ASO AC Teleconference 2 March 2005
AC Attendees:
Sanford George (SG) – ARIN
Lee Howard (LH) – ARIN
Louis Lee (LL) – ARIN
Kenny S. Huang (KH) – APNIC
Takashi Arano (TA) – APNIC
Hyun-Joon Kwon (HJK) – APNIC
Sebastián Bellagamba (SB) – LACNIC
Hans Petter Holen (HPH) – RIPE
Sabine Jaume (SJ) – RIPE
Observers:
Ray Plzak (RP) – ARIN
Axel Pawlik (AP) – RIPE
Anne Lord (AL) – APNIC
Germán Valdez (GV) – LACNIC
Raimundo Beca (RB) – ICANN Board of Directors
Adiel Akplogan (AA) – AfriNIC
Barbara Roseman (BR) – ICANN
Adriana Rivero (AR) – LACNIC- ASO Secretariat
Apolgies Received:
Hartmut Glaser (HG)
Raul Echeberria (RE)
Minutes were taken by AR and GV
Agenda: 1) Welcome
– Roll call to establish quorum
2) Agenda review
3) Minutes from January 5 2005 meeting
4) Status Open actions
5) Meeting schedule 2005 – physical meetings
6) Work plan 2005 – final
7) ICANN Strategic plan
8) Status of IANA Policy for Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to regional internet registries
9) AC ASO Procedures
– Procedure to call for meetings
– Review of other procedures under the new MoU
10) Report from RIR meetings
– APNIC meeting
– AFRINIC progress update
11) Report from ICANN meetings
12) Global policy update
– IPv6 Global policy roadmap
– Etno paper on future of IPv6 management
– WGIG Draft working paper on the Administration of Internet names and IP addresses
13) AOB
1) Welcome
The teleconference was opened by HPH at 22:05 UTC. The meeting was chaired by HPH
Roll-call to establish quorum
As per roll call, 9 members of the AC and 8 observers were present. .
With 9 AC members and 8 observers present quorum was established.
Congratulations to KH as representative of the APNIC region on the NRO number council. Congratulations were offered by HPH.
Welcome new AfriNIC observers
This could not be done at this time because the new observers had not yet joined the teleconference.
2) Agenda review
HPH. Read the draft agenda he sent out the previous week,
HJK proposed to add the item “Procedures for ASO policy review process” to agenda item “9) Procedures;” this proposal was approved.
3) Minutes from January 5 2005 meeting
It was established that the minutes were circulated and published and that no objections were received.
At the proposal of HPH, hearing no objections, the minutes of the January 5 meeting were approved and the following action decided:
Action #0503-01. SEC. To change the status of the January 5 meeting from “draft” to “approved” and proceed to publish them as such.
4) Status of Open Actions
AR proceeded to read all open action items and their corresponding status.
In relation to Action #0307-03 (Secretariat to investigate technical solutions for conducting e-voting. Once a proposal is made, then the AC can test it and make a decision as to whether to proceed.), the chair proposed to close it as there is no provision for e-voting under the NRO/ASO-ICANN MoU.
HPH suggested that perhaps something concrete should be done about the e-voting or else close this action on the basis that there is no provision for e-voting, and that maybe this is a decision that should be considered under agenda item “9) Procedures.”
There being no further comments on the status of open actions, it was decided to proceed to the next agenda item.
5) Meeting schedule for 2005 – Physical meetings
HPH mentioned that he had circulated a new version of a document with the availabilities of some of the AC members and observers and that, although some feedback is still missing, the document is a good indication and would allow us to make a decision as to when it would be practical to have these meeting. He then proceeded to inquire if there were any proposals for a physical meeting of the AC.
RP. commented that there is the general feeling that there will be funding to support two face-to-face meetings of the AC each year, that we should plan for two meetings and assume that the NRO will provide the necessary funding support for one meeting during the first half of the year and another during the second.
After discussing and commenting on the advantages and disadvantages of the various suggestions that were mentioned, it was proposed to have one physical meeting in Maputo at the end of April and another in Vancouver at the end of November/beginning of December.
