AC Attendees:

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

Secretariat:

  • Fergal Cunningham, FC : RIPE NCC
  • Sabine Mader, SM : RIPE NCC
  • Nick Hyrka, NH : RIPE NCC

Observers:

  • Leo Vegoda, LV : ICANN
  • Raimundo Beca, RB : ICANN
  • Dave Wodelet, DWo : ICANN
  • Olof Nordling, ON : ICANN
  • Ernest Byaruhanga, EMB : AfriNIC
  • Lillian O Sharpley, LS : AfriNIC
  • German Valdez, GV : APNIC
  • Einar Bohlin, EB : ARIN
  • Nate Davis, ND : ARIN
  • Roque Gagliano, RG : LACNIC
  • Axel Pawlik, AP : RIPE NCC
  • Filiz Yilmaz, FY : RIPE NCC

Apologies:

  • Francisco Obispo, FO : LACNIC

Draft Agenda

  1. Welcome
  2. Agenda review
  3. Approval of the minutes from the 5 Feb 2009 meeting
  4. Review of Open Action Items
  5. ICANN Nominations
    a. Nominee/Candidate list
    b. Next steps
  6. Global Policy Proposal for Remaining IPv4 Address Space
    a. Advice letter vote
    b. Next steps
  7. Communications & Procedures Committee Update
    a. Charter
    b. Website update
  8. 2009 AC Meetings
    a. Face-to-face meeting availability
  9. ASO/ASO AC Activities at ICANN Public Meeting
    a. SO/AC Open Joint Session
    b. ASO Participation in the “ICANN 101” segment during the Plenary/General Session of the At-Large Summit
    c. Workshops
  10. Updates from RIR meetings
    a. 10-11 Feb: ARIN Caribbean Sector Meeting (Bridgetown, Barbados)
    b. 23-27 Feb: APNIC 27 (Manila, Philippines)
  11. AOB
  12. Adjournment

  1. Welcome

    The Chair welcomed participants and started the meeting at 13:20 UTC. It was noted that it was FO’s birthday on the day of the teleconference and the AC Members wished him a happy birthday.

  2. Agenda review

    The Chair read the proposed agenda and asked if there were any comments. There were none.

  3. Approval of the minutes from the 5 Feb 2009 meeting

    The Chair noted there were no comments sent to the list. HG proposed the motion that the ASO AC approves the draft minutes of the 5 February 2009 teleconference and AB seconded. There were none opposed so the motion carried.

    Action: 0309-01:
    Secretariat to change the status of the minutes of the 5 February meeting from Draft.

  4. 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.

    The Chair noted there was no update for this action item. WW asked if there was no update from the ASO AC Chair or from the NRO EC Chair. The ASO AC Chair responded that he has not yet sent the message. He said the action would close once the message was sent.

    Action: 0209-01
    Secretariat to correct the duplicate action item numbering in the minutes of the January 8, 2009 meeting, and to change the status of these minutes from “DRAFT”.

    The Chair noted that this has been completed but he said action item 0109-01 is missing from the list of open action items at the end of the minutes. FC noted that this has been corrected. This action item is now closed.

    Action: 0209-02
    Secretariat to liaise with IETF Secretariat to arrange time and facilities for in-person interviews to take place from 25-27 March 2009 at the IETF Meeting in San Francisco and liaise with MH and ASO AC Nominations Committee regarding their requirements.

    The Chair noted that this activity is underway. MH noted that there was an incorrect date posted and 25-27 March 2009 should be the correct dates to be in attendance at the IETF Meeting for in-person interviews.

    Action: 0309-02
    Secretariat to update the previous minutes to reflect the correct dates of 25-27 March 2009 for Nominations Committee members to be in attendance at the IETF Meeting.

    Action: 0209-03
    DW and the PPFT to draft an advice letter to the ICANN Board of Directors on the Global Policy Proposal for Remaining IPv4 Address Space and send to the ASO AC mailing list.

    The Chair noted that the draft was sent to the ac-coord mailing list, and there were some comments and suggestions incorporated. This action item is now closed.

