ASO AC Teleconference 7 May 2014


ASO AC Attendees

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

Tomohiro Fujisaki, TF
Aftab Siddiqui, AS

Louie Lee, LL (Chair)
Ron da Silva, RS

Jorge Villa, JV
Hartmut Glaser, HG
Ricardo Patara, RP

Wilfried Woeber, WW


Adam Gosling (APNIC)
Einar Bohlin (ARIN)
Ernest Byaruhanga – AFRINIC
Carlos Reyes– ICANN
Leo Vegoda, LV – ICANN


German Valdez, GV – NRO
Suzanne Taylor Muzzin, STM – RIPE NCC (Scribe)


Naresh Ajwani, NA  (unable to reach)
Dmitry Kohmanyuk, DK (unable to reach)
Jason Schiller, JS
Filiz Yilmaz, FY


0.- Welcome
1.- Agenda Review
2.- Review Open Actions
3.- Approval of Minutes from April 2nd 2014
4.- April 23rd Emergency Meeting and ASN Global Policy Implementation
5.- Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA
6.- AC Procedure to Appoint Members to Various Bodies
7.- London ICANN 50 Preparations
8.- ARIN XXXIII Report
9.- AOB
10.- Adjourn

0.- Welcome

LL opened the meeting and asked GV to conduct the roll call. Quorum was established and the meeting was called to order at 12:14 UTC.

1.- Agenda Review

LL went over the agenda and no additional items were added.

2.- Review Open Actions

Action 140402-01: GV to remove the draft status from the March 5th meeting minutes.

Status: Closed.

3.- Approval of Minutes from April 2nd 2014

LL requested some changes to the minutes and so delayed their approval for now. He asked for any other changes from the other members.

4.- April 23rd Emergency Meeting and ASN Global Policy Implementation

LL summarized the discussion from the April 23rd teleconference, stating that the issue is that an RIR can run out of either 16-bit or 32-bit ASNs and force network operators to use 16-bit ASNs when they could use 32-bit ASNs (or vice versa). ARIN, for example, is still holding 32-bit ASNs and so cannot ask for more 16-bit ASNs, while operators in their region are requesting 16-bit ASNs and saying they cannot use the 32-bit ASNs they’re being issued. There was also a question about whether an RIR should be able to request an allocation made up of a certain number of 16-bit versus 32-bit ASNs.

LV said that ICANN published a blog post about the fact that there are about 3,000 remaining unassigned 16-bit ASNs, and this is approximately the number of ASNs being used in the world each year. They were contacted by a reporter from an industry publication and LV conducted an interview with them, so there may be some publicity around this topic.

# FA joined the teleconference at 12:20 UTC.

LL asked about the number of remaining 16-bit ASNs, and LV clarified that there are about 500 16-bit ASNs remaining in the IANA pool, but that the total number, including those held by the RIRs, is about 3,000.

LL said that the view expressed during the April 23rd meeting was that a global policy change is not possible, due in part to the feeling that this is simply a software issue and operators should be forced to upgrade in order to support 32-bit ASNs. LL stated that this is not entirely true, as there is also some hardware that cannot be upgraded to being 32-bit capable.

He said there is still no emergency situation at the moment, but that the ASO AC should provide feedback to IANA on this issue. He said he believes the group feels that RIRs should not be allowed to request which type of ASNs they want from IANA. He also noted the idea of having the five RIRs each request 99 of the remaining 16-bit ASNs.

LL concluded that a draft letter would go to RIR staff first, in order to gain more information about run rates, etc., and then the question would be posted to each of the five RIR communities. He said some RIRs had already been approached for feedback but he didn’t know if they had responded yet, and that until that happens, there’s not much that can be done. He suggested continuing the discussion on the mailing list.

GV said he has been contacting RIR staff to provide information about their run rates, etc. and will send this information to the mailing list as soon as he has it. LL asked GV to copy in the observers on the call so they can also follow up as well.

5.- Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA

LL asked for clarification about why this item was on the agenda, and GV suggested the group could move on if there was nothing new to discuss. LL asked LV if there was any new information, and LV said there wasn’t much of an update beyond the summary he sent via email. He said the software has been published and can be downloaded if anyone wants to try using it. He said it implements the formula as specified in the policy; it pulls the IANA Registry numbers, crunches the numbers, and provides an updated registry. He said that anyone using the software can run it and, assuming no more space is returned, find out exactly how space will be distributed. He said he hoped the group would be satisfied with the way the software was implemented.

LL urged the ASO AC to review the email from April 22 and provide any feedback they may have.

6.- AC Procedure to Appoint Members to Various Bodies

LL said the group had received feedback from the NRO. GV said that after the voting, there was no official evaluation of the results. He said that he sent a report of the results to the mailing list on April 13; 14 members voted on the adoption of the procedures, with 12 members voting yes, one voting no, one abstaining and one member who didn’t vote. That means the required four fifths of members voted in support of the procedure. No further action on this item took place on the mailing list after that email.

LL said that the ASO AC accepted the outcome of the vote and would adopt the procedure change. He also explained that the singular negative vote was based on the opinion that reports should not be mandatory; however, he said the rest of the ASO AC felt that this mandatory reporting was acceptable.

7.- London ICANN 50 Preparations

LL said he and GV would continue to work with BR on the preparations. He said he sent an email to the mailing list about the Thursday meeting day and so far, the response has supported having some of the important issues being discussed earlier in the week and leaving Thursday open for more general topics.

LL said that in Steve Crocker’s email, there’s a link to the Meeting Strategy Working Group that DO and DK were on. He asked the group to read the email and give their feedback about how to improve ICANN Meetings. There was some suggestion that the focus of the different ICANN Meetings should change throughout the year, with the first staying the same as it is now, the second focusing on SOs and ACs, their own meetings and cross-constituency meetings, and the third meeting being more open to avoid conflicting meeting times. There was also feedback about holding the meetings in places that are easier for attendees to reach.

GV urged everyone to put in their travel requests to attend the ICANN 50 Meeting in London as soon as possible, if they hadn’t already done so. LL asked the ASO AC members to send their travel details (including whether or not they plan to attend) to GV.

# DO left the teleconference at 12:39 UTC.

8.- ARIN XXXIII Report

LL suggested taking this to the mailing list, as he was unable to give a full report.

# TF joined the teleconference at 12:40 UTC.

LL asked for feedback about the NETmundial meeting in Brazil in April. He said that remote participation hubs were set up around the world, which gave the feeling that there was global participation, including from the general public. He said there was discussion about ICANN Meetings possibly including a similar setup in the future.

LL said the afternoon NETmundial meetings focused on a couple of documents that the ASO AC has been working on, which are listed in the “Outcome Documents” section of the website. These include one on Internet governance principles and a roadmap for the future evolution of Internet governance. LL said there was some debate about what should be included in the principles, which spanned human rights, cultural and linguistic diversity, security and stability of the Internet, open architecture, innovation and creativity, a multi-stakeholder approach, and many others.

LL said he participated remotely in the meeting discussions, but there were also members of the NRO EC in attendance. He said it will be interesting to see what kind of momentum there is on these issues following the meeting.

LL encouraged everyone to look through the documents and comments on the website.

9.- AOB

There were no other items brought up for discussion.

10.- Adjourn

WW made a motion to adjourn the meeting and AS seconded the motion. The motion passed with no opposition or abstentions and the meeting ended at 12:49 UTC.

Last modified on 29/01/2020