ASO AC Teleconference 5 February 2014
ASO AC Attendees
Alan Barrett AB (Vice Chair)
Fiona Asonga FA
Naresh Ajwani NA (Vice Chair)
Tomohiro Fujisaki TF
Aftab Siddiqui AS
Louie Lee LL (Chair)
Jason Schiller JS
Ron da Silva RS
Ricardo Patara RP
Hartmut Glaser HG
Jorge Villa JV
Filiz Yilmaz, FY
Wilfried Woeber, WW
Douglas Onyango, DO, AFRINIC
Dmitry Kohmanyuk, DK
Ernest Byaruhanga, EB –AFRINIC
Adam Gosling – APNIC
Einar Bohlin – ARIN
Barbara Roseman BR – ICANN
Carlos Reyes– ICANN
Leo Vegoda, LV – ICANN
German Valdez, GV – NRO
Suzanne Taylor Muzzin – RIPE NCC (Scribe)
- Agenda review
- Review open actions
- Approval of minutes
- Feedback to IANA on two questions:
- a) Implementing The Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA, ICANN staff should begin allocations from the Recovered IPv4 pool immediately after the pool is declared active.
- b) Implementing The Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA, ICANN staff should begin allocations from the Recovered IPv4 pool at the start of the first allocation period after the pool is declared active.
- Request to add observers to AC-COORD list
- Update on CCWG
- Update AC procedure to appoint members to various bodies
- Finalize face-to-face travel plans
LL welcomed everyone. GV conducted the roll call and established quorum. LL called the meeting to order at 12:09 UTC.
2. Agenda review
LL asked for feedback on the agenda. JS asked for clarification about agenda item 5 with regards to the second question. LV explained that the second question was about the wording that should be used when noting the allocation policy for Internet number resources in the sections of those registries that have allocations made according to global policies developed through the ASO.
# WW joined the meeting at 12:12 UTC.
LL asked to add an AOB item regarding an update on the ICANN meeting strategy working group.
# FA joined the meeting at 12:13 UTC.
3. Review open actions
Action Item 140108-01:GV to remove draft status of November 6th 2013 minutes in ASO website.
Action Item 140108-02:GV to set up Doodle poll to determine everyone’s preference about whether to schedule the face-to-face meeting during the March ICANN Meeting in Singapore or the June ICANN Meeting in London.
Action Item 140108-03: LL to consult NRO EC on their plan for Brazil meeting and securing invitations for at least CWG ASO appointed members.
Status: LL still to complete.
Action Item 140108-04: ASO AC members from each region to let GV know who will attend the ICANN Meetings in 2014 before the next ASO AC meeting.
Action Item 140108-05: ASO AC members to look for feedback in their policy communities on the Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanism by IANA implementation with the ultimate goal of providing formal feedback to IANA on this issue.
Status: CLOSED. Topic included in the agenda.
Action Item 140108-06: LL to coordinate with NRO EC about what role the ASO AC should have in 1net participation.
Status: LL still to complete.
Action Item 140108-07: JS to submit to the AC-COORD list a draft procedure to appoint members to various bodies to receive feedback within one week before putting the resulting final text to an e-vote.
4. Approval of minutes
LL asked the group to approve both the December 4th and January 8th meeting minutes. AS put forth a motion to approve both minutes and TF seconded the motion. There were no opposition or abstentions and the motion passed.
Action 140205-01: GV to remove the draft text of the approved meeting minutes from the December 4th and January 8th meetings.
5. Feedback to IANA on two questions
LL asked for one representative from each region to confirm whether they had asked their communities for feedback about when ICANN staff should begin allocations from the recovered IPv4 pool.
AB said the issue has not yet been raised on the AFRINIC list.
AS said he raised the question on the APNIC list but that there weren’t many responses. Of the responses he did receive, people supported starting with the allocations immediately after the pool is declared active.
JS said the question was posted on the ARIN list and they received about 14 responses that supported not waiting.
RP said the issue had been raised on the LACNIC list and the conclusion was also to go ahead with the allocations immediately.