AA Stated that Mozambique would be happy to host a meeting
RP. Added that a meeting in Maputo would be significant from the standpoint that it is the first official AfriNIC meeting since their formal recognition by ICANN.
There being no objections, the two meetings were approved.
Action #0503-02. SEC.To start planning these physical meetings. Maputo Mozambique 26-27 April and Vancouver Canada Nov 30 – Dec 4.
HPH informed that he had received a request from ICANN to have a meeting with the GAC at the Mar del Plata ICANN meeting, that although he will not be available perhaps someone else, such as HG, will be. To this SB replied that he would be present, as he is hosting the meeting.
RP then noted that the NRO had a meeting with the GAC in December, in Cape Town, and suggested that the AC could adopt a similar strategy, that is go in to this meeting with the GAC prepared with an informational briefing to explain who they are and possibly talk about some of the concerns of the addressing community, such things as the Internet Governance discussions that going on at the WSIS. He recommended the preparation of a 15-20 minutes tutorial or educational material to present before opening a general question and answer session. RP stated that in his opinion this would be acceptable for the GAC.
The following action was proposed and approved:
Action #0503-03: HG and SB will prepare a presentation for the GAC that will be presented at the Mar del Plata ICANN meeting; HPH will do some e-mail coordination with HG and SB before proposing this to the GAC.
LL Proposed inviting the GAC to the Maputo meeting, proposal which was approved.
RP Regional representation from ASO AC would be important in this meeting.
Action #0503-04. CHAIR To invite the GAC to attend the Maputo meeting.
6) Work Plan 2005 – final
After inquiring whether there were any comments on the proposed work plan for 2005 and hearing no comments, HPH proposed the following action for the Secretariat:
Action #0503-05.SEC: To format the Work Plan 2005 nicely and publish it on the website.
This action was approved.
7) ICANN strategic plan
HPH presented the following summary: The AC were invited to a conference call with, among others, Paul Twomey, where there was a brief discussion on the ICANN strategic plan. The conference call was taped and the corresponding minutes were circulated within ICANN, but they were not sent back to the AC. Since then SB posted his comments to the strategic plan to the AC coord list and HPH himself posted some remarks to SB’s comments, but the timings were far too late to comply with the official deadline established for posting comments to the strategic plan. HPH apologized, but mentioned that he believes that there were expectations that these minutes would be used as working material and inquired whether there were any comments or suggestions on the matter.
GV replied that in his opinion perhaps the ASO could make some comments even though it is past the deadline, because the ASO is one of the three support organizations and ICANN might be very interested in hearing these organizations’ opinions. He proceeded to ask it is feasible to present comments although the deadline has expired.
BR stated that in her opinion there would be no problem, that ICANN would welcome further comments even after the deadline, particularly if there was some confusion as to the distribution of the minutes, and that Paul Twomey will surely welcome this feedback.
RP observed that, just because a deadline for getting comments posted on a website was missed, this does not mean that no comments should be made.
In relation to the content of these comments, HPH asked whether, taking SB’s contribution as a starting point or basis, it would be necessary to receive comments before presenting to ICANN a document that represents the view of the AC, after which the following actions were proposed and approved:
RP. Make notice of the comments from the NRO publish in the NRO Website
Action #0503-06. ALL. To send comments regarding Sebastian comments or ICANN document to the AC-COORD mailing list by the end of the week. Friday 4th March.
Action #0503-07. CHAIR. To study the comments and review SB’s document, to prepare an AC proposal over the weekend and then post it to the AC-COORD mailing list before submitting it to ICANN.
BR mentioned that HPH’s comments should be sent to Paul Twomey and to herself for their inclusion in the comments discussion.
The following action was proposed and approved:
Action #0503-08. SEC. To publish AC final comments for ICANN Strategic Plans on ASO website.
Action #0503-09. BR. To post minutes taken during the teleconference held in January 26th 2005 between members of AC- ASO and ICANN staff regarding Strategic Plan
8 ) Status of IANA Policy for Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries
HPH observed that at the last AC conference the status of this document was discussed, which was originally submitted to ICANN before signing the new MoU; that he sent a personal note to Paul Twomey to inquire about the status of said document and after the second round he received feedback that it would be presented to the ICANN Board in February; that hearing nothing back he discovered on the ICANN website that it had actually been discussed at one of the Board meetings; that following that he sent an e-mail to the AC coord list to see if anybody could provide an update on its status; and that they have had e-mails from RB and Vinton Cerf on that matter. After this he invited RB to summarize this matter from the perspective of the Board.
