AC Attendees:

  • Vincent Ngundi, VN : AfriNIC
  • Alan Barrett, AB : AfriNIC
  • Jean Robert Hountomey, JRH : AfriNIC
  • Kenny Huang, KH : APNIC
  • Tomohiro Fujisaki, TF : APNIC
  • Naresh Ajwani, NA : APNIC
  • Hartmut Glaser, HG : LACNIC
  • Francisco Obispo, FO : LACNIC
  • Sebastian Bellagamba, SB : LACNIC
  • Louis Lee : ARIN (Chair)
  • Jason Schiller, JS : ARIN
  • Dave Wilson, DW : RIPE
  • Hans Petter Holen, HPH : RIPE
  • Wilfried Woeber, WW : RIPE

Secretariat:

  • Fergal Cunningham, FC : RIPE NCC
  • Nick Hyrka, NH : RIPE NCC

Observers:

  • Ray Plzak, RP : ICANN
  • Raimundo Beca, RB : ICANN
  • Olof Nordling, ON : ICANN
  • Adiel Akplogan, AA : AfriNIC
  • Paul Wilson, PW : APNIC
  • German Valdez GV : APNIC
  • Einar Bohlin, EB : ARIN
  • Ricardo Patara, RPa : LACNIC
  • Filiz Yilmaz, FY : RIPE NCC

Absent:

  • Martin Hannigan, MH : ARIN

Draft Agenda

  1. Welcome
  2. Agenda review
  3. Approval of the minutes from the 2 April 2009 meeting
  4. Approval of the minutes from the 22 April 2009 meeting
  5. Redefine “quorum”
  6. Review of Open Action Items
  7. ICANN Board Election Process Committtee Update
  8. Communications and Procedures Committee
    1. review of charter, report on recent activities and progress
    2. description of “new” mailing list framework with demonstration of configuration options for subscribers (if needed), together with the Secretariat
    3. introduction and demo for a chat facility, with hands-on help for those interested to play with it on the spot or later during the day (with help from Dave)
    4. review of Wiki idea and (if ready by then) a preview of what the Sec/NCC is working on right now, discussion of implementation and requirements for public and private space
  9. New Global Policy Proposal for the Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries
  10. Return of legacy IPv4 space
  11. RIR meeting update – ARIN XXIII, RIPE 58, AfriNIC 10
  12. AOB
  13. Adjournment

1. Welcome

The Chair opened the meeting at 14:44 UTC, welcomed attendees and thanked them for making the effort to arrive. He also thanked those who tried to make it but were unable.

HG welcomed everyone on behalf of LACNIC and wished everyone all the best for the meeting and the week ahead.

2. Agenda review

WW asked to move the Communications material to the end of the agenda. The Chair said it was best to give the update as usual and then go through the specific workshop items after the meeting.

The Chair went through the agenda and said new ideas were presented to him over the previous 24 hours.

NA asked to discuss taking a more offensive approach towards the ITU. He said lack of response to the ITU survey encouraged the ITU to go one by one to ASO AC members and he thinks it is time for the ASO AC to have a remote survey. He said if you look at the ITU survey it appears to have been formed by someone who doesn’t understand the Internet. He suggested not involving ICANN and the RIRs but for the ASO AC to use its own website and explain the issues there rather than leave it to another organisation.

ON noted that he sent an OECD document of potential interest on IPv6 to the AC-COORD mailing list and he said this might be something to consider if there is time during the meeting. He said the OECD will meet in Paris in June and there is a new OECD document on IPv6 deployment and measurement. The Chair said the ASO AC could start discussion on this today.

RB asked to discuss the ICANN Working Group on geographical divisions. He said the original working group decided to create a new WG that is much more formal. He said the working group has clearly indicated that the NRO or ASO AC will be invited to participate and they will be a permanent part of the group, so if any ASO AC member has an opinion on this matter they have a right to have it heard by the group.

PW said an email was sent to the working group last year and communications with the group has been reestablished recently.

3. Approval of the minutes from the 2 April 2009 meeting

SB proposed the motion that the minutes from the 2 April 2009 meeting be approved and KH seconded the motion. There were none opposed and the motion carried.

Action 060901: The Secretariat to change the status of the 2 April 2009 meeting from draft.

4. Approval of the minutes from the 22 April 2009 meeting

SB proposed the motion that the minutes from the 22 April 2009 meeting be approved and KH seconded the motion. There were none opposed and the motion carried.

Action 060902: The Secretariat to change the status of the 22 April 2009 meeting from draft.

5. Redefine “quorum”

The Chair said that it was asked after the last teleconference call when quorum was not met whether mentioned the ASO AC could hold a discussion when there was no quorum. He asked if there should be a different bar in order for the group to take action?

SB said he was partially responsible for quorum not being met at the last teleconference. He said he thought there was nothing to prevent having a meeting without quorum. He said the ASO AC could discuss matters but not take actions – there should be nothing formal without quorum. He added that this is the second time he remembers there not being quorum, so the procedure generally works well.

The Chair said there is a view out there that if there are more than two or three people it can be considered a meeting, and this is the bar for public officials.

SB said that was too American, and it was not the same bar in Argentina at least. He said he understood the strict American bar but it is not the same elsewhere. He said he would have been happy for the last teleconference to go ahead if no actions were taken. He also said quorum was not needed for ASO AC members to have dinner together, but under strict requirements quorum would be needed for that to happen.

