ASO AC Teleconference 6 June 2007
AC Attendees:
- Sebastian Bellagamba (SB), Chair
- Alan Barrett (AB)
- Sanford H. George (SG)
- Martin Hannigan (MH)
- Toshiyuki Hosaka (TH)
- Jean Robert Hountomey (JRH)
- HJ Kwon (HJK)
- Louis Lee (LL)
- Francisco Obispo (FO)
- Hartmut Glaser (HG)
- Dave Wilson (DW)
- Wilfried Woeber (WW)
Secretariat:
- Donna McLaren (DM) & Samantha Dickinson(SD), Recording Secretaries – APNIC
Observers:
- Vincent Ngundi (VN) – AfriNIC
- Hisham Rojoa (HR) – AfriNIC
- Son Tran (ST) – APNIC
- Richard Jimmerson (RJ) – ARIN
- Nate Davis (LN) – ARIN
- Raimundo Beca (RB) – ICANN
- Olof Nording (ON) – ICANN
- Leo Vegoda (LV) – ICANN
- German Valdez (GV) – LACNIC
- Filiz Yilmaz (FY) – RIPE NCC
Apologies:
- Kenny Huang (KH)
- Ali Badiel (ALB)
- Bart Boswinkel (BB) – ICANN
Absent:
- Hans Petter Holen (HPH)
Agenda
- Welcome
- Agenda review
- ASO workshop in ICANN Puerto Rico
- Global Policy Processing Procedure
- ASO website
- Content Management System
- Intranet for AC
- Any other business
- LACNIC X
- Global policies presented in some regions
- LA face to face AC meeting
- Adjournment
-
Welcome
The Chair called the meeting to order at 22:15 UTC, noting the presence of a quorum.
-
Agenda review
The Chair reviewed the agenda and called for any comments.
Draft agenda item three, ASO website, was postponed until appropriate Secretariat staff were on the call.
The following item was added to AOB:
d. Approval of the minutes of 2 and 6 May 2007
-
ASO workshop in ICANN Puerto Rico
The Chair suggested to start the Puerto Rico workshop at the same time as in Lisbon: after the coffee break at 10.30 am.
GV stated that it was important to have such meetings, but expressed concern at the lack of time available to prepare fully for discussion on the IPv4 consumption issue at the Puerto Rico meeting.
GV proposed holding a more formal workshop on IPv4 consumption during the Los Angeles meeting and removing the IPv4 consumption topic from the Puerto Rico meeting. He further suggested renaming the session in Puerto Rico “ASO information session” instead of “ASO workshop”.
The Chair confirmed with GV that his proposal would remove one item, IPv4 consumption, from the Puerto Rico agenda. The Chair asked for comments from other participants on the call.
RJ agreed that it would be good to have time to prepare and get quality speakers on the issue of IPv4 consumption. RJ noted that if people saw something labelled “workshop”, they would probably expect something strongly focussed and well prepared. However, there would not be the time for such preparation before the Puerto Rico workshop. RJ stated that he agreed with GV’s suggestion to call the Puerto Rico ASO event an “information session”.
The Chair stated that he could see both GV and RV’s concerns, but had added IPv4 consumption to the draft agenda for the workshop as it was the hottest issue at the moment.
HG asked how long the workshop would be. The Chair stated that it would probably be two hours long.
HG stated that he thought that two hours would not be enough time to discuss statistics on IP addresses, IPv4 consumption policy, ASO AC activities as well as updates on policies under discussion in the five RIR communities. He supported German’s proposal to postpone the IPv4 consumption issue until the Los Angeles meeting.
FO agreed with GV and HG.
MH asked for clarification about whether the proposal was to not hold the Puerto Rico meeting at all.
The Chair explained that the Puerto Rico meeting would still be held. It was just the IPv4 consumption item that would be postponed until Los Angeles.