FY apologized for having not sent it to the RIPE list yet, but said she will raise the issue shortly and asked to give feedback in about one week, once the community has had a chance to respond.
LL proposed giving IANA a formal response in one week’s time in order to allow time for discussion on the AFRINIC and RIPE lists. FY said she would also need to discuss things with RIPE Working Group Chairs and, if they require more time, she will report back. LL said they can decide whether a deadline extension is needed one week from now. AS said he supported a one-week extension.
LL asked LV for his opinion and LV responded that it sounds as though the feedback will be to go ahead with plans for immediate allocation. He said that as ICANN staff, he doesn’t have a preference one way or the other; they just need to know which way to go and he wants to make sure there are shared expectations.
LL stressed the importance of asking all five communities for feedback and communicating the decision. JS said he agreed with AS and asked whether more detailed advice would need to be given beyond the current text and whether that should be decided now. He also asked about a contingency plan in the case that the AFRINIC and RIPE communities disagree with the feedback received from the other communities so far.
LL asked whether it would be okay to consider these questions during the March ASO AC teleconference. LV said he would rather have a formal response that ICANN can publicly refer to than a speedy response on a private mailing list archive, and so he supports a formal vote during the March teleconference.
FY asked, since IANA is not under time pressure, whether the RIPE region could have until the end of February to give feedback. LL said he was personally fine with that but that the group should start drafting the formal response before that time, whether with the help of just a few members of the ASO AC or with everyone’s input on the mailing list. He also reiterated JS’s earlier question about whether further text and backup statements were required. He asked the group for feedback about this, as well as FY’s question about allowing more time for feedback. He said he was leaning towards allowing an additional three weeks for feedback.
AS said that two weeks would be enough time to allow for feedback and then draft a formal response for the March teleconference. LL asked for a motion about how to proceed.
JS asked for more clarification about how much advice the ASO AC needs to give, beyond simply “wait” or “don’t wait”, and said he was uncomfortable making a motion at this point until that is clarified. AB also said he was uncomfortable with a motion at this time and would prefer to have a motion once the advice has been written. LL thanked JS and AB for their feedback. JS said if the advice is only about saying “wait” or “don’t wait”, then he would feel comfortable making a motion. FY said her expectation is that the advice being asked for does not go beyond that, but if the group is being asked for more extensive advice, then she would prefer waiting until that has been clarified before asking the RIPE community for feedback.
LL asked for feedback about how to proceed, and presented three options: option 1 is to simply give the advice to “wait” or “don’t wait”; option 2 is to say that the group consulted with all five communities and they said to “wait” or “don’t wait”; option 3 is to say “wait” or “don’t wait” along with giving more explanation about why the communities responded the way they did.
AB said that, since two communities haven’t yet given feedback, it’s premature to write any advice or motions now. He said there may be little controversy, in which case the advice could be quite simple, or there could be some controversy, in which case more explanation might be needed. He said the advice should be simple if that’s all that’s required, i.e. there’s little controversy.
JS said that, assuming the two remaining communities are in line with the other three, the group should be able to quickly give advice to IANA. He suggested the group draft their response based on what the feedback they’ve received so far, so that, if nothing unexpected happens, the group can go ahead and advise IANA as soon as all feedback is in; otherwise, things can be discussed during the March teleconference. AB supported JS’s suggestion to go ahead with drafting a response assuming that all five regions agree. AS said he would rather wait for the feedback first and then quickly draft a response.
LL asked the group how simple or complicated the feedback has been from the regions so far. LV stressed that the response should be both formal (so it can be referenced) and as succinct as possible, because if there’s any ambiguity about it then it will not be useful.
JS said there were 15 posts on the ARIN mailing list and all supported not waiting. Three people discussed different situations when it would make sense to wait, such as allowing IANA and RIRs some flexibility when an RIR drops below a /9 just before one of the prescribed dates, or waiting for the next window when there are few addresses in the pool in case some returns might take place. There was another comment about scheduling during leading to the policy in the AFRINIC region and that the allocations were to be every six months.
AS said there were five responses received from the APNIC region and all were all in favor of not waiting. He said he feels this was a definitive response. LL thanked AS for his feedback.