WW agreed with SB but he said there is a formal aspect. He said there is usually a phone bridge and there is a cost associated with this, so if there was going to be an informal meeting it would be good to have a big group or there could be criticism from the NRO treasurer for having the cost with little result. He said he thought the ASO AC should agree on some formal idea of weak quorum on a teleconference. He said last time the ASO AC was missing just one region, so it would be reasonable to have discussion but not make decisions. He concluded that if just two regions or three or four people then they should take the discussion to the mailing list or have a cheaper way of exchanging ideas.

RP said some people might meet in a bar and some might consider that a meeting. He said WW was correct but any discussion needs to be taken to the mailing list afterwards so that everyone can participate and there is the required openness. He added that altering the quorum requirement might raise an issue of fairness.

NA asked if quorum needed to be redefined or if self-discipline needed to be redefined. He said these were two different perspectives. He said the group could change quorum requirements to suit or it could introduce mandatory participation.

The Chair said in order to hold discussions there should be a substantial number of people or strong regional representation but it should not have to meet the same bar. He said there could be no quorum but enough people for a discussion. He said there has to be self-discipline – it is not a police matter so much as a courtesy for other members. He said if there is an important topic being discussed by a smaller group then they should let other ASO AC members know about the discussion and ask them for input.

SB said he did not want to be restricted on who he talks to whenever and wherever he wants to. He said if those meeting in a bar discuss a matter then that should be fine. He said he was also not comfortable with disclosing a conversation between people in a bar, for instance.

The Chair said people would not be restricted from talking informally outside of official meetings.

FO said there is a difference between formal and informal meetings. He said it is not a meeting unless it is scheduled and there is an agenda and actions. He said informal meetings are informal and unofficial meetings should not become official. He said such a situation could potentially lead to an ambush, and this would not be good.

The Chair said FO gave the correct criteria for an official meeting and if there is a situation where a decision is made informally and then passed, that is not good.

WW said any group of people exchanging ideas is fine but it is not a meeting. He said the important thing was for people discussing to make up their minds whether they continued with a meeting properly called and then the only thing to decide is if the meeting continues with discussion and minutes and the restriction that no actions or decisions can be taken. He said the requirement for openness would be met by having minutes. He said even if he agreed with someone it is not a decision in an informal meeting, but the issue remains on whether to continue with a discussion if quorum is not met.

DW agreed with WW.

The Chair said that the next step was to decide what to do when quorum was not met. He asked if he should ask the NRO EC if it would be acceptable to continue a discussion without quorum and bring the minutes back to the list.

NA said time and money would be engaged in such meetings and it would be better not to waste either.

JS said there should be operating calls and other types of calls for discussions and subgroup calls for committees. He said there could be two sets of rules: either it is an official meeting or quorum is not met and it is the other type of call.

HPH said this was a good idea. He added the suggestion that because currently the ASO AC is making lots of decisions on phone calls that this could be moved to the mailing list or e-voting to make decisions. He said this would be a stronger vote since everyone gets to participate. He said some might want more traditional discussion and if so the teleconference could be carried out in the usual way and small decisions could be made using e-voting.

JS said e-voting mails would have to be clearly separable.

The Chair said he was not sure about using e-voting all the way. He said if there was quorum on a call then the AC meets the bar that it set for having votes. He said there were also administrative issues associated with email and e-voting, and it could be easier to have a vote on a call. He said there is a bar with certain decisions such as establishing the Chair and global policies and elections to the ICANN Board because everyone is needed, so he is not sure it is all that efficient.

HPH said it is an optional way of making a decision. He said if you can’t get quorum you move it to e-voting.

The Chair said if there is no quorum then it can be moved to next meeting unless there is a deadline on the vote.

WW said, in relation to e-voting, if there is no quorum in the call you can take the e-vote but you don’t have the discussion relating to the vote. He said it is easy to do that for the ICANN Board of Directors selection because everything is well known, but that might not be the case for a Yes or No decision. He concluded that is the issue is fully understood then e-voting is fine but it should not be used in a binary Yes or No decision.

NA said if we move the requirement of having someone from every region for quorum then the whole point of the ASO AC is gone. He said it cold be possible to have the discussion on the mailing list and then have the relevant vote on the following call.

The Chair said he would like to move on to the next point in the agenda and he looked forward to seeing the minuted discussion.

HG asked why this item was on the agenda.

The Chair explained that it was a continuation from an email discussion after the last teleconference failed to materialise. He said it was a useful discussion and it could now be moved to the mailing list.

6. Review of Open Action Items

Action 1211-01
The Chair to send a message to the NRO EC Chair with a list of items pending a response from the EC.
No update.

Action 0209-04
WW to work on draft charter for the Communications and Procedures Committee and present it to the ASO AC.
This will be covered in agenda item 7.

Action 0309-03
The Secretariat to work with the ASO AC Chair and the LACNIC Meeting organisers to arrange facilities for the face-to-face meeting in Panama City on 25 May 2009.
This action item is closed. The Chair thanked the LACNIC and RIPE NCC staff for their help with this.

Action 0409-01
Secretariat to change the status of the minutes of the 5 March meeting from Draft.
This action item is closed.

