ASO AC Teleconference 13 May 2010

ASO Teleconference held on Thursday 13 May 2010

AC Attendees:

  • Vincent Ngundi, VN – AfriNIC
  • Alan Barrett, AB – AfriNIC
  • Naresh Ajwani, NA – APNIC
  • Kenny Huang, KH – APNIC
  • Tomohiro Fujisaki, TF – APNIC
  • Louis Lee, LL – ARIN
  • Martin Hannigan, MH – ARIN
  • Jason Schiller, JS – ARIN
  • Hartmut Glaser, HG – LACNIC
  • Francisco Obispo, FO – LACNIC
  • Dave Wilson, DW – RIPE NCC
  • Hans Petter Holen, HPH – RIPE NCC


  • Laureana Pavón, LP – LACNIC


  • Ray Plzak, RP – ICANN Board
  • Einar Bohlin, EB – ARIN
  • Olof Nordling, ON – ICANN Staff
  • Ernest Byaruhanga, EB – AfriNIC
  • Germán Valdez, GV – APNIC
  • Ernesto Majó, EM – LACNIC
  • Kuo-Wei Wu, KW


  • Jean Robert Hountomey, JRH – AfriNIC
  • Wilfied Woeber, WW – RIPE NCC


1. Welcome.
2. Agenda review.
3. Approval of the minutes from the 8 April 2010 teleconference.
4. Review of open action items.
5. RIR Updates – ARIN XXV, RIPE 60
6. Update on the Global Policy Proposal for the Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries
7. Update on the IANA Policy for Allocation of ASNs to RIRs
8. Brussels face-to-face meeting.
9. ICANN Activities
10. AOB.
11. Adjournment.

1. Welcome.

After sorting a few issues with the participants’ connections to the teleconference, LL welcomed everyone to the meeting.

2. Agenda review.

LP proceeded to read the agenda. No comments or suggestions were heard.

3. Approval of the minutes from the 8 April 2010 teleconference.

Motion to approve the minutes of the 8 April 2010 ASO AC teleconference by AB, seconded by KH. There being no objections, the motion carried.

Action item 0510-1: The Secretariat to change the status of the minutes of the 8 April 2010 meeting from draft to approved.

4. Review of open action items.

LL proceeded to read and comment on the list of open action items.

Action item 1109-05: HPH to incorporate actions carried out by ASO AC in ICANN Board nominations process into report on suggested changes to operating procedures.

LL said HPH had sent a couple of messages to the list. HPH had nothing to add, and that, as the message said, his proposal was to take the current procedures and paste them on the wiki and then start to make concrete changes to the language and procedure in order to have a concrete proposal to discuss.

Action item 1209-02: The Secretariat to create a presentation template in PowerPoint and Keynote for ASO AC members based on new ASO logo/design.

LL said he’d seen the design and forwarded it to Dave so he could use it at the RIPE 60 meeting. LL added that it seems to be OK and that he would forward it to the rest of the AC for use in their own presentations.

DW said that this came from Fergal (previous Secretariat) and that it worked fine. LL said that it would be useful to pass it to the Secretariat for the template to be updated so the rest of the ASO can use it. He thanked Fergal and his team.

JS asked DW whether he had used the ppt or the keynote version, to which DW replied that he believed he’d used the ppt version as keynote. DW added that both ppt and keynote versions are available.

Action item 0410-1: The Secretariat to change the status of the minutes of the 11 March 2010 meeting from draft to approved. DONE.

Action Item 0410-2: In accordance with the resolution that was unanimously approved by the ASO AC, the Chair to send a letter to Raimundo Beca thanking him for his services on the ICANN Board of Directors.

LL said he still needs to review the letter that he’d received as a suggestion, that the letter will then be translated into Spanish. LL said he’d try to do that today or tomorrow.

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.

LP said that LACNIC is already in touch with RIPE regarding this action item as they had already done some work on the wiki. AP asked whether an update could be expected within the next couple of weeks, to which LP replied that there probably could.

5. RIR Updates – ARIN XXV, RIPE 60

LL asked JS or MH whether they could provide an update on ARIN XXV.

JS presented a brief summary covering all the policy proposals:

– Policy 2010-2 (/24 End User Minimum Assignment Unit) has gone through last call and is pending board approval, adding that this policy changed the minimum allocation to a /24, which brings the ARIN region in line with what the other regions s were doing.

