ASO AC Teleconference 5 June 2013

ASO AC Attendees


Fionah Asonga FA
Alan Barrett AB (Vice Chair)
Douglas Onyango DO


Tomohiro Fujisaki TF


Jason Schiller JS
Ron da Silva RS
Louie Lee LL (Chair)


Ricardo Patara RP
Hartmut Glaser HG
Jorge Villa JV


Dmitry Kohmanyuk DK
Wilfried Woeber WW


Andy Linton, AL (APNIC)
Naresh Ajwani NA (APNIC)


Neriah Soussou NS (AFRINIC)
Guylaine Mootoo GM (AFRINIC)
Adam Gosling AG (APNIC)
Nate Davis ND (ARIN)
Einar Bohlin EBO (ARIN)
Juan Alejo Peirano JAP (LACNIC)
Emilio Madaio EM (RIPE NCC)
Barbara Roseman BR ICANN
Leo vegoda LV (ICANN)


German Valdez GV (NRO)
Ernest Byaruhanga EB (AFRINIC)


1. Welcome
2. Agenda Review
3. Approval of Minutes from the last teleconference
4. Review of Open Action Items
5. Interpretation of the ASN Allocation Policy
6. Inter Regional ASN Transfers
7. RFC2050 and preserving the principles of stewardship in RIR policy or global policy
8. ASO Workshop in Durban
9. ASO AC Procedures – Way forward.
10. RIR Meeting Reports.
11. Any other Business
12. Adjournment

1. Welcome.

LL requested a roll call, which was conducted by GV. Having realized quorum, LL called the meeting to order at 12:11 PM UTC.

2. Agenda Review.

LL asked for comments on the draft agenda. There were none.

3. Approval of Minutes from the last teleconference.

GV apologized for not sending the notes of the previous minutes (from the ICANN Beijing face to face meeting), and promised to avail the document on the list and publish online immediately. LL asked GV to publish online only several days after members have read the document from the mailing list.

4. Review of open Action Items.

LL stated that the only open action item was for the Secretariat to publish the 2013 ASO AC work plan, which has already been done. This action item was declared closed.

5. Interpretation of the ASN Allocation Policy

LL asked members to look at the email from Elise sent to the list about a month ago on this item, stating that IANA don’t have a contiguous block of 1024 ASNs in the 16-bit ASN space to give out anymore.

JS said the ASNs are in fact 32-bit ASNs, just smaller integers. LL said it is important to discuss the pros and cons about the various ways to interpret the policy and further stated that it is necessary to pass a motion to provide a consensus result as the AC official advice to IANA on this issue. WW supported LL’s proposal.

WW moved a motion to propose the following text (after some input from LL, APB, LV and JS) as the official advise from the AC:

“The AC answers IANA’s question regarding the allocation of 1024 AS Numbers as follows: There is no requirement in the policy to form the block of 1024 AS Numbers from a contiguous set of numbers, thus allocating from 2 or more different value-ranges is acceptable.”

JS seconded the motion.

LL requested for a roll-call vote, to ensure that majority of the AC are in support.

GV conducted the roll-call vote, and all 11 AC members that participated in the roll call supported the motion, with no negative votes or abstentions. Jorge Villa also remotely expressed support (through HG).

The motion was carried and LL will use the text above in reply to Elise as the actual advise from the ASO AC to IANA on this issue.

6. Inter Regional ASN Transfer

LL asked JS to give some background.

JS noted that the ARIN community passed a policy that allows transfer of ASNs to and from ARIN members, but the community has not been very supportive of the proposal to transfer ASNs between RIRs and the ARIN AC is yet to decide whether to move the policy proposal forward.

JS also stated that there was discussion on the LACNIC policy mailing list, which indicated that the LACNIC community is not so interested in ASN transfers to/from the ARIN region and would oppose such a policy, while discussions from APNIC indicate there could be some interest.

WW said there have not been any discussions on the issue from the RIPE region, and he may ask the policy working group chair to gauge interest.

LL stated that it is important for all AC members to watch their respective policy related mailing lists and provide feedback to the AC on the relevant issues being discussed on the Inter-RIR ASN transfer subject in their regions. GV also said he can coordinate with the policy staff of all RIRs to compile any relevant discussions and advise the AC when appropriate.

7. RFC 2050, and preserving the Principles of Stewardship in RIR policy or Global policy.

LL stated that there is a policy proposal in the ARIN region that is receiving a lot of discussion on the subject matter and asked JS to lead.

JS stated this is a proposal to update RFC2050 that aims at deprecating a lot of issues regarding stewardship from the original RFC 2050. He stated that there have been a lot of high-level discussions that have also taken the direction of requiring changes to the RIR PDP.