Action 0409-02
The Communications and Procedures Committee to investigate providing a way for external organisations to easily link to the ASO website.
This will be covered in agenda item 7.

Action 0409-03
The Secretariat and ASO AC Chair to liaise with the LACNIC Meeting organisers to determine the best way to see that those requiring visas for the ASO AC face-to-face meeting in Panama City receive them.
This action item is closed.

7. Communications and Procedures Committee

WW said he used two occasions where he met the Secretariat in San Francisco and Amsterdam to go through technical requirements. He said he discussed e-voting in San Francisco and also went through the mailing lists and tried to give the Secretariat a good idea on short-term needs in terms of support on mailing list management and with regard to a chat facility and wiki facility. He said this has progressed into development of ideas. He said concrete ideas about the set-up of the mailing lists were posted to the mailing list. He said he worked with the Secretariat to develop an understanding of what we can be configured and what impact there would be on the Secretariat and how to configure the lists to achieve the goal of not spamming everyone with each message. He said he also wanted to find an easy way to provide access to discussions.

WW said the other relevant thing he prepared with the Secretariat and DW was the chat facility and they discussed the idea on how to present what could be done and ask if that is something the ASO AC would want to use. He said if the ASO AC thought it was usable then they could go ahead and try to demonstrate the facility and show how this could be used.

WW said the third issue was to come up with a wiki because the ASO AC is currently guesting on HPH’s wiki facility, which is publicly accessible and is available through donation by HPH. WW said it was useful for testing things and changing ideas such as the annual work plan, but this is not a regular platform the ASO AC should use. He said it should be abandoned or it should be formally made available by the Secretariat. He said it is up for discussion on whether the ASO AC should do this. He asked the ASO AC if they wanted this facility and, if so, then a mechanism should be provided to offer a public wiki where the ASO provides information to the public and also to have wiki just for the ASO AC so members could collaborate. He said the Secretariat has pulled together a couple of links on comparisons of wiki functionalities. He said if the ASO AC does not want this then it should say so and save on further effort.

WW said the mailing list has been configured for the cnp-com mailing list and this has been sent to the ac-coord list. He said he would wait to write a charter until the infrastructure is in place, and if the wiki were in place it would be easier to collaborate on this.

NA commented on the e-voting system used for the recent ICANN Board election that when you cast your vote you could see the current status of votes cast and this information might discourage people from voting if they knew someone was going to win in advance. It was generally agreed that this should not be possible in future.

VN asked if the ASO AC needed these tools, and, if so, then it should not use informal tools.

[At 15:40 UTC the Chair suggested taking a coffee break.]
[At 16:05 UTC the Chair restarted the meeting.]

The Chair agreed with WW that demonstration of the proposed communication tools would take place at the conclusion of the face-to-face meeting and those interested could choose to remain for this.

8. ICANN Board Election Process Committee Update

The Chair asked for Committee members to identify themselves and the following people did do: NA, JS, FO, HPH. The Chair also asked for a progress update.

NA said he had a presentation on this and the Chair asked him to send it via email.

NA said purpose of creating the presentation was to ensure the committee did not get stagnant. He said he was of the personal opinion that what was right yesterday may not be right today. He used the analogy of families in India wanting more children in the past but this is not the case today. He said the ASO AC should work on everything from time to time, not only on elections to ICANN, but on every aspect of the Internet because it is always growing and it is important to look at everything. He said this presentation examines the current process.

The Chair asked NA if this was his presentation or the committee’s presentation.

NA said he sent it to the committee and that it contained issues he wanted to talk about. He said it the point of the presentation was not to try to get conclusion but to promote discussion. He wanted to look at the challenges that arose from the last election. He said he wanted to bring more clarity to the election process and explain all the phases of the process as currently set down.

SB said the ASO AC’s internal procedures instead of ICANN’s by-laws define the review committee. He advised against confusing ICANN’s by-laws with ASO AC procedures. He said the ASO AC procedures were not as stringent as the ICANN by-laws and that internal procedures set the election process.

NA said people should look at section 7.1

SB said section 7.1 is not in the ICANN by-laws and the ASO AC can change its by-laws when we want.

JS said the changes have to be approved by the NRO Executive Council.

SB said that ICANN by-laws are changed by ICANN, but the NRO EC approves the procedures changed by the ASO AC. He said the power of law that those two instruments have are different. He said the ASO AC procedures are set by the ASO AC for the ASO AC to order its work. He said the procedures are a soft regulation with no punishment attached – it is a set of rules to allow the ASO AC to conduct business.

NA said anything public cannot be a soft situation – you either have it or don’t have it. He said any changes need to be reviewed or talked about. He said these regulations are public and it needs to be understood that what is public is for everyone. He said if we change that is fine, but what is referenced as ICANN by-laws should be adhered to.

ON said it was relevant to reference the ICANN by-laws. He said the by-laws don’t put forward requirements on any procedures and they are separate from procedures. He said the by-laws silent on the procedures to be followed.

RP said he would like to echo ON. He said the ICANN by-laws are specific. He said the ASO AC operates according to the ASO MoU but no more. He said the ASO function is formed by the NRO and, from then on, something is defined in the NRO MoU or ASO MoU. In discussion of procedures for election processes, qualifications are looked at but there is no mention of doing anything other than internal procedures adopted by the ASO AC and ratified by NRO EC. He said if the NRO EC agrees, it is then an internal procedure. He said the NRO EC can ask for public comment but how the ASO AC governs is up to NRO EC.