– Policy 2010-4 (Rework of IPv6 allocation criteria), which basically allows IPv6 multihomed organizations to qualify for a /32, is also past last call and pending board approval.

– Policy 2010-6 (Simplified M&A transfer policy), which has also passed last call and is pending board approval, just clarifies some text that already existed regarding the transfer of space in the standard way, not through a market (e.g. if one company purchases another). There was some feedback when ARIN passed their transfer policy as to whether or not that would invalidate other existing forms of transfer, this makes it clear that it does not.

– Policy 2010-1 (Waiting List for Unmet IPv4 Requests) will go back to the AC for some rewriting. Basically this is how it worked: if you made a request for a large amount of space that ARIN couldn’t fulfill, they would offer to put you on a waiting list but you had to specify what size you were waiting for. Basically, if you said you needed a /20 and when you got to the top of the list and they did not have a /20, you could then say “I’m willing to wait for a /22,” in which case if a /22 was immediately available they would give it to you, otherwise you would be added to the waiting list for a /22. Some people felt that this was like a lottery so some of the text will be reworked.

– Policy 2010-8 (Rework of IPv6 assignment criteria) refers basically to standardize blocks on /48 or /36. Many felt this was like classful in the early days, this has been abandoned.

– There was a customer confidentiality policy which has also been abandoned, but there’s a new policy in the works that is going to do a lot of the same things.

– IPv4 minimum allocation to a /23. There was some concern that there were possibly two remembering events that were required, so for that reason it has been abandoned.

EB said that JS had done a great job reporting what had happened at the ARIN XXV and had nothing to add. There were no questions.

LL added that JS had initiated a discussion of one of the global policy proposals but that that topic would be discussed in a separate agenda item.

DW offered to provide some highlights of RIPE 60. He said that one of the things that were discussed was a temporary Internet number assignment policy (when we have reached depletion there might be a case for short term allocations, e.g. 6 months), another was the policy having to do with the last /8. DW said that he’d put forward another issue: changing the RIPE policy development process to account for global policies, the idea being that they
want to allow a policy to be adopted but allow later changes that may arise in other regions. He added that they’ll likely withdraw this and see if there is another way to do what they’re trying to do. He said that another policy that was discussed was the global policy for the allocation of IPv4 blocks to RIRs, but that that would be discussed under its own agenda item.

DW observed that there were also two things on certification: first a talk by Randy Bush which made it look pretty doable at this point, and the results of the discussion of the Initial Certification Policy for PA Space.

DW recalled that R. Blokzijl, D. Karrenberg had issued a document called “Principles for Number Resources Registration Policies” which is not a policy proposal but an informal document that discusses what RIPE NCC does in terms of two different activities: one, running allocations; the other, running a registry. Even after IPv4 depletion there will still be a need for a registry, and this document is beginning a discussion which may lead to a policy proposal on how RIPE NCC should handle that transition. HP commented that this was a first effort to separate the two activities.

LL suggested that perhaps it would be nice for the list to have that document, to which DW replied that he would forward the corresponding link.

JS said that he’d like to hear a bit more about the changes to the RIPE PDP that were discussed, about what they were trying to accomplish for global policy, and what the sticky points were.

DW replied that the changes seemed like a good idea at the start. The idea was that, if we have a global policy proposal that the community would like to ratify, the risk of ratifying or adopting the policy was that if there was a later change through discussions in other regions (as was the case with the IPv4 policy), it could be quite awkward to go back and fix it. DW emphasized that the idea was that there should be a stage after a proposal reaches consensus but before it is globally adopted. He said that it had looked simple, but some colleagues had started looking at the different cases that could arise, and it now seems that changing the PDP in this way is not the best way to do it. DW added that this is something he thought was very simple, but now thinks could cause more problems than it may solve.

There were no further questions regarding the RIPE 60 meeting.

6. Update on the Global Policy Proposal for the Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries

LL said that ON had circulated his background report, a work-in process, for this global policy proposal. He suggested looking at ON’s report and confirming that, as always, ON’s report is accurate.