RB stated that the current status is that the 60-day maximum delay doesn’t work in this particular case because the MoU was signed after that; that it was decided that the Board will hear opinions up until the Mar del Plata meeting, after which the Board will consider the draft.
HPH remarked that he personally regretted that he did not resend the policy after the last meeting, because then we would have had a definitive 60-day deadline after the new MoU. He proceeded to ask whether there is a commitment to end this after the Mar del Plata meeting or whether the policy should be resent to make the clock formally start ticking.
RB stated that it is his understanding of the resolution that, in case amendments to the policy are needed, the MoU will be applied from the day after Mar del Plata.
HPH wanted to know what the ICANN Board is doing between the Board meeting that was held in February and the Mar del Plata meeting.
BR replied that ICANN is initiating a 21 day public comment period as soon as this is posted, either this afternoon or tomorrow morning.
HPH asked whether there is a process for doing this.
BR replied that there currently isn’t but that there is need for such a process.
HPH said that the most important question right now is whether there is any action the AC should take in relation to the IANA policy at this time?
RP commented that he believes that if there are things that need to be said or that you want the NRO to say please let us know.
To this HPH replied that he is personally between satisfied and deeply concerned about the status of this, because what he doesn’t want to happen at any cost is to hear, after Mar del Plata, that the sixty day deadline does not occur, then at that point we should definitely repost it and then we would have another sixty day period starting at that moment.
RP noted that he agrees and that it wouldn’t hurt to seek some assurance that Mar del Plata will be considered the end of the 60 day period, and then move on from there so this doesn’t drag on forever.
RB stated that in his e-mail he had established that the resolution would be taken in Mar del Plata and in case there is an amendment the MoU will be followed; that in his opinion no action is needed; and that he will be present at the Mar del Plata meeting.
HPH mentioned that the community is concerned because IANA and the RIRs do not have a common view on how this policy works, so it is necessary to clear things up. If we cannot do this for IPv4, how can we achieve this for IPv6, where we don’t have almost 30 years of experience. To this BR replied that she is aware that there is currently a disagreement on the state of affairs of this policy, that on the ASO website it looks as if the policy is not in place right now, that she understands that it is very important to get the policy in place, and she acknowledges that this is a legitimate concern.
LH said that in his opinion no official action from ICANN is needed, that reassurance from the Chairman of the Board that the 60-day term will end and that definitive action will be taken in Mar del Plata would be enough for them. To this HPH replied that his motivation for seeking official assurance is to add transparency and openness to the process. LH agreed with this point of view, that it is reasonable to have something to present to our constituents.
HPH proposed the following action:
Action #0503-10. CHAIR: To seek official reassurance from ICANN on the statement given by RB to the AC (that Mar del Plata will be the end of the 60 day window period).
9) Procedures
HPH apologized for not showing significant progress on this matter since the last meeting. He mentioned that there were two actions on the chairs and co-chairs, one to concretely make a procedure to call for meetings and another to review the other procedures according the new MOU. He added that later a concrete proposal to revise the policy process making was posted on the mailing list.
HJK mentioned that yesterday he sent an e-mail with a diagram attached regarding the ASO global policy development process. According to Attachment A6 of the MoU ASO has a role in the policy development process.
HJK said that APNIC’s concern is how to fulfill this Article 6 and what kind of concrete process and measures to take or under what kind of criteria to proceed, and that his suggestion is to have a process for reviewing global policies.
HPH asked whether, in other words, what APNIC is looking for is an AC internal process which describes how to review and decide or make recommendations on a global policy, to which HJK replied that it is.
HPH To put this process at the top of the list of procedures need to be revises (this action relates to Action #0501-08, decided during the previous meeting).
After further discussions HPH proposed the following action:
Action #0503-11. CHAIR: To add this process for fulfilling Article 6 of the global policy process to the concrete list of procedures that need to be reviewed and developed.