NA said you could call it what you like but reviewing what is there currently and seeing whether the ASO AC wants to make changes is point of committee. He asked to finish the presentation so it could be seen where the procedure needs to change.

The Chair said the ASO AC could change internal procedures only to the point where the changes will be approved by the NRO EC. He said the ASO AC can suggest changes to the ASO MoU but that needs to be approved by ICANN and the NRO, so this is a complexity to be aware of. He said it was not so restrictive that internal procedures could not be reviewed. He added that this presentation does not distinguish internal procedures versus otherwise.

NA said this material is documented on the ASO website. He asked that the ASO AC look at and discuss each stage.

NA then proceeded to go through the presentation.

The presentation can be viewed at:
https://aso.icann.org/meetings/other/Ajwani_Workshop-Election-Process.pdf

The presentation went through the following phases:
Nomination Phase
Comment Phase
Interview Phase
Selection Phase

NA said the presentation emphasised certain things because they were not followed. He said the challenges he observed in the election process were:
Casual approach
Lack of transparency
Unfair practices

NA said he would like the following points to be discussed:

NA said there should be a code of conduct for Nominations Committee members. He said if someone has a direct relationship with a candidate they should withdraw from the Nominations Committee. He said there needs to be a perception that the Nominations Committee is not biased. He asked what should be the eligibility criteria for Nominations Committee membership.

NA suggested using a scoring matrix that gives a more solid score rather than the feelings of people. He suggested such use of maths would give a more even score for candidates. He said the scoring pattern should be visible and he pointed to the telephonic interview matrix in his presentation. He said scores should be consolidated by the Secretariat so it is not about feelings but about proper accountability for scoring.

NA asked the ASO AC to deliberate on the points he mentioned, saying they were open to criticism. He said the also be open to the points he raised and if anyone thinks they are wrong there can be debate on the issues. He thanked the ASO AC for listening.

SB said that in defining correct practice, NA mentioned “unfair practices” and he said he took this personally. He asked NA to point him to the precise place where it says a recommendation is against by-laws or procedures.

NA said as per the by-laws or public document the ASO AC was supposed to get a report on every candidate and no more. He said the Nominations Committee went a step beyond and gave a recommendation.

SB asked if there was somewhere where it says a recommendation cannot be made.

NA said he was making observations based on a public document and if the public document is wrong then he has no concerns.

The Chair asked if NA’s interpretation was contradictory to procedure – is it wrong to do something not forbidden by procedures.

SB said the list and presentation was not the only objective consideration. He questioned NA’s use of the phrase “we shall” and said it should rather be “what is proposed”. He asked how NA set the agenda on this matter.

NA said the meaning of “shall” does not indicate an instruction. He asked that the procedure be discussed. He said it was maybe a right or wrong procedure so the entire procedure could be reworded and discussed within committee. He said a platform had not been established to discuss this previously.

SB said there should be no more “shall” – propose to discuss instead. He said NA was making assumptions and building up from there. SB said he didn’t agree that is was against any by-law. He asked how there could be consensus if they failed to agree on this point.

NA said he simply put across what is on the public website. He said nothing was generated from his opinion, it was just observation, so that is why there is a discussion.

SB asked about the unfair practices accusations based on by-laws. He asked to be pointed to the specific by-law.

NA said it is on the records and SB responded that he did not see this.

The Chair asked the ASO AC if the conclusion that the procedure was unfair came from the assumption that to go beyond the procedures is to contradict them.

NA said even if the situation is not against procedure, it is against a value system also. He said if there is a committee with more balance in favor in one region then it is about the system and it can be challenged or be viewed as biased. He said it could be seen as one region muscling power. He said this was not only his observation but if you asked someone from outside, they might question why a candidate was picked from that region.

SB said he was of the opinion that this presentation should not be taken into the records without a vote. He said if the ASO AC moved forward with this he did not want to acknowledge that there was unfairness.

NA said the presentation is in the minutes.

WW said he understood the emotion and would have shared some of the opinions a few weeks ago, but he said he would rather see a full ASO AC move forward instead of rehashing things. He said the presentation should not be a formal part of the report and be noted as personal opinion. He said if the presentation was marked as personal then it would be OK to attach to the record, but not as the opinion of the Address Council. He said he would like to see the ASO AC move forward on facts, and this presentation could be used as a roster against what is in procedures and against those things not written down in the procedures. He said the procedure is just written down to keep note of what was done in the past. He said in the past the ASO AC was developing things with the goal of being neutral and also wanting to protect privacy. He said for many sections the reasoning or what the ASO AC wanted to achieve was not noted, but there was no intention to be inequitable. He gave the example of cost being a factor in the number of people interviewed rather than there being a preference for a candidate. He advised trying to go ahead and improve sections but also making notes of the reasoning behind having the sections in the first place. He also suggested labeling new sections as either binding or just suggestions. He also noted that when the section on interviews was devised it was never considered that they could take place at meetings other than ASO AC face-to-face meetings. He concluded that it is easy to attack the procedures but there was no bad intention in their creation.