HP said that he had participated in the discussions in RIPE and that they think the chair should pass the policy into last call so they’d have it in all the regions. He added that it would be interesting to see what the NRO would do if we have the same text approved in 4 regions and some changes in another. He said that the other option was to submit ARIN’s proposal in all the regions and have it run it through the PDP. He added that the opinion of the working group was that they wanted to have some closure sooner than later.

HP said that the interesting part of the discussion was that someone had said that the reason why some changes were introduced in the ARIN region was that the original text mixed regional policy and global policy. The reasoning and explanation for the change in the ARIN region that we got at the meeting is that each region should have the right not to hand back address space and then discuss what the allocation policy should be for that address space. He said that no conclusions had been reached.

LL said that, in light of that, in contacts with the NRO they’d said that they don’t expect this to be considered a global policy proposal discussed in the five regions.

JS wanted to comment on the characterization that one of the reasons that ARIN had changed the text was because it mixed regional policy and global policy. He said that some meetings back, in order to move things forward, he had got the reasons for the rewrite from the ARIN Advisory Council and sent them to the NRO EC. That justification included some text about mixing regional and global policy and suggested that global policy should not strive to make regional requirements. He added that there were a number of objections (in his recollection HG was the one who objected the most strongly). JC said he agrees with HG’s objections in that it is fine for global policy to set regional policy as well. He took that information back to the Advisory Council and asked them to remove that part of their justification. JS assured those present that it was not part of the discussion in the ARIN region.

HP said it was discussed at the RIPE meeting, if not in the meeting at least in the corridors, that maybe the AC should discuss whether this policy is in line with the definition of global policy included in the MoU.

JS said he recalled having the discussion before, but that perhaps it would now be warranted to have the discussion again. If he understood correctly, the comments were not in regards to ARIN’s justification but regarding what global policies should be about.

HP said he’d tried to read the MoU and the definition of global policy and see where to draw the border but that it was not easy, to which DW replied that he’d also tried to do it but had not had much success.

DW said in his opinion there’s no problem with regions getting together and committing to a global policy that affects regional issues. His feeling is that in this specific global policy proposal there may be a conflict of expectations. He commented that, at the RIPE meeting, he’d taken the microphone and said let’s assume that ARIN and RIPE approve the text and it is adopted and implemented by IANA, and let’s assume that one RIR makes a local policy which is in conflict with the regional part of the global policy, what happens then? DW repeated that there are possibly conflicting expectations in the different regions.

JS agreed, saying there are two separate questions: 1) is it acceptable for a global policy to also set local policy (in his personal opinion that’s fine)? and 2) if there is a part of the global policy that sets local policy and one region wants to change the local policy in a way that conflicts with the global policy, can that be done or can that only be done through a global policy proposal? He added a third point: the five RIRs may act in concert with each other, passing a policy that only goes into effect when all RIRs pass it but it doesn’t necessarily involve the IANA.

LL suggested discussing what had happened in the ARIN region regarding this policy proposal. As it was determined that MH was not present on the line at this time, LL asked JS if he could comment.

JS said they’d had a discussion at the NRO EC meeting on how can we move this policy forward and the consensus was that the ARIN text was a significant rewrite with substantial changes in the spirit of the policy. He added that they had talked about whether, if all five regions passed it, the policy could be considered to be global or whether the text was significantly different so that there was no consensus, and that at that time they had all agreed that it could not be considered the same policy. They also talked about the reasons why ARIN did not want to adopt the policy as it was written and whether the ARIN rewrite would be acceptable to the other regions. JS said that they had discussed, in particular, that the ARIN rewrite would not gain consensus in the LACNIC region. It was noted that the same question was posed to all the regions, but no other feedback was received.

LL provided a timeline: after the AC decided that they would probably not consider this a global policy (November), in early December he had sent a letter to the EC to inform them of them this.

HP said he’d heard a statement from Raul, who is one of the authors of the original proposal, saying that even with this difference he thought it was possible to come together and come up with a unified proposal.

LL said that he didn’t see how a common proposal could include the conflicting items.

HP said the EC has two options: either take out the common text in all regions, leaving out the differences, or else prepare a unified proposal and send it back to the PDP of all five regions.