    Action: 0209-04
    WW to work on draft charter for the Communications and Procedures Committee and present it to the ASO AC.

    The Chair noted that WW sent the draft charter to the list. WW said this would be revisited in Agenda Item 7. The Chair noted that this should stay as an open action item until the work is completed and WW agreed.

    Action: 0209-05
    The Secretariat to update the meeting schedule posted online.

    The Chair noted that this action item has been completed.

  5. ICANN Nominations

    a. Nominee/Candidate list

    The Chair asked MH to lead this topic. MH said there were six candidates who were all eligible and the list was sent to the AC last week. He said the Nominations Committee was preparing to send out the 2009 questionnaire to candidates. The Chair said not everyone received the list and the Secretariat agreed to resend to the ac-coord list. MH read out the following list of candidates:

    • Barry Shein
    • Jody Newman
    • Jordi Palet Marinez
    • Rajesh Chharia
    • Ray Plzak
    • Suzanne Woolf

    MH said that all candidates were notified that they were eligible and that they may have to attend a face-to-face interview at the IETF Meeting in San Francisco. He also noted that they were informed they would receive a list of written questions and these questions have been sent to the ac-coord list. He noted that there have been some revisions and they were now ready to begin with the public expressions of support pages. The Chair asked if the comment period has to last at least 30 days as this was supposed to start 22 February 2009. MH said this period could run into the other periods as long as it doesn’t overlap with the voting period. HPH confirmed that the public comments page should be on the ASO website.

    b. Next steps

    MH said that he would work offline with the Secretariat to see that the process moved on quickly. RB said he had concerns with some of the questions. MH said the questions were still in draft form and the Nominations Committee would continue to accept comments. MH asked RB to send his comments to the ac-coord mailing list.
    DWo asked if the list of candidates should be confidential. MH said the list should be kept confidential until it is posted on the website. JS asked if the candidates would be posted on the website before the current draft meeting minutes were posted so the candidates would not be made public through the minutes. MH suggested working with the Secretariat to ensure both are posted around the same time.

    HPH said it was important to get the information out to the public and the Chair responded that the minutes could be considered as an announcement. The Chair noted that as voting would start on 14 April the webpage allowing comments to be posted should be available by 13 March.

  6. Global Policy Proposal for Remaining IPv4 Address Space

  7. The Chair asked ON to give an update from ICANN on what is expected from the ASO AC.

    ON explained that the global policy proposal (GPP) was received by the Board Secretary on 4 February and was forwarded to the Board list and then all the SOs and ACs for their potential response. This was all in line with procedures. He said there was one public comment from an ISP supporting the GPP in general but asking questions about the handling of the last /8 in the AfriNIC region. He said the summary of comments was forwarded to the ICANN Board. The GPP is now on the agenda for the Board of Directors meeting and although it was tight it came just in time to avoid the Board having to arrange an unscheduled meeting. He concluded that the last piece of advice required by the Board was that due from the ASO AC, although the preliminary draft was sent to the Board as part of the total information sent.

    The Chair thanked ON for his update and asked DW to lead the rest of the discussion.

    DW said the draft letter was based on MH’s draft letter from 2008. The draft was circulated on 3 March and there were no comments. He asked if it would be appropriate for the AC to ratify the letter and have the ASO AC Chair send it to ICANN. The Chair asked if there were any other comments and there were none.

    a. Advice letter vote

    JS proposed the motion that the ASO AC approves the letter of advice on the Global Policy Proposal for Remaining IPv4 Address Space and that this letter be immediately forwarded to the ICANN Board. WW seconded the motion. There was a roll call vote with 14 voting in favour, none opposed and no abstentions. The motion carried. The Chair immediately forwarded the letter of advice to the ICANN Board and ON confirmed receipt.

    b. Next steps

    The Chair said that it was expected the ICANN Board would act on this at their meeting the next day and ON confirmed this was the case.

    DW thanked all those who helped with the drafting of the advice letter.