The Chair said because the presentation was not approved or commented on by the Board Procedures Committee it cannot be a committee report, but because it is being discussed it should be in the minutes.

NA said the discussion was not a family discussion. He said it is something of international implication and influence so he thought to have anything contrary to what’s in there was not right. He also said this was no report but what the ASO AC decided to discuss in the face-to-face meeting based on the Chair’s recommendation. He said the first slides were based on what happened and he was surprised about personal nature of reaction. He said there is no baggage with this presentation and he makes no recommendation. He said the Chair said we should discuss this at the last meeting.

The Chair asked if the selection process NA showed was word by word from what is documented, and if anything that happened beyond procedure was a bad thing. He said how it was characterised is inflaming emotions – deviations, unfairness, etc. He said the members need to get beyond that and make refinements with no judgment of good or bad.

HG said he was very disappointed that NA went back to the past. He said last meeting it was requested that we have confidence in all members and if everything is not perfect then we should look to improve and he added that he didn’t have time to go back. He said in the five times the ASO AC has had the ICANN election there has never been manipulation or a decision to have a bias, so he said he was surprised to be fighting over this. He concluded that it is never the intention of members to be biased.

NA said it was time to look forward because this discussion would not bring results. He said errors happen and this did not have to be discussed. He said he understood SB and that there was no intention for any manipulation. He also said he supported WW fully and suggested moving in that direction. He asked to clarify with HG that the ASO AC needed to look at deficiencies from the past in order to move forward and HG agreed.

The Chair said it was good to be sensitive and not characterise what happened as an attack on intentions.

NA addressed HG and said when he saw a precarious situation with the election he withdrew with the expectation that we would be bold to discuss it properly. He said he realised that message can go wrong, and if HG felt emotionally disturbed then he apologised. NA said he thought this was the process and if there is a deviation then what happened can be challenged outside. He expressed warmth and respect for the ASO AC and said he wanted it to be seen as fair and good. He said he was asked to work on it but if the ASO AC did not want it on the records then it could be removed.

PW said he was involved in the discussion about the board selection process. He said the NRO EC agreed with face-to-face interviews and that the NRO EC would fund travel for candidates. He said the problem is that you can have many candidates and you can’t fund them all. He said it was suggested to allow three at the time but that was open to negotiation. He noted that the NRO EC said it could not fund everything. He said the decision was not meant to dictate the shortlist but the NRO EC wanted to limit it for financial reason.

PW also said in regard to WW’s comments that he has been on lots of selection committees and there is commonly an issue on what procedures to use. He said there is a question of judgment and a committee is formed to exercise judgment and judgment cannot be incorporated into a procedure, so it is not right to think everything can be proceduralised. He said the matrices may be helpful, but the committee discussion should be in a black box and it can publish some things but it should not have to justify every substep of the problem. He said if a committee is not agreed with then there is no point in having that committee. He said exercising judgment is what a committee is for, and although he could understand the personal aspect of this discussion, he also recommended against proceduralising everything.

NA said all this is simply a request to review the procedure and look to improve things.

PW said it looked like good work but this was not his decision.

VN said he supported WW. He said there is a need to review but also not to restrict members too much. He added that, as professionals, people needed to watch their language in case the ASO AC lost members over heated discussion.

The Chair said, on directing the committee to move forward, the ASO AC should provide a guideline for the committee on how it should proceed. He asked should every step be looked at closely or the opposite. He said there was a statement needed for the committee so they should know which way to move. He asked that the ASO AC establish principles and move from there?

NA said the “Shall” was discussed as a mandatory thing on the mailing list but was viewed as “may” as well. He said one slide in his presentation could have been avoided and he asked to move the controversial slide to allow the debate to go forward and he asked if this was OK. He said it spoiled a reason for healthy discussion so he asked that it be removed.

HG said the mention of “unfair” was the incorrect thing and NA said he would remove that.

SB said he agreed there should be a way forward but he asked that this presentation not be an ASO AC document. He said this could be a document for NA the and committee and any member could do the same thing.

The Chair said the discussion was in the minutes anyway.

SB said NA’s perception was not universal, and it was only a perception of the process. He said it was important to distinguish between facts and perceptions, and he did not agree that everything listed as “fact” was a fact.

NA said what was mentioned was documented but he could remove the slides if necessary.

HG said it has been decided that the presentation is NA’s opinion and the ASO AC should work on this model looking forward.

NA this should be noted in the minutes, and that the presentation arises from MH’s report.

SB said that MH initially reported on what NA wrote. He said the presentation should be considered NA’s working proposal.

HG said it was too early to have common sense. He said NA put his ideas on paper and thanked him for that.

The Chair agreed with HG and asked if the ASO AC could give the committee guidance.

VN said the ASO AC should give the committee a mandate to go forward and ask them to come back with how they will look at the procedures. He said after this the ASO AC can approve.

The Chair agreed and asked that the committee go forward with their work and they can then come back to the full ASO AC.

WW said it would be useful to review the procedures and come up with a proposal to structure the procedure in a timeline. He said before there are new ideas the committee should review the existing procedure document the reasons for each section. He said if we understand what we wanted to achieve it would be easier to review or amend because the reasoning will be more obvious.

NA said WW was in the committee and this is fine.