MH stated that he did not think it was possible to remove discussion about IPv4 consumption from the agenda. He suggested that policy to deal with IPv4 consumption was currently not the ASO’s responsibility. Instead, it was the responsibility of the RIRs. He suggested that it would not be the responsibility of the ASO AC until it had been passed as global policy by all the RIRs. He suggested that until that time, the IPv4 consumption proposals were just like any other proposal under discussion at the RIRs, and therefore should be reported on with the other proposals at the ASO workshop in Puerto Rico.
GV suggested that it was more appropriate to call the Puerto Rico ASO event an “information session” as it would be a straight reporting session with no discussion or analysis of policy issues.
MH suggested that if anyone in the audience of the session asked a question about IPv4 consumption proposals, they would be free to do so. He stated that it would not be possible for the ASO to hide the fact that there was a global policy under development.
MH stated that he thought it was necessary to hold an ASO workshop at every ICANN meeting.
RJ noted that, from his point of view, the majority of discussions at ICANN meetings are related to ccTLDs and similar issues.
FO agreed that if the ASO made a presentation on current policy discussions, it would not be possible to avoid the fact that there is a global policy proposal adopted by the LACNIC community. He suggested that it could be possible to discuss IPv4 consumption as an issue rather than as policy.
FO noted that in the workshop in Lisbon, he had agreed that the ASO workshops were not a forum for discussing policy. The correct fora for policy discussions are at RIR meetings.
The Chair asked if there was general agreement to have an information session in Puerto Rico in which it would be mentioned that the global policy process has started for a couple of proposals. In addition, the Chair asked for general agreement that a workshop on IPv4 consumption issues would be held in Los Angeles.
There were no objections.
The Chair stated that he would send a revised agenda to the ac-coord mailing list within a few days.
LV asked if there had been an agreement on the day the session was to be held in Puerto Rico.
The Chair thanked LV for bringing this up as the issue had been raised at the beginning of the teleconference, but not completed.
The Chair noted that there were two possible times for the session: Monday afternoon or Wednesday morning. The Chair suggested that he thought that the Monday afternoon slot was not suitable as many people would still be arriving in Puerto Rico and would not be able to make it to the session.
The Chair stated that he had confirmed with Diane from ICANN that a room would be available for an ASO session on Wednesday at 10:30 am. He asked the AC members for their opinions.
Both HJK and LL stated that they supported the time slot on Wednesday.
The Chair asked SD to liaise with Diane to confirm the Wednesday slot.
Action #0706-01:
The Chair to send the revised agenda for the ASO information session at the Puerto Rico ICANN meeting to the ac-coord mailing list within a few days of the teleconference.
Action #0706-02:
Secretariat to confirm with Diane Schroeder that the ASO information session in ICANN, Puerto Rico, would begin at 10:30 am, Wednesday 27 June 2007.
-
Global policy procedures agenda
The Chair stated that he planned to use the April 2006 version of the “ASO Address Council Procedure for Processing Global Policy Proposals” document to guide the ASO AC in regards to global policy proposals to be discussed at the current teleconference.
AB noted that he had sent a copy of the procedures document to the ac-coord mailing list on 22 May 2007.
SD noted that discussion about the procedures document on the mailing list had raised the issue that it had not yet been ratified by the NRO EC. She noted that it was now on the NRO EC’s agenda to read and ratify the document very soon.
-
ASO website
-
Content Management System
ST explained that the Secretariat was thinking of moving the ASO website to the Joomla! content management system (CMS) and stated that he would like the input of the ASO AC on this.
WW stated that the AC would need some information on Joomla! before the AC could make an informed decision. He stated that, in principle, he did not mind what software was used for the ASO website, as long as the AC members were not expected to do any updates to the site.
ST agreed to post information on Joomla! to the mailing list.
WW explained that his organisation had just moved its website to a CMS. He said that, in his experience, it was not the choice of CMS that was important, but rather it was the logistics after the selection of software that was important.
WW stated that he would like to know if the AC would be expected to collaborate with the Secretariat on the website or get involved in the content creation. If AC was not involved in these activities, WW suggested that the choice of a CMS was an issue for the Secretariat webmaster to decide.