JS said he was confused, as during the discussion they had had in November they had recommended proposing a new policy proposal, they had discussed whether it should include just the common parts (no requirement to return space, which is important to the LACNIC community) and what each region wanted the policy to accomplish; at that time people were concerned that we were stepping our bounds, so when the letter was sent to the NRO EC it simply recommended that a new policy be proposed by someone and it just so happens that the people on the NRO EC comprise the authors of the original policy (except for Ray who is on this call and was on the call at the time they discussed it). He asked how this recommendation is different from the discussion they had in November.

HP replied that in his opinion it was not any different.

LL said it would be interesting to see what happens at last call in RIPE.

HP said that there won’t be any surprises because, according to the procedure, there is only one proposal that can be put into last call (the original one). A new proposal would have to start the procedure all over again. In view of this, LL suggested advising ON that only version A is under discussion for the RIPE region.

ON said he’d highlighted “Version A” and “Version B” in the different boxes of his document, and that he would add this in the discussion box.

RP commented that he recalled that in November he had suggested proposing two policies: one with the IANA piece, and a second policy to deal with the regional piece. He said that they’re never going to get to a point of agreeing on a regional policy set that deals with reclamation, but they could agree on a policy that says that RIRs, following their own processes, will reclaim address space and send pieces back to IANA. He added that it’s necessary to go forward at least with the IANA piece, or else the IANA will go out of business (at least with the IPv4). RP said that, because of his position, he cannot participate in the wording, but that separating it into two separate proposals would be a good start.

JS said this had already discussed in November and that the LACNIC community had objected to separating the local policy from the global policy. He asked HG whether this would be likely to move forward in the LACNIC region or not, to which HG replied that he’d missed that part of the discussion, that he didn’t remember all the details.

LL said the question now was whether LACNIC would accept a global policy proposal that does not include requiring the RIRs to return space to IANA. JS added that to be fair there may be globally coordinated or individual local policies to define what space should, can or must be returned.

LL observed that this question was for all the regions, not just for LACNIC, adding that he’d like to know whether all the regions would accept this type of policies.

HP asked whether the way to find that out wasn’t by presenting the proposal, to which LL replied that this approach could help them focus their efforts on the most likely actions.

JS stated that it was important to remember that anyone can propose a global policy, but what they’re trying to do as the NRO AC is to read the communities and move forward with a policy that is likely to pass.

LL said he’s aware of one effort that’s started and suggested that if any other members know of other efforts that are going on for drafting global policy proposals in this area they should let the group know so they can coordinate the authors.

JS observed that the original question still stands: if we attempt to move the global policy proposal forward without the local policy piece (with the expectation that the local policy piece will be addressed either in a globally coordinated or a regional policy), do we think that the proposal will be approved in all five regions? In JS’s opinion, in the ARIN region it would be approved.

AB said it’s hard to be sure, but in his opinion it would probably be approved in AfriNIC.

TF said in his personal opinion it would pass in the APNIC region.

HG said he doesn’t know the correct answer at this moment, that after this discussion he needs to go back and see how LACNIC would handle this point.

DW said, given the alternate texts had had a good airing, he wouldn’t be surprised if such a policy was passed in RIPE.

ON had a question on the formalities regarding AfriNIC, and asked whether there was any board meeting coming up (the policy has not been formally adopted in AfriNIC yet), to which AB replied that he doesn’t know when the AfriNIC board is planning to meet but that they have a public policy meeting coming up (23 May – 3 June). He added that the board always meets during those events, so it seems almost certain that they will approve the policy at that time. VN added that they can probably expect to have approval by 5 June.

7. Update on the IANA Policy for Allocation of ASNs to RIRs

LL noted that ON had also sent a report on this global policy, and proceeded to read the report of what had happened in the different regions: AfriNIC: Final call concluded; APNIC: Adopted; ARIN: Adopted; LACNIC: Adopted; RIPE: Adopted.

LL suggested that the policy proposal facilitators team for this proposal please start work on producing the report, as he expects that this will be coming to us around the time of our next meeting, and it would be nice to have at least a rough draft by then.

8. Brussels face-to-face meeting.

LL said that, as he had informed in an email to the list, the ASO AC has a meeting block during the ICANN meeting week which includes a 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. meeting on Tuesday, that they’ve been assigned a room and chosen a room layout, U-shaped table and seating + audience, which is marked as closed. He added that if there’s some part we’d like for the public to see we should have that in our agenda and let ICANN know ASAP.