AA said the ASO AC has to use its judgment at some point. He said a procedure that is too restrictive is bad. He pointed out that this was a volunteer group. He said there should be a balance here and advised keeping room for judgment. He said there was of course room for improvement but advised not to make the procedure too restrictive, and NA agreed.

[At 17.25 UTC the Chair broke for lunch and asked to reconvene at 19:00 UTC.]

[FY disconnected at 17:30 UTC.]
[AA left at 17:30 UTC.]

[The Chair reconvened the meeting at 19:19 UTC.]

9. New Global Policy Proposal for the Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries

The Chair said this was a live proposal going on now. He thanked ON for compiling the status in each region.

ON said there was a new proposal reported by ICANN for proposal in mid-June.

The Chair asked if there were any developments on the current proposal.

HG asked if it was approved by APNIC and PW said it had been.

VN said it was approved in AfriNIC and it was approved in ARIN with modification, so the authors may need to revise.

EB said the status in ARIN is that it’s still under development. He said it was different from other regions in that legacy space recovered is optional and not mandatory.

DW said the version discussed and that had approval was the ARIN version and that’s what they’re going with, but there is no consensus yet.

The Chair said the proposal would be be discussed in LACNIC this week. He said it was not the ARIN version.

WW asked about realigning the text.

The Chair said the ASO AC does not have to do this but the NRO EC does. He said it was important for the ASO AC to know what’s going on.

NA asked if the issue of legacy space in general should take place here.

The Chair said discussion on return of legacy space could feed back into the policy development process.

NA asked if that should that be part of the discussion instead of separate.

The Chair said the ASO AC needed to distinguish between updating members on the policy’s status versus having a legacy space discussion outside the RIR forum. He said it was not easy for the community to contribute here but it is easy for the ASO AC to inform communities based on what is learned here.

RB said this was a policy for IANA, not for the RIRs.

NA said the policy would depend on how much legacy space is given back.

RB said IANA would open a special pool. He said it is an important issue in that it opens space in IANA for returned space.

NA asked who would be likely to give space back on their own. He said if there is a policy to give back space then there should be a policy to allocate that space.

WW made the observation that that there is no formal mechanism to give space back to IANA or for what IANA will do with that space. He said it needs to be looked at how IANA is expected to use the space it gets back after the IPv4 pool empty. He expressed concern that if there are too many aspects in the policy it will be hard to get agreement.

RP said a global policy involves an action by IANA. He said this global policy lets IANA receive address space but it doesn’t tell the RIRs what to do with space. He agreed with WW that more complicated the policy the harder it is to get accepted. He said people who have space might not give it back till they know what is going to happen.

NA asked if the policy was not for allocation of last IPv4, and the Chair said it refers to legacy space that the RIRs return and tell IANA what should be done with it.

NA said there was an imbalance of legacy space across the regions and if it is done at a regional level then it will be a regional policy.

RP said a global policy only deals with actions dealing with IANA. He said no region can take action by itself. He said what a region does with its recovered space for whatever reason is a regional matter and does not impact on global policy.

NA said there was a challenge with legacy space because in the case of 100 spaces, there might be 70 spaces in one region and the distribution should be done evenly. He said if people are looking for IPv4 they may have to go through a grey market process.

VN said one is a global policy on what will happen with recovered space, and there is a distinction between the two polices.

[AA returned at 17:36]

ON seconded RP’s comment that a global policy was not a coordinated RIR attempt to do something.

The Chair said it was important for legacy space holders to know what will happen before they give the space up. He said maybe there was an idea that legacy space might be global space rather than regional space, and there were arguments for and against this. He said now it is considered as RIR regional space, or RIR-managed at least.

PW said this space was never allocated to RIRs but to organisations. He said it was only managed by RIRs according to RIR regions. He said if those organisations no longer need it then it goes back to IANA, not to the RIR.

RP said people should look at the policies written prior to the establishment of an RIR that discussed allocation of space. He said IANA never allocated directly to any organisation apart from an Internet registry.

The Chair said if blocks are returned they are then returned to an Internet registry. He said every RIR was a successor of the original Internet registry and ARIN and the RIPE NCC were formed out of the original Internet registry.

DW advised looking back to first principles in that we derive authority from the communities. He said as an operator, you ask how will I build routing filters and then whatever comes from the regions, that is how you will decide how you will get any address space back. He said to NA that he saw his concern that companies will want to see how it will be used. He said this could be a global issue or regional. He said the policy that is being developed here is global and asked NA if he thought that if a region decides it should affect the other half of the problem it should do so?

NA said legacy space should be visible in the regions before a policy is made.

DW said this was a discussion worth having in the region and the region can then decide on its own basis.

The Chair said the region does not limit policy input to geographic membership. He said you could participate in the policy development process of a region even if you live elsewhere.

DW asked what the ASO AC should do because he did not want to interfere in a regional matter.

There was no comment and the Chair moved to the next agenda item.

10. Return of Legacy IPv4 Space

TF provided background information on this on the mailing list and he said the discussion of the global policy just now is very related to this topic. He said the mail was sent on 7 May 2009. The Chair read out the mail and asked if there was any input.