  8. Communications & Procedures Committee Update

  9. a. Charter

    The Chair asked WW to lead this agenda topic. WW said he circulated the first draft of the proposed charter to the ac-coord list and he asked members to review the text and come back with suggestions for additions, omissions or improvements. He will put it on the interim wiki to stimulate collaboration on the charter. He said he and the Secretariat reviewed the set of mailing lists configured in support of the ASO AC and there are some loose ends to fix there. WW will come back to the ASO AC as a whole with suggestions on this. He said some lists may be in place and are not up to date and some perhaps should be removed, and some lists do not have an archive, which all ASO AC members should have access to.

    b. Website update

    WW said this has not received too much attention because the website is in pretty good shape at the moment and there are more important things outstanding at the moment. He said that the eVoting should be given priority and the Chair agreed with this because of the upcoming ICANN Board election. WW asked the members the best way to proceed and if there should be a formal endorsement of the draft charter. The Chair said he would like to give people time to review the charter and he suggested the Committee should work along the draft and it would be officially endorsed at the next teleconference. WW mentioned in the draft text that the charter should not be set in stone but should change according to ASO AC needs. WW concluded that observers could also send suggestions on the charter if they had any.

  10. 2009 AC Meetings

  11. a. Face-to-face meeting availability

    The Chair said that 13 candidates responded to his poll and that JS was unavailable during the proposed date of 25 May during the LACNIC Meeting in Panama City and that FO had yet to respond. WW proposed the motion that the ASO AC decides to have its face-to-face meeting on Monday, 25 May at the LACNIC Meeting site in Panama City. HG seconded the motion and there were none opposed. The motion carried. The Chair said that the Secretariat should work with the LACNIC organisers to arrange the meeting and he noted that RG had already begun the organisation process. JS asked if it would be 13:00 UTC for the meeting. The Chair said the next step was to work out the agenda and book a room and decide if the AC needed half a day. WW said the current plans of the Communications and Procedures Committee was to have something to put forward to the members during this workshop regarding communicative tools for the AC so he asked all members to keep that day as free as possible for informal get-togethers. JS asked if there would be a bridge for the informal chats and the Chair agreed that this would be good. RG said they would be able to provide a bridge. The Chair will work with the Secretariat and RG to form the schedule but it may take the whole day. The Chair also mentioned that he would like to have an informal dinner for attendees the night of the meeting.

    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.

    Action: 0309-04
    The Secretariat to update the meeting schedule on the ASO website to include the face-to-face meeting on 25 May in Panama City.

  12. ASO/ASO AC Activities at ICANN Public Meeting

  13. a. SO/AC Open Joint Session

    The Chair said this session took place on Monday, 2 March. He said it was broken into three parts. The first part of the discussion had members from SOs and ACs, but individuals spoke only on behalf of themselves unless stated so people would not be misrepresented. The second section was set up the same way and the third was a public comment section for feedback that panelists sat down for.

    The Chair said the first section was on domain names, gTLDs and ccTLDs and surrounding issues – the Chair didn’t comment during this section. He noted that the second session was more relevant to the ASO AC. During this section the Chair described the global policy development process with the idea that aspects of this could be used for other groups’ processes. He said ICANN plans to have these sessions at each meeting going forward. The Chair invited AC Members and the greater ASO to join him at the table for future meetings. The Chair said people did not really want to talk about IPv6 in this forum, although perhaps a discussion topic could be added in future to drive people towards this subject. ON said that many felt that the joint session forum was a good way of addressing a number of topics or topics that touch areas that affect many people. ON said it worked better than it did the first time it was tried at the Cairo ICANN Meeting, and the Chair suggested the layout of the table in Mexico helped to improve this. ON added that a professional moderator also helped.

    b. ASO Participation in the “ICANN 101” segment during the Plenary/General Session of the At-Large Summit

    ON said that he spoke at this in a 10-minute slot and explained the ASO MoU and how addressing works within the Global PDP. He said it was a well-attended and well-organised session and he asked attendees at the session to go to their regional RIRs to find out more about the global PDP because when a policy reaches ICANN it has gone too far to become involved. He said it was a very successful event on the whole.

    c. Workshops

    The Chair talked about the possibility of having workshops on issues such as IPv6 deployment in future at ICANN Meetings. He said there was an IPv6 workshop at the current ICANN Meeting on deployment of IPv6 in developing countries and governments’ role in prompting IPv6 uptake.