LL noted that knowing the agenda would allow gauging how long the meeting will take.

HG said that Tuesday is constituency day, so most of the members will go to their constituency meetings. He added that perhaps it’s not the best opportunity but they could still try. LL agreed and said that they could try to have a workshop, but that almost everyone has their constituency meetings that day.

LL said that, along with their activities, the Accountability and Transparency Review Team that was recommended by the Affirmation of Commitment signed by ICANN and the US Department of Commerce, has been called together (LL is on this team) and would like to have 1-2 people on the team to get feedback from the ASO on what their feelings are on current ICANN board and ICANN management transparency and accountability.

HG asked LL if he could explain what he meant by feedback: just comments or a discussion? LL replied that it was general, that they’d have specific questions but that they’ve not been drafted yet.

HG asked whether new questions or new concerns would be received, to which LL replied that of course there will be space for feedback outside of the prepared questions, adding that the team would like input from the ASO AC specifically, but that they’ll also have a website for the general public to post comments.

HG asked LL if he could explain briefly how this panel works.

LL explained that this review team was put together to review the accountability and transparency aspect of the board, and it is important for the team to look at the input and output of the ICANN staff as to how the board directs the staff, how the staff carries out the directives and how the community sees that. He said that all the team’s activities will be posted on-line with recordings of their teleconferences and face-to-face meetings. He added only one closed meeting was held, and this was with the purpose that the staff would feel more free to provide more information.

LL asked whether anyone had any suggestions in terms of agenda items for the Brussels meeting.

Action item 0510-2: LL to draft the agenda for the Brussels face to face meeting and send it to the list for comments.

After agreeing on this action item, travel arrangements and accommodation were briefly discussed. LL suggested booking hotel rooms early because they fill up quickly.

JS asked whether it would be possible to record when people are arriving and departing from Brussels, and it was agreed that participants would send that information to the list. It was also agreed to also try to meet for dinner in Brussels.

To conclude with this agenda item, LL mentioned that the review team is asking that they provide a timeslot for sending representatives to this group for feedback, and added that once the questions are compiled he will send them to the EC list and the AC list.

9. ICANN Activities

LL commented that with the review team they’d had a couple of teleconferences, that they met last week in Marina del Rey because they felt it was important to get staff comments ASAP and they wanted a place to meet face-to-face to get their framework and methodologies ready. Marina del Rey was the logical choice. LL added that Rod Beckstrom had come back from DC specifically to address the review team.

LL informed that the team has established the framework and some methodology, and that they’d recognized that, because this is the first review team, it may be looked at as a model for the other teams to be formed as per the Affirmation of Commitment. LL said that this team has to wrap-up and send the report before 31 December. He added that they’re planning several other face-to-face meetings, they’ll attend ICANN meeting in Brussels, they’ll go to Cartagena for the December ICANN meeting to cover Latin America, they’re planning to go to Egypt (one of the GAC representatives is making arrangements for that), and they’re deciding on whether to go to Beijing or New Zealand to cover the Asia Pacific region. There were no comments on this.

LL said he was sending an email to the ac-coord list regarding a request from Janis for comments on their respective SO/ACs expectations regarding the size and composition of the Security, Stability and Resiliency of DNS and whois Policy Review Teams, as well as a draft text for a call for volunteers representing the SO and ACs. LL said that they are looking to open up the candidate pool again, and added that if any of them wanted to participate they could do so in the Security, Stability and Resiliency of DNS review team and perhaps also in the whois Policy Review Team (if they feel it might also have implications on addresses).

HG asked whether participating in the whois Policy Review Team would be a personal decision or an AC decision, and added that in his opinion they should participate in both review teams. No objections were heard regarding participation in the whois Policy Review Team.

After further discussing the matter, HG presented the following motion:

“The AC to provide feedback to both Janis and the EC that the ASO should participate in the whois Policy Review Team.”

The motion was seconded by FO. There being no objections, the motion carried.

10. AOB.

No further business was proposed for discussion.

11. Adjournment.

Motion to adjourn by HG, seconded by DW. There being no objections, the meeting was adjourned at 14.57 UTC.

Last modified on 29/01/2020