10) Report from RIR meetings
– APNIC meeting
It was established that, since the last ASO AC conference, there was an APNIC meeting. HPH proceeded to ask whether one of the colleagues from the APNIC region wanted to present an update on this meeting.
KH presented a brief summary of the most important aspects of the latest APNIC meeting.
– AfriNIC progress report
HPH observed that neither of the two AfriNIC observers appreared to be present in the conference.
RP said that he did send a progress report, the most significant aspect of which is that we have entered into the phase 2 of the co-evaluation process. AfriNIC is functioning as a RIR, software to provide WHOIS services and registration services has been put together and is operational. He also said that there are a number of transitional items that need to be addressed, not the least of which is the transfer of the business and accounting aspects, but that those things are well underway, on the NRO side the process is being managed and coordinated by a single point and on the AfriNIC side by AA, that excellent progress has been made, and that he sees nothing standing in the way of recognition happening at the Mar del Plata meeting. To all this HPH replied that this is good news.
LH Since when AFRINIC is making allocation through an ARIN second’s opinion.
RP Since September and on month ago with out any consultation to ARIN like any regular RIR
LH asked whether this means that people in the former ARIN part of AfriNIC will not be able to get resources from ARIN,
RP replied that people in the former ARIN part of AfriNIC will in fact not be able to get resources from ARIN, the same as those from the RIPE NCC region, similar to what happened with the creation of LACNIC.
11) Report from ICANN meetings
It was established that there were no ICANN meetings since the last AC conference.
12) Global policy update
IPv6 Global Policy Roadmap
HPH suggested that the IPv6 global policy roadmap should be discussed, to which RP suggested starting with the report from the APNIC region.
HPH said that he sees that there are two things going on at the same time: first that a global policy on allocation of IP addresses from IANA to RIRs is needed, which is in some ways connected to both the size of address space handed out to end sites and the sparse allocation mechanism and the HD ratio which somehow of influences the room for maneuvering, and the other thing that is going on is the review of the regional policies and in particular the removal of the requirement for 200 end sites.
RP replied that the only global policy HPH mentioned is the allocation from IANA to RIRs, that the rest are regional policies, and that is why he suggested starting with the report of what happened at the APNIC meeting.
AL Mentioned that the document of IPv6 allocation from IANA – RIR has been through the policy process in some but not all regions. APNIC has policy agreed but they are following the process in other regions to adapt a global document.
RP added there is a document that has been discussed and prepared at the NRO AC, that although it is not final yet, in few words it is identical to the proposed policy for IPv4 allocation to the RIRs in that it features an allocation unit, in this case a /12, it discusses the criteria that should be maintained by the RIRs, and it also discusses the justifications required to define special and regular need. Since there is already an active discussion in the ARIN region on this policy, it will be discussed in the upcoming ARIN meeting.
HPH mentioned two other documents, the Etno paper on future of IPv6 management and the WGIG draft working paper on the administration of Internet names and IP addresses, saying that he at least wanted to bring these to everybody’s attention. He added that these are valid reading material for AC members.
RB ETNO document is not oriented to IPv6 management but a support to NRO statement to Zhao document,
13) Any other business
HPH reported that the chairs of the AC have been informed by the NRO that there are ongoing conversations between the GAC and the AC, that he doesn’t know when it will be appropriate to share that document with the AC.
RP replied that no response has been received from the GAC.
HPH concluded that when this response is received it will be a good moment to share this with the rest of the AC.
AA rejoined the conference and noticed that AfriNIC has two observers on the AC but that he doesn’t believe they are in the conference. He stated that AfriNIC is having elections in April and asked how that will work after they end their mandates (in April and not in January), whether this will be a problem.
RP replied that this is a matter for the AfriNIC Board, that it is necessary to have them seated immediately in April and that, after that, their terms should be adjusted so as to fall into a routine cycle of having authorities seated in January. He suggested perhaps having another election in October so that people will be seated in the right manner.
LH asked whether there is anything that the ASO AC needs to do to recognize that the new members are not longer observers but actually members of the ASO AC.