LL said that unless something unexpected comes out of the AFRINIC and RIPE regions in the next three weeks, the advice should be simply “wait” or “don’t wait”, that there is support from all five regions, and to direct people to the mailing lists if they want more background on the specific feedback received. That way, he said, the advice will be clear and succinct, while also pointing to statements of support if needed.
JS said he doesn’t expect any further updates from the ARIN region. LL thanked JS for his feedback.
LL asked for any other feedback and whether to allow for more time for feedback. There was no further feedback and no opposition to allowing more time.
LL moved on the other IANA question, about the IETF draft and said the group didn’t need to respond to the draft, but about letting IANA point to backup documentation.
LV explained that there’s a draft describing the special allocations in the Internet number registries that defines the policies they’re made under. It then states that the majority of the allocations are not special and governed by the policies developed in the addressing communities. He said there’s no statement at the top of the registries now stating the policy. He sent some text to the mailing list that basically states that regular allocations are made in line with the policies and included the URL of the page with the policies.
He asked for feedback about whether the wording was okay and said he didn’t remember anyone at the last meeting objecting to it. LL asked about how formal the response needs to be. LV said it doesn’t need to be formal and that he was just looking for suggestions, etc. and that, unless anyone objected, he would go ahead with the proposed wording, adding that this can always be changed later.
LL said the ASO AC has had ample time to consider the wording and that he hasn’t seen any objections or comments about it. He asked the group for any final feedback. There was none, so he declared that LV can go ahead with the proposed wording.
Action 140205-02: LV to send the final text to be included in the Internet number registries section in IANA website to the AC-COORD mailing list on the interpretation in Implementing The Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA
6. Request to add observers to AC-COORD list
LL said he’d already asked GV for permission to allow Martin Levy to post updates to the ASO AC mailing list in his position on the cross-community working group on Internet governance, and that he should ask the same for Hans Petter Holen in his role on the ICANN NomCom. He said there was also a request from one region’s policy community leader to be an observer on the AC-COORD list and possibly the teleconferences. He asked the group whether this should be extended to the chairs and co-chairs of the advisory councils for all five regions. He noted that when there are full ARIN Meetings, JS, RS and LL enjoy having time with the ARIN Board and ARIN AC chair and co-chairs. He asked for feedback about this idea.
HG asked for clarification about how many observers there are already on the list. He said that although most observers don’t attend, he would like to see the full list of names before they start opening the meetings to others. He said he didn’t see an advantage to having so many observers on a working group list.
JS asked how HG feels about people who are actively working, such as Hans Petter Holen. HG said he was a member of the ICANN NomCom in the past and has nothing against having members as observers, but that the NomCom is subject to confidentiality restrictions, so HG was unsure about how much information he could share with the ASO AC on the mailing list. He said he doesn’t want to loose time with too much discussion and that a smaller group of observers could report back to their respective organizations.
LL asked whether it’s useful for those actively on committees to be on the ASO AC list, or whether they should be part of discussions so they can answer questions and give their opinions. He said such discussions could simply include relevant committee members when specific questions are asked, but asked whether they need to see the whole thread on the mailing list. LL also confirmed that there are a lot of observers who do not regularly join the meetings.
EB said he received a request from one of their policy working group chairs, who asked to be added for the benefit of those in the AFRINIC region. LL suggesting limiting invitations to just those chairs who have asked to join rather than all the policy chairs from all five regions.
AB said he has mixed feelings about this issue and there are pros and cons to both sides. He said all regions should be treated equally, so there should be the same number of observers from each region. He also said there are already representatives from each region, so he’s not sure how much the ASO AC would learn with regards to policy by having additional policy leaders from each region as observers. He said that policy chairs from each region might benefit from hearing from their counterpoints in other regions. He also agreed that there are confidentiality issues to consider. He said he doesn’t feel comfortable making a decision one way or the other.