JS further stated there have been discussions to see if other RIRs can work to make it a global policy, but it was deemed necessary not to initially submit it as a global policy, and only to start the discussion in the ARIN region, and perhaps gauge what other regions feel about this, in which case, one could find authors from other regions to participate.

JS further noted that the goal is to propose text that would not specifically change RIR policy or how RIRs operate.

WW noted that the proposal chiefly talks about IPv4, and is keen to see one document which applies to IPv6 and ASNs. He also suggested that the AC points out the major differences between RFC2050bis and RFC2050 to the respective RIR policy discussion lists, as this could get relevant feedback from the community.

LL asked if there are members of the AC willing to participate in writing a global policy on behalf of their regions. WW expressed interest, as well as FA, APB and RP.

LL reminded that it is not the ASO AC working on the proposal but the members individually and asked JS to follow up with each of the volunteers as appropriate.

8. Durban ASO Workshop

BR stated that Durban planning is underway and this is the time to apply for sessions and rooms.

She said that 17 July has a 1.5 hour scheduled session for IPv6 and the ASO/ALAC meeting. She asked to know if there are specific agenda items that the ASO AC has scheduled for Wednesday, and asked if the meeting between the ASO & ICANN Board should also be scheduled and when. She stated that there is full attention from within ICANN on how to incorporate ASO fully into the meeting and asked for comments.

She also stated that David Olive has reserved some time for policy development practices for different SOs, and perhaps the ASO AC can also have a slot to discuss RIR policy development processes.

LL stated that it would be appropriate if RIR staff lead the policy development part. FA said ATRT2 requested David Olive to arrange for a slot to discuss a summary of the RIR PDP, since the ATRT2 is now looking at many issues of public interest. BR stated that the ATRT2 wants to know who will be in Durban and their availability, and stated she will put the ASO AC in touch with the ATRT2 coordinator to properly schedule this meeting.

She asked for the ASO to indicate if there is a need for a dedicated room for the ASO AC update, and that she will work with GV to send a detailed list of activities that the ASO AC may be participating in. BR also said a room will be reserved for the ASO AC for two to three days for exclusive ASO AC use.

FA suggested that BR goes ahead to confirm the meetings already scheduled, such as the Board and ALAC, as well as reserving a room where the ASO AC can retreat to after each meeting to plan their business for the entire meeting.
BR also advised that the ASO AC update can be done either at the end or beginning of the 90 minute IPv6 session, and thinks there is no need for a separate session for that unless the ASO AC thinks otherwise. LL stated that not much planning has been put into this yet, but agrees with BR’s suggestion above.

BR stated that there is a need to receive specific agenda items or issues to discuss especially for the meeting with the Board, and asked GV to check with the NRO on which individuals will be at this meeting.

BR suggested that the ASO AC could also use webinars before the ICANN meetings to brief the community on the various activities going on in the policy area, as this could save scheduling time. FA agreed with BR on the webinar issue.

9. ASO AC Procedures Way Forward

LL stated that a high level discussion about the procedures is needed to give GV some guidance towards drafting procedure text. GV stated he is willing to draft updates to the current document after receiving details of changes and ideas that members have.

LL said GV and himself are always willing to receive any feedback from members as far as the procedures are concerned. WW said he is not updated with the latest decision post the Beijing meeting, and suggested to agree on the mailing list for an informal get together to discuss this issue after being prepared.

JS supports the idea of an informal meeting to discuss the procedures, with suggestions for any Wednesday at 1200UTC. GV suggested a Doodle poll to determine when members would be able to attend, and he will share it on the AC mailing list.

10. RIR Meeting Reports

LL stated he saw a report from RP on the LACNIC19 meeting on the mailing list, but has not seen a report on RIPE66, and called a RIPE member to update the meeting. WW said he would put together something and share on the mailing list. JS also quickly shared a brief policy update from the discussions at ARIN31 and directed members to the ppml mailing list for discussion details.

11. Any Other Business.

GV said he will send (to the list) the interpretation of the ITEMS review with regards to the response to the recommendations, and this could require approval from the ASO AC members. He also stated that the CCG is still working on improving the ASO AC website and that the navigation structure is under review. He said he will provide a concept of how the new website will look like after July.

LL said he had a chat with BR regarding IDNs where an official AC response could be useful, but urged any member willing to respond outside of the AC to do so.

12. Adjournment.

LL asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting.
WW moved to adjourn, TF seconded with none opposed.
LL adjourned the meeting at 2:18 PM UTC

Last modified on 29/01/2020