WW said he found out at the recent RIPE 58 Meeting that if an organisation applies for extra address space it is not forced to disclose use of old address space given outside its region. He said in RIPE there was a proposal to ask someone looking for space to document all the space they have received. He said there is already this requirement in the ARIN region. He said in RIPE for newly assigned PI space there has to be a formal relationship between the End User and either the LIR or the RIPE NCC. He said the next phase will be to work back and identify PI assignments made in the past and see where formal link is broken and get them back into the framework. He said there is also the digital certificate issue and this is going to be applied to new address space and anyone who wants old legacy space approved will have to enter the current environment. He said the goal is to get historic space into the current management framework and RIR system.

The Chair said there was an effort in the ARIN region to get legacy holders into the process with a legacy RSA – a contract that covers what ARIN would or wouldn’t do with their legacy space. He said this was aimed at specifying what will be done with it and also to bring them into process.

JS said there was a policy proposal in the ARIN region to require people to sign something to keep information accurate.

The Chair said the issue not as big for other regions that do not have legacy space.

TF said in APNIC the same policy to check was just implemented.

The Chair asked if address space assigned by a different RIR is considered.

WW said RIPE understands no difference in where it came from. He said you just have to disclose all resources before applying for new space.

The Chair said if you use lineage justification that’s a tricky problem.

JS said in looking at the global policy proposal there are two issues. He said the first issue is when IANA gets the address space and not how, and the second issue is the idea of redistribution of space. He said the two ideas are not tied but they could be.

The Chair said the authors have discussed these and other problems.

DW said it was difficult to narrow down the issues specifically because there was little clarity about what will happen and different policies in each region. He said it would be hard to understand what will happen to space no one is using and how it will be moved. He said in RIPE, space might be transferable but not in ARIN. He said all problems pale compared to not having a coherent policy on what to do with the address space.

ON said it was worth noting that there were three global policies on IPv4 and one has same name as this one being discussed. He said this new policy would take effect and subside another policy, and it is possible to continue in this vein as long as IANA continues.

HG asked if the name should be changed and ON suggested adding “II” to the end of the second one.

RP said one would be obsoleted anyway and ON said before it is obsoleted there will be a coexisting problem.

RB said a fast-track solution would be when ICANN received the policy it should ask for modification of wording and for it to be called something else. He said this would be faster than sending it back to all RIRs.

The Chair asked how likely that would be to happen.

RB said there was a 60-day window to ratify the policy so it would have to come back in 60 days with common wording. He asked if it would be quicker to send it back to the RIRs now.

The Chair said he hoped ICANN board would ask the ASO AC for advice and RB said it would.

DW said maybe it would be a good idea to first decide whether addresses should go to IANA or the RIRs and perhaps the ASO AC could make a recommendation on this.

The Chair said it was encouraging to hear side discussions that an RIR cannot act to help themselves and it was good to see discussion on the benefits of return to IANA.

DW said there were arguments for and against in the PDP, but it will be accepted or rejected so that will clarify matters somewhat.

RP it would be good to discuss ARIN legacy space going to IANA and non-legacy space going back to the relevant region.

The Chair asked to move to the next agenda item and take the discussion to the mailing list.

11. RIR Meeting Update – ARIN XXIII, RIPE 58, AfriNIC X

The Chair said VN sent the AfriNIC X update to the mailing list and VN said the highlights have been discussed on the list.

DW gave an update from the RIPE 58 Meeting. He said there was a proposal on the table about reducing the window in which you can request more space (12, 6, 3 months) to give some certainty as the end of IPv4 comes closer. He said there was also a proposal on 32-bit ASNs. He said the current policy states that as of 1 January 2009, if someone makes a request someone will get a 32-bit ASN and then a 16-bit ASN. He said this stops in 2010 and short-term solutions will be looked at. He said there was also an IPv6 discussion on single ISPs who will only be allowed a certain block because they are a single LIR.

The Chair said there was talk of multiple discrete networks for LIRs but the policy won’t allow it.

DW said he got the feeling that there is a reluctance to have routing policy mentioned in addressing policy.

PW said in relation to IPv6 that there would be the increasing area of questioning on current policy as more governments look for allocations to IPv6 networks. He said they would ask to be allocated discrete blocks and effectively you would have governments acting as intermediate RIRs. He said the RIPE NCC was in discussions about how to fulfill this request. He added that governments are frustrated by different responses from RIRs and they would prefer a single voice, so more coordination is necessary.

WW said he was frustrated at the RIPE Meeting because what he is seeing is a trend with IPv6 conservative distribution, such as when the /48 recommendation was killed. He said he is seeing requests denied because of routing, and in other regions he is seeing inconsistency in policy proposals and allocations. He said his personal feeling was that people are giving in to the misconception that routing problems can be solved through addressing policies. He said it was wrong to mess with assignments because of routing problems.

PW said there was a problem of trusting an intermediate registry. He said single allocation of IPv6 for a government was not reasonable. He said the problem was that there is no mechanism where you can enforce a policy with a government that chooses to do what it wants.

The Chair wanted to mention concerns about how ASN 32 is being assigned by default and most requests are asking for ASN 16 there is no policy proposal now to adjust that.

EB said there was a proposal to extend the date one year.

PW asked when ASN 16s are going to run out.

EB said this was not part of the discussion.

DW said the prediction went out further than previously thought.

PW said ASN allocations proved sensitive to the economic climate so he was not surprised.