  14. Updates from RIR meeting

  15. a. 10-11 Feb: ARIN Caribbean Sector Meeting (Bridgetown, Barbados)

    The Chair said the ARIN ASO AC members would look in the ARIN website for details on the meeting and update the ASO AC at the next meeting if there was anything to note.

    b. 23-27 Feb: APNIC 27 (Manila, Philippines)
    The Chair noted that TF sent an update to the ac-coord list on this meeting.

  16. AOB

  17. The Chair added two new topics to the agenda here.

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

    The Chair noted that the GPP has reached consensus in the APNIC region and it has been submitted in the ARIN region. He said it is the task of the PPFT members for those regions to notify the Chair and then the Chair should notify the rest of the AC. He said the ASO AC needed to confirm that it was indeed a global policy.

    JS asked if everyone was familiar with the policy and offered to read it out. He said that Section 5, “Details of the Proposal” divided the proposal into two phases, the first being recovery of IPv4 addresses and the second being the allocation of recovered addresses by IANA. He noted that the first phase, under Section 5.1, says that the IANA shall establish a mechanism to receive recovered IPv4 addresses and it will place them in a pool called the recovered IPv4 pool. The RIRs will use their own strategies to recover IPv4 addresses and these addresses will be returned to the IANA on quarterly intervals with the minimum size of a return being a /24. Section 5.2 covers the allocation of the recovered addresses and this says that once the IANA says the free pool is empty they will then move to the unallocated IPv4 address pool and will make allocations from this space. The allocations are governed in a specific way – they are given out in six-month periods, and at the beginning of each six-month period they will determine how much space is in the available pool and they will give out an allocation unit that is one tenth of that space and RIRs can request an allocation unit based on what their need is.

    WW said he looked at the APNIC page and he expressed surprise that the policy proposal reached consensus in the region within about a month and he asked what was the situation that made the APNIC community wave it through so quickly. WW said that if the proposal reaches consensus in all regions the ASO AC has to check that the procedure was followed in all regions and it would be difficult to certify that the procedure was correctly followed in all regions. The Chair asked the PPFT member for APNIC to look at the timeline for this proposal and compare it with the PDP for that particular region to see that the PDP was correctly followed.

    MH asked if this was in the purview of ASO AC. He suggested, from an ARIN RIR member standpoint that it would be a good idea to let it stand for the moment. VN said that it was not necessary for the ASO AC to check at this time that the PDP for an individual region was followed. AB said that it was not a question of the PDP being followed correctly in the APNIC region but whether if the proposal passed in all regions it would be applicable as a GPP.

    JS asked if the concern was whether the policy was not posted for the correct amount of time. The Chair said it was down to the PDP of APNIC and it was not the job of the ASO AC to determine this. JS responded that if it was determined that it was a GPP that moved forward in other regions it would be a good idea to let that region know that the correct procedures had not been followed. The Chair said this would possibly be something for the NRO NC member for that particular region and JS agreed with that approach. MH said the ASO AC could not intervene officially at a premature stage.

    JS, commenting generally on the policy, said he felt people in the APNIC community did not seem too concerned with the proposal because they felt it would not be used as most address space would not be returned but sold on a market. WW said this is a reasonable assumption but that being the case, he asked why go through the motions of coming up with a global policy. AP said it was impossible to tell what would happen and although address space might be transferred through other methods it is wise to have a policy for the RIRs in case this scenario comes up. He said this proposal allows the RIRs to be prepared and this is important.

