 2010 AC Work Plan (second face to face meeting?)

Regarding the possibility of a second f2f meeting, LL said he had sent to the AC list a rough tentative agenda. He said he would like to determine whether there was support for a second f2f meeting. He added that although the NRO had committed financial support for only one f2f meeting, they would be willing to entertain the idea a second meeting if we put forth a strong agenda and set of goals.

LL went over the rough agenda he had sent to the list earlier and asked whether there was support for that agenda.

At this point JC said he would like to discuss the item he had proposed under AOB as it could be relevant to this discussion.

ASO reporting at ICANN meetings

JC said that the NRO received a letter from Doug Brent noting that, while the ASO is overall very successful in doing what they do, there is no formal process for getting information out to the greater ICANN greater community. He added that there was also a formal request from the GAC to look at ways of improving communication of what’s happening with the ASO and suggesting that a written report summarizing the policy activities that are going on would be a great idea for the GAC to peruse.

JS asked whether the GAC was interested in all policy proposals or just global policy proposals, to which JC replied that the GAC had specifically mentioned ALL policies.

JC said that the NRO had considered this along with the letter from Doug, adding that the production of reports is interesting but that they’re often not read and may therefore not serve to achieve the goal. He said the NRO believes it would be good at ICANN public meetings if the ASO took a day and provided a 2 hour session to report on the status of global and regional policy activities in Internet number resources, as that would be a way to inform ICANN staff and GAC members who want to know what’s going on. He said the NRO had discussed this internally and that he was trying to formulate a formal response which might include having at least some of the ASO AC members attend ICANN meetings and present a status update on regional policy activities. He added that in that case some prep work would be required, for which a f2f meeting might be useful.

JS asked whether the NRO was thinking of having one ASO AC member per region at ICANN meetings, and JC replied that the goal is to make sure that the ASO is providing timely and complete information on policy development activities in a form that’s easy for the rest of ICANN to get at. He added that one member per region would be ideal, but perhaps not possible.

RP said he had been the instigator for Doug to send that message, and that he would make himself available for consultation, presenting background information as they move forward in this project.

JC said that this is something that’s long overdue, that although the ASO participates in ICANN meetings they’re not particularly visible to the rest of ICANN.

RP said that as the ASO is relatively invisible in the overall ICANN scheme of things and there’s a tendency for members of the board to meddle in its affairs. He said that this participation would help with this and also strengthen the view that if people, the at large community particularly, take information back to their sectors, this will help diffuse the ITU situation as well.

JC said that the idea was not to have a policy discussion, but rather present what discussions are going on and where, and tell people to participate either in those meetings either in person or remotely.

RP said that there have been discussion about trying to get RIRs to conduct policy discussions at ICANN meetings, so anything that can be done to get communication from the ASO outward would alleviate that pressure.

JC said that drafting a proposal to do an ASO policy development overview at ICANN meetings, potentially starting in Cartagena, which may be something else to consider for the 2010 work plan.

LL said he could imagine inviting one member from each region, including himself and the co-chairs, handing out onesheets with an overview of policy proposals per region, and perhaps a chart on how the process works and how they can participate in their region.

JC said he would send his proposal to the ASO AC for review ASAP.

MH reminded everyone that they have a framework in place for this, that almost three years ago they had motioned and passed that the ASO would have a public information meeting at each ICANN meeting, and added that he would support this 100%.

JC had to leave the conference at this time.

JS said in his opinion there are two possible approaches: 1) Meeting a couple of days in advance of the ICANN meeting and staying for the meeting itself. 2) Have a f2f meeting in advance of the ICANN meeting to ensure that we have good material and then having five AC members attend the ICANN meeting to make the presentation.

RP suggested that perhaps they could negotiate to have a pavilion or a booth, to have the tutorial and direct people to the booth for networking and f2f contact, but that in that case they’d need to have people from the five regions.

LL suggested a f2f meeting to do prep work prior to attending the ICANN meeting.

DW said the ICANN meeting is only 3 months away and that having a f2f before the ICANN meeting would be too tight.

RP said they should consider that there’s a deadline to schedule items into the ICANN agenda.

DW was of the opinion that they should have an ASO AC meeting soon, perhaps in November or December.

LL proceeded to check the ASO AC members’ availability for various possible dates.

MH said that after they get confirmation from ICANN that they’ll support us and confirmation from the EC that they will fund us, they should have a complete, detailed agenda.

LL said that his hope for today had been to finalize this agenda and write out the goals so that they could make the formal request to the EC.

MH said they should define what the ASO wants to achieve with each discussion point and suggested sending the agenda back to the list for refining. He also suggested that LL set a timeline for deciding whether or not to request funding for a f2f meeting. MH said that, in his opinion, as it stands the agenda is weak.

DW wondered whether it would be possible for some of the ASO AC members to meet informally at the RIPE meeting to do some prep work to try to get some work done and then send it to the group for final editing and approval, leaving the formal f2f meeting for next year.

JS said they should we pick a tentative date, suggesting Sunday Nov. 14th. He said that they can get some work done at an informal meeting (slides for an ICANN meeting, a work plan for next year, etc.), and that it would make sense if enough people are there.

MH said they should have a rough plan and objectives for people to work on before asking for support, as at least one of the items on the tentative agenda is highly politically charged. He said that providing some scope of the discussion would go a long way towards not having one or two RIRs not send anybody.

JS said they should block out Sunday 14th so that people can make their travel plans and take this discussion of fleshing out the agenda and setting goals to the list and have an informal meeting next week before applying to the NRO for funding.

MH, LL and DW agreed.

LL volunteered to spend some time next week planning an informal f2f meeting (getting the agenda hammered out, establishing primary goals, possibly preparing a work plan, starting prep work for the ICANN meeting).

Other volunteers for this task were FO for the LACNIC region, KH for APNIC, JRH for AfriNIC, DW for RIPE, and MH and/or JS for ARIN.

DW said that this conversation will take place on the AC list and then the volunteers will have an informal meeting next week in which all others will be welcome as well.

11. 2011 AC Work Plan

It was decided to postpone discussion of this action item.

12. AOB

No further business was brought up for discussion.

13. Adjournment

Motion to adjourn by DW, seconded by MH. There being no objections, the meeting was adjourned at 14.30 UTC.

Last modified on 29/01/2020