DW asked if the maintenance of the ASO website passed from RIR to RIR as the Secretariat function was passed between RIRs.
The Chair explained that the NRO and ASO Secretariats were filled by the same RIR in the same year. Therefore the same RIR would be maintaining both websites at the same time.
SD further clarified that the NRO had been discussing keeping the websites of both the NRO and ASO on the same server, year after year, while the administrator function would move yearly, along with the Secretariat function.
WW explained that RIPE NCC provided the certificate for the HTTPS protocol version of the ASO website. He asked if the Secretariat had contacted the RIPE NCC to see if the root certificate would still function under a new CMS for the ASO website. He noted that it had taken some time for him to gain access to the root certificate from RIPE and he would not like the community to have to undergo the process again if the root certificate was changed in the move to a new CMS.
Action #0706-03:
ST to post information on Joomla! to the ac-coord mailing list.
-
-
Any other business
-
LACNIC 10
FO reported that about 227 people from more than 31 countries attended the LACNIC meeting. He noted that participants were very pleased with the quality of the meeting.
FO reported that 11 policy proposals had been discussed at the meeting. Of the 11 proposals, six had been approved:
LAC-2007-10 Second IPv6 Allocation
LAC-2007-08 IANA Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks to Regional Internet Registries
LAC-2007-07 Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space
LAC-2007-05 Modification of Multiple /48 Reassignment Policy
LAC-2007-04 Eliminating References to “Interim” Status of the IPv6 Policy
LAC-2007-03 Registration Policy for the Assignment and Allocation of IPv6 Addresses
FO noted that three of the remaining five proposals had been returned to the mailing list for further discussion.
FO noted that the global policy proposals discussed at LACNIC 10 would be discussed in the following agenda item.
The Chair noted that he had really enjoyed the LACNIC meeting. The Chair asked if the RIPE region AC representatives would be willing to report on the RIPE meeting. However, as the RIPE meeting had not been added to the agenda in advance, both WW and DW requested that the RIPE meeting report be moved until the July teleconference to allow them to prepare adequately.
-
Global policies presented in some regions
The Chair noted that he had sent notification about the two global policy proposals in the LACNIC region to the ac-coord list on about 24 April 2007.
The Chair explained that he had reviewed the AC procedure for responding to global policy proposals and found that there were two activities the AC must complete:
1. The global proposal must be added to the AC agenda as an informational item;
2. If the global policy is approved, the AC must check that it meets the criteria of section 5 of the ASO MoU. That is, a global policy must “have the agreement of all RIRs according to their policy development processes and ICANN, and require specific actions or outcomes on the part of IANA or any other external ICANN-related body in order to be implemented.
The Chair asked FO to report on the “Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space”.
FO explained that the goal of the proposal was to divide the remaining IPv4 space when a threshold of 25 IANA /8s was reached so that each RIR would receive an equal portion of the remaining space (that is, five /8s).
FO explained that the rationale of the policy proposal was to allow regions to design their own transition plan. The proposal aimed to achieve this by making sure each region had the same amount of space.
The Chair asked FY to report on the “IANA Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks to Regional Internet Registries”.
FY noted that the policy had been adopted in the LACNIC region, had been discussed in the RIPE region, and would be submitted to the other RIR regions.
She explained that there were policies for how IANA would delegate IPv4 and IPv6 addresses to the RIRs, but that there was no current policy guiding IANA’s delegation of AS numbers to the RIRs. The ASN proposal aimed to fill that gap.
The Chair noted that both policy proposals had been approved at the LACNIC meeting 10 days ago.
There was discussion about how the AC should proceed to fulfil the global policy procedures.
LL asked if the vote on whether the two global policy proposals under discussion should be postponed until each RIR had adopted the proposals.
The Chair noted that, according to the section 3 of the AC’s procedure, in terms of global PDP, when the AC is made aware of a global policy proposal, the AC needed to discuss that proposal at the next AC meeting.