RP suggested that once the formal recognition occurs, the AC should basically assume that the recognition happened and welcome the AfriNIC observers, who will then become members of the AC and be able to vote.
RP added that Maputo would be a perfect place to have that happen and that it should be included in the corresponding agenda.
LL The next AC meeting is the same week that RIPE meeting.
RP having a face to face a week before (Maputo) may decide what action to take with this meeting.
LH the meeting in Maputo is a workshop where no action can be taken
RP Anything can be discussed and debated during the Workshop and to have everything ready for a 15-20 mins meeting next week
At this moment HPH presented a motion to adjourn the meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 23:30 UTC
Action #0503-01. SEC. To change the status of the January 5 meeting from “draft” to “approved” and proceed to publish them as such.
Action #0503-02. SEC. To start planning these physical meetings. Maputo Mozambique 26-27 April and Vancouver Canada Nov 30 – Dec 4.
Action #0503-03: HG and SB will prepare a presentation for the GAC that will be presented at the Mar del Plata ICANN meeting; HPH will do some e-mail coordination with HG and SB before proposing this to the GAC.
Action #0503-04. CHAIR To invite the GAC to attend the Maputo meeting.
Action #0503-05.SEC: To format the Work Plan 2005 nicely and publish it on the website.
Action #0503-06. ALL. To send comments regarding Sebastian comments or ICANN document to the AC-COORD maling list by the end of the week. Friday 4th March.
Action #0503-07. CHAIR. To study the comments and review SB’s document, to prepare an AC proposal over the weekend and then post it to the AC-COORD mailing list before submitting it to ICANN.
Action #0503-08. SEC. To publish AC final comments for ICANN Strategic Plans on ASO website.
Action #0503-09. BR. To post minutes taken during the teleconference held in January 26th 2005 between members of AC- ASO and ICANN staff regarding Strategic Plan
Action #0503-10. CHAIR: To seek official reassurance from ICANN on the statement given by RB to the AC (that Mar del Plata will be the end of the 60 day window period).
Action #0503-11. CHAIR: To add this process for fulfilling Article 6 of the global policy process to the concrete list of procedures that need to be reviewed and developed.
Action #0411-03 Chair/Co-Chair
To work on a roadmap to be formally approved at the next AC meeting in January 2005 ONGOING. Draft presentet at January meeting, 2nd draft sent to the list on 21/2Action #0501-04 CHAIR:
To look into proposing a procedure for the calling for meetings.Action #0501-05 CHAIR:
To put together a table of the availability of the AC members for the coming RIR meetings so it will be easier to determine when the next physical meeting can be scheduled. ONGOING. Started 21/2Action #0501-06SB, SJ, TA, RP, HPH:
SB, SJ TA will start a discussion on the list concerning the ICANN strategic plan and then RP will take it to the EC. The chair will then consult with the EC and see if it is feasible and practical to come up with a joint statement based on the list and based on the EC. ONGOING. Queried for status 21/2Action #0501-07 CHAIR
To thank the secretariat we had in 2004 (RIPE) ONGOING. Under preparationAction #0501-08Chair and Co-Chairs:
To identify a list of the procedures that need to be established regarding the transition from the old MoU to the new MoU, take that to the list, and then start to work on the most important ones and call for volunteers for the work.Action #0501-09Chair:
To inquire ICANN about the deadline for reply to the global policy proposal document submitted to the ICANN board by the AC last September. ONGOING – two personal letters to Paul TwomeyAction #0307-03 SEC
Secretariat to investigate technical solutions for conducting e-voting. A decision about the necessity of this action will be made after the review of procedures in the AC ASO.(Action #0501-08)
OPEN/STALLED
Action #0411-02CHAIR/SEC
The Chair and SEC to officially notify the NomCom of ICANN about the candidate of the Address Council for the ICANN 2005 NomCom.
DONEAction #0501-01CHAIR:
To send a letter to ICANN notifying and introducing the newly elected chairs.
DONEAction #0501-02SEC:
To change the status of the minutes of the AC meeting on 3 November 2004 from “draft minutes” to “definitive minutes.”
DONEAction #0501-03SEC:
To publish the new schedule that HPH will send with the GMT times on the website.
DONE
Last modified on 29/01/2020