ASO AC Teleconference 7 July 2011
ASO AC Attendees:
AfriNIC
Alan Barrett, AB, Vice Chair
Jean Robert Hountomey, JRH
APNIC
Naresh Ajwani, NA, Vice Chair
Tomohiro Fujisaki, TF
Andy Linton, AL
ARIN
Ron da Silva, RdS
Louie Lee, LL, Chair
Jason Schiller, JS
LACNIC
Sebastián Bellagamba, SB
Hartmut Glaser, HG
RIPE NCC
Hans Petter Holen, HPH
Dave Wilson – DW
Secretariat:
Therese Colosi (ARIN)
Observers:
ARIN
Susan Hamlin, SH
Sean Hopkins, SHo
LACNIC
Sofia Silva, SS
RIPE
Emelio Madaio, EM
ICANN
Olof Nordling, ON
Absent:
Fiona Asonga, Francisco Obispo, Wilfried Woeber
1. Welcome
The Chair called the meeting to order at 16:03 UTC. The presence of quorum was noted.
2. Agenda Review
The Chair added ‘RIR Meeting Report’ as Item 12 to the agenda.
3. Approval of the Minutes
It was moved by DW, and seconded by SB, that:
“The ASO AC approves the Minutes of June 2, 2011, as written.”
The motion carried with no objections.
New Action Item 0707-01: SECRETARIAT. Remove ‘Draft’ from June 2, 2011 ASO AC Minutes.
4. Open Action Item Review.
0602-01: SECRETARIAT: Remove Draft from May 12, 2011 ASO AC Minutes. The Secretariat confirmed that this action has been completed. The Chair stated the item as closed. CLOSED.
0602-02: SECRETARIAT/CHAIR: ASO AC/ICANN Board Lunch. The Chair tasked the Secretariat to contact RIR staff, to see who can attend. The Chair stated he would contact ASO AC members. The Secretariat confirmed that this action has been completed. The Chair stated the item as closed. CLOSED.
0622-02: ASO AC WiKi. WW to work with PR and the RIPE NCC on the Wiki. The Chair stated that if WW needed more help, he could turn to the Communications Committee.
OPEN.
At the last meeting, the Chair stated he would ask WW to post an update to the list. The Chair apologized for not sending the request to WW. He noted, however, that there was no update at this time.
5. Status of GPP-IPv4-2010: Global Policy For IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post Exhaustion.
PPFT: DW, AB, FO, RdS
The Chair stated that he believed that there had been no new activity for this global policy proposal (GPP), since the last ASO AC meeting. AB stated that the two GPPs were discussed at the recent AfriNIC-14 Public Policy Meeting (PPM) in June. He reported that this GPP did not reach consensus and is still under discussion in the region, as AfriNIC does not have a procedure for removing policies from consideration. He explained that GPP-IPv4-2011 did reach consensus; and, that it was very unlikely that GPP-IPv4-2010 would move forward in the region, due to the conflicting text of the two proposals.
6. Status of GPP-IPv4-2011: Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA.
PPFT: JS, FO, HPH, TF, FA
The Chair asked AB what the discussion was like at the AfriNIC PPM on this GPP. He asked if there were any major concerns. AB stated that there were no major concerns, and did not recall any objections or points of contention in the discussion of this GPP. He stated that GPP 2010 and 2011 were both presented and discussed jointly. During the discussions, it was clear the attendees preferred GPP 2011. It will now go to last call, which is at a minimum, 2 weeks. JS asked if AB could characterize what the AfriNIC community liked or disliked about GPP 2011 and GPP 2010. AB stated that the most important issue was how much to allocate to each region. The point of allocating equal amounts in GPP 2011 made that proposal the more effective one.
AL stated he had spoken with APNIC folks during the ICANN meeting in Singapore in June. He asked that if this policy is going through in most regions, what will be needed to do to break the deadlock between the other RIRS and ARIN, as this proposal has not reached consensus in the ARIN region. His concern was because the APNIC PPM in Busan was approaching, and he wanted to know if there were any discussions that could be fostered with regard to the issues ARIN was having with this GPP.
JS replied that at last ARIN PPM there were 2 concerns raised: 1) there should be some needs basis on how addresses are allocated. GPP 2010 says each RIR gets an equal amount, but only when it is in depleted status. There would need to be a definition for ‘depleted status’ for the RIRs. 2) Some folks do not want to return addresses, and some believe it beneficial that ARIN returns addresses. They can only support it if the addresses are returned and reallocated to other RIRs where there is a level of stewardship. For the ARIN region, it would be helpful if these concerns were addressed.