AB stated that section 4 of the procedure is basically requiring the AC to determine if the policy could ever become a global policy. He suggested that both global policy proposals currently under discussion did require action by IANA and therefore could qualify as global policy.
WW suggested that he would propose taking the issue to the mailing list and then put it on the agenda on the next meeting.
The Chair noted that section 4 of the procedure stated that the AC had to make the determination “at or before the meeting referred to in Step 3 of this procedure”.
The Chair suggested that, considering this was the first time the AC had used this procedure, and that the procedure was still unclear, perhaps the determination about the global policy proposals should be postponed until the following teleconference.
WW noted that as he was still very unclear on how the procedure worked, he would abstain if asked to vote on the policies during this teleconference.
DW also supported postponing the decision to the following teleconference if the procedure was flexible enough to allow this.
AB explained that when he first wrote the procedure, he basically wanted the AC to decide if the policy did or did not require IANA action. If the policy did not require IANA action, then it was not eligible to become a global policy. If the policy did require IANA action, then it was eligible to become global policy.
DW stated that the procedure as described by AB sounded small and lightweight.
The Chair agreed and summarised that the AC had to decide if the proposal was global based on the fact it was adopted by all RIRs and it also would require IANA action.
RB explained that the determination by the Address Council that a particular policy qualifies as a global policy has an impact on the ICANN Board’s participation in the process. He explained that, effectively, this determination that a policy qualifies as a global policy proposal, provides to the Board the information that a global policy is in the pipeline. In these circumstances the Board has to decide when to ask the staff to start to draft the Early Awareness Report.
AB moved the following motion: “That the ASO AC notes the policy proposal presented in the LACNIC region for the assignment of AS numbers and determines that it would, if approved and ratified, qualify as a global policy proposal, having satisfied the conditions for classification as a Global Policy as defined in Section 5 of the ASO MoU.” LL seconded the motion. There were no objections or comments. The motion was unanimously carried by all present.
AB moved the following motion: “That the ASO AC notes the policy proposal presented in the LACNIC region for the distribution of remaining IPv4 address space and determines that it would, if approved and ratified, qualify as a global policy proposal, having satisfied the conditions for classification as a Global Policy as defined in Section 5 of the ASO MoU.” LL seconded the motion. There were no objections or comments. The motion was unanimously carried by all present.
-
Approval of the minutes of 2 and 6 May 2007
HG moved the following motion: “The ASO AC approves the Minutes of May 2 and 6, 2007 as written.” DW seconded the motion. There were no objections or comments.
The Chair asked if there were any other business items to discuss.
HG asked the Chair who was working on the agenda for the ICANN Puerto Rico meeting.
The Chair answered that he was working on this task.
HG asked if he had the final proposal for the agenda ready for this meeting.
The Chair answered that he did not have it ready because the AC had agreed to change it an hour previously.
HG asked the Chair to confirm that the agenda would be sent to the mailing list. The Chair agreed that he would do so.
ST asked if the ASO AC needed Secretariat support onsite in Puerto Rico. The Chair stated that he did not think it was necessary as the long distance logistical support provided by the Secretariat was already helpful. The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 23:27 UTC. AB moved to adjourn. HG seconded the motion. The motion was carried unanimously.
Action #0706-04:
Secretariat to publish minutes of 2 and 6 May 2007.
-
Open action items
Action #0706-01:
The Chair to send the revised agenda for the ASO information session at the Puerto Rico ICANN meeting to the ac-coord mailing list within a few days of the teleconference.
Action #0706-02:
Secretariat to confirm with Diane Schroeder that the ASO information session in ICANN, Puerto Rico, would begin at 10:30 am, Wednesday 27 June 2007.
Action #0706-03:
ST to post information on Joomla! to the ac-coord mailing list.
Action #0706-04:
Secretariat to publish minutes of 2 and 6 May 2007.
Last modified on 29/01/2020