WW said he isn’t comfortable inviting many other observers because there are already three policy representatives from each region and that too many observers would dilute the group’s efficiency. He also said he thinks it’s useful to have a small number of observers on a regular basis who are directly involved in coordination, such as Hans Petter Holen because of his position as RIPE Deputy Chair. He also said the group is struggling with the ASO and ASO AC becoming involved in other things beyond their mandate. He suggested during the face-to-face meeting having a discussion about splitting the group in two: one group dedicated to the core mandate of the ASO, such as providing advice to IANA and ICANN, and another one that deals with all of the other coordinating activities.
LL thanked WW for his feedback and asked for other questions. WW also asked GV to post the list of observers to the mailing list, and GV said he has just done that.
JS said he supported the idea of splitting up the list to discuss NRO-related activities that fall outside of the ASO AC mandate, such as the coordination of global policies. He said that the group sometimes does discuss things not explicitly under the ASO Charter.
LL said that the group has relied on face-to-face meetings or having add-on discussions after the teleconferences to discuss such matters, which is not ideal. He also supported splitting the list to have one dedicated to discussing NRO/NC issues.
FA supported WW’s idea of seeing the current list of observers and agreeing on the role of the AC-COORD list. She said it’s difficult to agree now about who should be included without seeing the full list of observers first.
LL agreed the issue wouldn’t be solved during this teleconference and suggested moving the discussion to the mailing list. WW agreed.
7. Update on CCWG
LL asked one of the members of the CCWG (which includes FY, NA and Martin Levy) to give an update. NA said that, with regards to the charter, a multi-stakeholder approach was needed and that several calls have taken place. He said he will request the reports be forwarded.
FY said there was a discussion about coordination between ICANN and various communities, and what it means when a statement is sent from “ICANN”. She said she will send a link to the full discussion.
LL asked about a question from the chairs of the SO’s and AC’s about whether it would be okay to replace the SO/AC session right after the opening ceremonies, which is for high-interest topics, with a public CCWG IG, for the Singapore meeting only. He said the suggestion would be that this might be a good use of time, especially in light of the upcoming Brazil meeting, since these two sessions really have the same goals anyway.
WW asked if it would be more useful to have one session to include the CCWG and the other important ICANN members from the SO’s and AC’s. LL said the question is whether there’s anything else the AC’s or SO’s care to discuss during that session and, if not, why not let the working group take it over for Singapore?
WW asked why it has to be an exclusive question of having one or the other session.
FY said the working group discussed logistics and whether it should be in the ICANN Meeting agenda, and that was the reason for the formal request.
LL suggested a way to ensure having the high-interest discussion session every time would be to say there’s only a single topic and it is the CCWG. That way, it would just be a matter of changing the agenda and the topic.
8. Update AC procedure to appoint members to various bodies
LL said JS put the procedure on the list for discussion and LL suggested a poll. He said there was a miscommunication about the form the poll would take. He said the group needs to have a vote but he needs to check what the rules are for ratification. He then found the rules and read them to the group and asked whether the required 4/5th majority of members were present on the call. GV verified that 13 were on the call and so they did have the required 4/5th majority.
JS said the vote on the list did not represent a 4/5th majority and so it needed to be formally closed without carrying. LL formally closed the election and stated that it did not carry because it didn’t receive enough votes and because votes from 4/5th of the members were not registered. He asked the group for feedback.
JS said that was fine.
LL asked whether the procedure needed to be posted on the mailing list for seven days.
WW asked whether the decision could be made during the teleconference.
LL said he was asking whether the decision could be made during the teleconference and asked for someone to propose it.
GV sent to the AC COORD list the text of section 9 of the ASO AC Procedures that states the voting can take during ASO AC Teleconferences.
WW proposed taking a vote during the call and AS seconded the motion. GV took a role call for the motion. AB, NA, TF, AS, JS, RS, RP, HG, JV, FY, WW, LL and FA all supported the motion. With 13 votes in support (and 12 required), the motion passed.
Action 140205-03: GV to send the approved procedure to the NRO EC for final approval, and add it to the procedure as a draft amendment, pending NRO EC approval.