PW gave an update on APNIC recent developments. He reported on two transfer policies – one on return of addresses to IANA and one a transfer proxy. He said the IANA policy has been passed and they are finished with that. He said the transfer policy was sent back for discussion even though the chair declared consensus, which was unusual. He explained that the chair of the declared consensus but the two co-chairs said there was no consensus. He said nothing further will happen on this until the next APNIC Meeting, and since two more transfer proposal have been put forward it is not clear what will happen to the original one.

The Chair noted that the LACNIC activity would happen this week.

[Chair called for a break at 20:33 UTC].

[AB joined the meeting during the break.
[PW and GV left the meeting during the break]

The Chair reconvened the meeting at 21:00 UTC]

12. AOB

NRO stance in relation to the ITU Survey

The Chair said ASO AC advice goes to ICANN and the NRO, so the ASO AC should discuss whether it wants to do that.

NA said a strategy on this should be discussed.

The Chair said he wanted to be clear whether the ASO AC is able proceed on this within its charter and MoU. He asked if it is something the ASO AC wants to get involved in.

NA said the ASO AC is involved in resource allocation and is chartered for global policy concerns, and the survey has a substantial part on address allocation.

AA said the NRO EC has given a response on the matter and he was not sure what the ASO AC could do further.

NA said the ASO AC has to counter this approach by the ITU. He said if everyone backed out like the ASO AC could do then it is possible that no one would do anything. He said it is an extraordinary situation and someone has to develop a public relations strategy and a clarification strategy and an offensive strategy.

AA said this is why the NRO has responded and it has concentrated on the contents of the survey and otherwise you would be looking at what it implies. He said to do otherwise would be to assume the outcome of survey and he said the NRO EC found that to be not useful.

NA asked why only limit reaction to the only survey and why wait for someone else to move. He suggested being proactive instead of reactive.

DW said he had sympathy for that view. He said the ASO AC can worry over its remit but it should first work out what it wants and then work out what it can do within that context.

RP said the NRO Number Council can sit to discuss and advise on matters and make recommendations to the NRO EC, and this doesn’t have to be something it does on its own. He said if the NRO Number Council sits it could discuss this and feed back to the NRO EC so it is completely an NRO matter. He said this was within the charter of the Number Council. He said it would be possible to end the meeting of the ASO AC and convene a meeting of the NRO NC. He said the ASO AC has a more restrictive charter than that of the NRO NC. He said this was certainly a possibility for all teleconference in future as well.

NA asked if there was a budget for a possible campaign.

The Chair said not as the Number Council as it was part of the NRO, but he said some RIRs already have public relations firms contracted.

AA said the NRO was already engaged in this to a certain extent.

OECD document of potential interest on IPv6

ON said he sent this OECD document to the mailing list as an informational piece. He said the OECD did a report on IPv4 and IPv6 and this is a sequel to that. He said the OECD produced a draft measuring deployment of IPv6 and this is now a topic for discussion in mid-June. He said he did not know too much about it but it is there and it is perhaps worth a read as an alternative to the ITU proposal. He said the RIRs have been involved in this work in some way.

RP said the RIRs have been involved and there have been number of contact methods with the OECD, but there was not much the ASO AC could do unless the NRO EC asks.

Invitation to Participate in Regional Division Working Group at ICANN

RB said one and a half years ago a working group on regional division was proposed to ICANN by the CCNSO. He said when devising the composition of the working group the ASO or NRO was considered and the ASO AC could be invited they can consider it. He said the ASO MoU says the ASO can’t disrupt regional structure he said the ASO AC and NRO should participate and it has been agreed to invite AC.

RP said that ON mentioned last year that no action would be taken and this seems to have been resurrected. He said not that the working group is taking action it might not want the ASO AC to be involved.

AA said the NRO EC would be sure to listen to opinions on this.

NA wanted to say on record in the discussion that they got not only best professional but best human being for ICANN. He said this proves that in an election process the people should engage with the candidates and he wished he got to do that during the ICANN election process. He said he hoped RP would overlook, and if he is missing the right words, then forgive.

The Chair suggested going back to a full ASO AC interview of candidates.

NA said he would bring the idea to the committee process.

RB said this happened before in Istanbul, San Francisco and Amsterdam.

RP said logistics have to be considered because times have changed.

The Chair said it was possible to select candidates then do a full ASO AC interview.

RP said there were still logistics to consider, such as the difficulty and cost of flying the full ASO AC to one place. He said he just advised that the members be aware of this.

WW said the real issue is that the entire group would have to decide well in advance when and where the interview would take place. He said there has been indecisiveness in recent years. He said if the ASO AC went in that direction then it needs to decide things well in advance or a subset of the group could be disadvantaged. He said ideally he would like all candidates in one room and to allow all ASO AC members to rank all individuals. He noted that the bill would, however, have to be footed.

NA said this could be discussed in the Board Procedure Committee.

TF asked would there be an ASO AC meeting at the next ICANN Meeting.

The Chair said he would be on site for the ICANN Meeting but there would be no official AC meeting at that.

13. Adjournment

There was a motion to adjourn from SB and this was seconded by VN. There were none opposed and the motion carried.

The meeting adjourned at concluded at 23:36 UTC.

After the meeting, there was a discussion of proposed communications tools led by WW. The members supported the Communications and Procedures current activities and developments regarding mailing list configuration, the proposed wiki facility and the proposed online chat facility for ASO AC members.