ASO AC Teleconference 4 September 2002


Takashi Arano (TA)
Eric Decker (ED)
Kenny Huang (KH)
Hans Petter Holen (HPH)
Sabine Jaume (SJ)
Seung-Min Lee (SML)
Barbara Roseman (Chair)
Cathy Wittbrodt (CJW)

Raimundo Beca (RB) LACNIC
Hartmut Glaser (HG) LACNIC
German Valdez (GV) LACNIC

Richard Jimmerson, Secretariat (SEC) ARIN
Ray Plzak (RP) ARIN
Anne Lord (AL) APNIC
Paul Wilson (PW) APNIC
Axel Pawlik (AP) RIPE


  1. Welcome
  2. Apologies received
  3. Agenda bashing
  4. Minutes from July 2002 AC Teleconference
  5. Status of open actions
  6. RFC 2050
  7. Status of ICANN reform process
  8. Any other business (AOB)
  9. Adjournment

    1. Welcome

The Chair opened the call at 22:00 UTC. The Chair asked SEC to review the Agenda.

    1. Apologies received

Apologies were received from Wilfried Woeber.

    1. Agenda bashing

Chair asked if there were any issues to add under Any Other Business. Chair explained that proper updates from ICANN could not be produced in time for this call on item #7 of the Agenda. RP stated he would update the AC on recent RIR conversations. CJW stated she would update the AC on a recent presentation she gave on IPv6 issues.

PW explained that some of the callers were attending APNIC and they would need to be off the call w/in the hour due to other commitments.

    1. Minutes from July 2002 AC Teleconference

The Chair asked for any comments. No comments. ED moved to approve the minutes and this was seconded by CJW. All were in favor.

agenda | top

    1. Status of open actions

Action # 0206-02 JC
Post responses to ICANN evolution and reform report to the ASO list. [On-going]

Chair asked for any other actions. There were none.

    1. RFC 2050

Mark McFadden, WGC of the 2050 WG, was called at 22:30 UTC. He stated that the proposal was to create 7 docs in a new series to replace RFC 2050. He stated that there are 23 volunteers from every continent but sub-Saharan Africa. They were divided into 4 groups of editing teams. Volunteers have been assigned to two of three documents drafted to be edited. Mark is hoping to have drafts available by the ARIN meeting in late October.

PW asked if there was a web page available to check on the status of this effort. Mark said there is not, but had made the commitment to have updates at the public policy meetings. He agreed it was a very good idea to create a web page.

The Chair then asked the SEC if he could host such a web page. SEC then asked if it should be an RIR or an ASO web page. The Chair asked the SEC to discuss this question with other the RIRs to decide the appropriate place. She then asked Mark if he could have a status report by the next RIPE or ARIN meetings. Mark stated that he would supply a presentation to HPH to present at some point at the next RIPE meeting. Mark offered to update the AC during their scheduled calls at any time.

The Chair asked for any other questions. There were none.

agenda | top

    1. Status of ICANN reform process

The Chair urged the AC to read ICANN’s Second Interim Implementation Report on the ICANN website as of 9/2/02. She mentioned that ICANN was moving in the direction of including an at-large organization.

agenda | top

    1. Any other business (AOB)

RIR Discussion Update

RP stated that the RIRs are issuing a strongly written statement in next several weeks to ICANN noting that their comments have not been addressed by ICANN.

The Chair asked RP what is expected to happen after ICANN’s next meeting. RP stated that the MoU between ICANN and Department of Commerce expires at the end of September. RP stated that he did not know if it was going to be extended as there had been no announcement. ICANN has been making reports to the Department of Commerce and that the ICANN Board is expected to act on the reform proposal at the next ICANN meeting.

RP suggested that the AC make statement that they have observed ICANN’s lack of response to the RIRs and question why.

The AC supported this suggestion. ED motioned that the ASO draft a letter to the ICANN Board and Reform Committee questioning the lack of response to the concerns raised by the RIRs and why. HPH seconded. ED stated he would draft the letter within the week. Roll call was taken and all were in favor.

IPv6 Issues

CJW provided an update on her presentation at the IPv6 workshop where University of California campuses were represented, and they built a network w/IPv6. She used RP’s slides on the new policies to give the presentation. She stated that the audience was upset by the fact that any campuses can apply and get address space. They felt that an entity’s v6 space should come from the same supplier as their v4 space. CJW urged the audience to participate in the policy process.

ASO AC Time of Call Change

The SEC was asked to look into changing the time of the AC call to BST or London Time. Many AC members use a date and time website to determine what their local time is compared to the UTC time of the calls. The SEC stated that he could not locate a local lookup for the AC. He sent a message to list suggesting 21:00 UTC for 6 months of the year, and 22:00 UTC for the remaining six months. It was decided that the SEC post the ‘as proposed’ dates and times of the ASO AC calls for the next 12 months to the AC.

    1. Adjournment

The Chair called for adjournment at 22:58 UTC. ED moved to adjourn and this was seconded by HPH. The motion passed unanimously.

agenda | top

Open action item list

Action # 0206-02 JC
Post responses to ICANN evolution and reform report to the ASO list. [On-going]
Action #0209-01 SEC
Discuss location of web page (RIR vs. ASO) to post status of RFC 2050 and create web page. [Open]
Action #0209-02 ED
Draft letter to ICANN within the next week relaying the ASO AC’s concern of ICANN’s lack of response to the RIRs and question why. [Open]
Action #0209-03 SEC
Post the ‘as proposed’ dates and times of the ASO AC’s calls for the next 12 months. [Open]

Shelf list [items pending action outside the ASO AC]

Action# 12-4 RIRs/IANA
Resource request procedure document. RIRs awaiting response to date.

Last modified on 29/01/2020