9. Finalize face-to-face travel plans
LL asked for anyone who hasn’t listed their preference for when to hold the face-to-face meeting on the mailing list to please do so now, including LACNIC, APNIC and AFRINIC. GV confirmed he has personally received feedback from each region and asked for any final feedback before sending the final results to the AC-COORD list.
BR said it would be helpful to know as soon as possible when the meeting would take place so meeting rooms, etc. could be arranged. LL asked about how those not attending could remotely participate. BR confirmed that plans for this have already been arranged. LL encouraged everyone to start making travel plans. LL said they should coordinate with the NRO EC about logistics for meeting rooms, etc.
GV asked whether the ASO AC face-to-face meeting would take place early in the week, and proposed deciding this soon so everyone could make plans. LL asked BR for feedback. BR said that plans hadn’t been finalized yet for the London meeting in June, but suggested not holding the face-to-face meeting on constituency day if at all possible in order to attract more people and obtain a better meeting room. LL said the group had to consider what else was taking place so as to avoid conflicts. BR said it could be decided after the Singapore meeting in March, since things couldn’t be booked before then anyway.
LL suggested it would probably take place on Monday or Tuesday, and that Wednesday would probably be a workshop day. BR said the ICANN Board would like to meet on the Tuesday but was waiting to hear back about whether Wednesday was possible.
GV said that Tuesday has a tight agenda and that another day might work better for the board. BR agreed that Wednesday would be more comfortable for everyone, but that having a separate day for the board to meet with the ASO AC might not be best. She suggested it’s up to the board to decide the timing. LL said he was fine either way.
LL asked for final feedback and urged everyone attending the Singapore meeting to pay attention to what happens with the CCWG and make sure they support its direction.
LL invited FY to discuss an item she asked to add to the agenda (via chat) earlier during the call.
FY said the multi-stakeholder advisory group to the IGF will start their open consultation soon, in February, and there’s a request for input, open to everyone, with a deadline of February 10. She encouraged everyone to give their feedback from their technical communities about what needs to be discussed at the IGF and said they can contact her or an email address she will share with the list.
LL asked about updating the group on the number allocation status for each region. FA asked about what updates the group might want to give at the IGF about numbering space.
LL said those interested in numbering issues already know about the news, but that others might want to know about the milestones as well.
LL asked for an update on the ICANN meeting strategy working group.
BR said the infographic started in Buenos Aires has not yet been completed and asked how best to complete it. LL suggested setting up a meeting. BR suggested distributing the material ahead of time so the process can get started. LL asked for more clarification about what kind of information should be required.
BR explained that during the discussion at the Buenos Aires meeting, it was decided that the infographic should be something that the RIRs and NRO feel comfortable using and feel comfortable having the ASO AC using. LL suggested it should be something that could be used as a starting place to get into deeper information, and BR agreed.
BR also asked for feedback about the geographic region discussion that was requested. LL suggested that RIR staff give some background about how the boundaries were created. BR asked whether it should be taken up on the mailing list.
LL said he would have to consult with the NRO EC about getting the CCG to move forward with this. GV said he will mention it to CCG Chair Nick Hyrka.
LL said he would give a light response with what the group plans to say and give a two-week estimate and a note to reserve the right to push that out, to have something to work with as a starting point. BR said that was fine, and that ICANN just wants to know whether they should expect input from the group, or whether input would come at a later stage.
LL said he could only provide input regarding LACNIC and ARIN, but not AFRINIC, and that RIPE has sub-regions.
GV said there was an update about the ICANN gala night have been moved from Wednesday to Monday at the March meeting and asked for feedback about everyone’s schedule. LL suggested the ASO AC dinner might be well suited to Wednesday and asked everyone to respond to GV on the list.
LL asked for any other AOBs to either wait for next time or be taken to the mailing list, unless there was anything else requiring action.
AS commented that the 2013 ASO AC review hasn’t been done yet. LL reminded AS that this was done during the teleconference in January. AS said the 2012 review was more formal than this. LL said he felt that everything was captured in the minutes and that he could send it around for a final review.
LL suggested adjourning the meeting. AS put forth the motion to adjourn and WW seconded the motion. LL adjourned the meeting at 14:26 UTC.
Last modified on 02/07/2020