    [DW left the call at 14:52 UTC]
    [SB left the call at 14:52 UTC]

    JS said the final concern was on the minimum allocation that could be given – under the policy if a single /24 is returned it would be divided in ten and a /28 would be allocated and this would be too small to give to an RIR. WW said the ASO AC should not discuss individual merits of the policy. The Chair said it was useful to be informed of the discussions that already went on rather than arguing the merits.

    The Chair said it was up to the ASO AC to determine if this was a GPP. WW asked if the same text was submitted in all five regions. The Chair said it suffices if the ASO AC determines that a GPP was submitted in one region and then the PPFT members should go to their individual RIRs and request that the policy be placed on the agenda for discussion if it has not already occurred. AB proposed the motion that the ASO AC having examined APNIC proposal 069 version 2 has determined that this proposal does fulfil the requirements to eventually become a global policy. JS seconded the motion. There were none opposed and the motion carried.

    Action 0309-05: Members of the PPFT to check to see if the Global Policy Proposal for the Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registrie has been submitted in their region and if not then request that it be so submitted.

    b. Improved interaction with the NRO EC

    The Chair said he has discussed this issue with AP and RE. He noted that since the last ASO AC teleconference there has been NRO EC meeting minutes placed on the NRO website and the EC agreed that when EC minutes are posted the link would be sent to the ASO AC so the ASO AC would be aware of any actions planned by the NRO EC that would affect the ASO AC.

    The Chair asked if there were any ideas for increased cooperation. AP said that coordination between the EC and the AC has not been ideal over the last year and AP said that as the Secretariat for the NRO EC for the year he would do what he could to help improve matters.

    The Chair thanked NH and his team for organising the onsite facilities for those at the ICANN Meeting in Mexico.

    RB wanted to note the policy on the potential changing of the ICANN regions and he said the consultation period has so far been extended and the ASO and the NRO should perhaps comment on this because it would have an effect on the boundaries of the regions. The Chair said the ASO AC would have to determine whether it affected the addressing community and the ASO AC members should look at this to see if it falls into the organisation’s purview.

    The Chair asked if there could be better interaction between the ASO AC and the ICANN Board so issues that might be indirectly related to the ASO AC could be brought to the council’s attention. He added that the matter brought forward by RB was a case in point. HG said that the ASO MoU was very clear and that any geographical changes by ICANN would not affect the constitution of the ASO AC. The Chair commented that the proposed changes could affect the make-up of the ICANN Board. HG said that under the proposal every SO would have only one seat and the ASO AC should wait to see how it develops. WW said that there was no need to make a formal motion on whether or not the ASO AC needed to comment on this ICANN proposal but rather it should review the proposal and then decide if any action needed to be taken. ON sent the following link to the proposal to the ac-coord list:
    http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-18feb09-en.htm

    Action: 0309-06
    The Secretariat to forward the minutes of posted NRO EC Meetings to the ac-coord list when they become available.

  18. Adjournment

  19. The Chair called for a motion to adjourn the meeting. AB moved to adjourn and HPH seconded. There were no objections. The meeting adjourned at 15:15 UTC.

    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.

    Action: 0209-02
    Secretariat to liaise with IETF Secretariat to arrange time and facilities for in-person interviews to take place from 25-27 March 2009 at the IETF Meeting in San Francisco and liaise with MH and ASO AC Nominations Committee regarding their requirements.

    Action: 0209-04
    WW to work on draft charter for the Communications and Procedures Committee and present it to the ASO AC.

    Action: 0309-01
    Secretariat to change the status of the minutes of the 5 February meeting from Draft.

    Action: 0309-02
    Secretariat to update the previous minutes to reflect the correct dates of 25-27 March 2009 for Nomination Committee members to be in attendance at the IETF Meeting.

    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.

    Action: 0309-04
    The Secretariat to update the meeting schedule on the ASO website to include the face-to-face meeting on 25 May in Panama City.

    Action: 0309-05
    Members of the PPFT to check to see if the Global Policy Proposal for the Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registrie has been submitted in their region and if not then request that it be so submitted.

    Action: 0309-06
    The Secretariat to forward the minutes of posted NRO EC Meetings to the ac-coord list when they become available.