AL summarized for clarification the concerns: 1) does the registry need more space to fill requests to members; 2) when they allocate there is an assessment of need. JS replied that the concerns are: needs-based, and Internet stewardship, but agreed with AL. AL asked is there a feeling that the ARIN community wants to see the same method of allocation in each RIR, or a just a reasonable mechanism in place in each RIR? JS replied that a reasonable mechanism would be sufficient. Some level of Internet stewardship. ARIN should not be reallocating addresses if they go to another region and they are not meeting the global community’s needs.
DW asked how this would be integrated with RIPE’s proposal. JS stated the transfer policy would cover it, and track what comes out of the returned pool – an approach the community would be comfortable with. GPP 2010 gives each RIR an equal block. If they have a need for more, it is not transferred unless there is a GPP in place.
DW stated that personally, he had a concern about the integrity of the registration database. He stated that between the issues of integrity of the database or a policy on transfers, he could not speculate what the RIPE community would choose. If the RIRs need to account for something else, it would be good to know. JS requested DW point the ASO AC to the discussions on the topics. DW stated he would forward the links to the ASO AC list.
7. ICANN Review Teams: Related Activities Update.
A) Security Stability Resiliency Review Team (SSR RT) Update. HG stated he posted the presentation given at the ICANN Singapore meeting to the ASO AC’s list, and requested the council members review it and provide their comments. The RT is reviewing many ICANN documents, with the goal of improving the SSR.
B) WHOIS Review Team (WHOIS RT) Update. No update at this time.
8. Status of 2011 ICANN NomCom.
No update at this time.
9. Status of ASO Review.
The Chair reported ASO AC members met the ASO reviewers, along with Raimundo Beca, during the ICANN Singapore meeting. The reviewers interviewed several of the ASO AC, and many people on the list remotely related to numbering world, in addition to past ASO AC members. He stated that the questions regarded ASO AC member’s interactions and what the members would like to see improved.
HG asked if the report would be made available to the ASO AC for discussion, prior to it being sent to ICANN. The Chair stated he would request this from the Number Resource Organization’s Executive Council (NRO EC). HG stated that when the Nomination Committee (NomCom) was reviewed, they did not see the report before it was sent to the ICANN Board. He believed that if the review is related to the Council, the Council needed to review and discuss it prior to it being sent to the ICANN Board.
AL agreed. He stated that he was previously on a review team for a root server advisory committee and the report was made available to the interviewees. He stated it was very useful and he would also like to see the ASO reviewer’s report before it is sent to the ICANN Board.
The Chair stated he was uncertain of the procedure and the timeline for the ASO AC to accept any recommendations, or to have input on the findings; and, that he would request this from the NRO EC.
It was moved by HG, and seconded by AL, that:
“The ASO AC would like to have access to the ASO Review report before it is sent to the NRO or the ICANN Board.”
The Chair called for discussion. NA supported the motion and suggested the wording “…would like review of the ASO report, before it is sent to the ICANN Board, to be discussed within the ASO AC.”
AB stated that he did not believe that the ASO AC could demand it. He stated the ASO AC should request a copy of the report before it is sent to the ICANN Board.
JS agreed but suggested the wording be changed to “…to provide us a copy of the report, and give us a chance to review it…”
The Chair asked HG if he accepted this modification to the motion. HG agreed stating that access is what he would like, before the report is sent to the Board.
The Chair restated the motion as follows, seconded by AL:
“The ASO AC requests to receive a draft of the ASO Review report with enough time to provide feedback on the draft report to the Review Team.”
HG supported this motion. The motion carried w/no objections.
New Action Item 0707-02: CHAIR. Send Request from ASO AC to NRO EC regarding providing a copy of the draft ASO Review report to the ASO AC for review and comment.
10. Procedure for Selection of Individuals to the ICANN Board of Directors.
The Chair stated that he needed to provide feedback to the ASO AC Secretariat on the Board Selection Procedures, and that he would get that done with enough time for the ASO AC to review it, and provide feedback, before the next ASO AC teleconference.
DW pointed out that elections would be coming up in the next couple of months and this item needs to be acted upon quickly. The Chair agreed and stated he would ask ICANN staff for deadline clarification via e-mail.
11. Report of ASO activities at ICANN 41 in Singapore
A) Secretariat Support. The Chair stated that due to flight problems, Susan Hamlin, from ARIN, was not able to provide Secretariat support in person. He reported that Susan’s team did an excellent job remotely. He further noted that Louise Flynn, from APNIC Marketing, provided excellent on-site support, and in coordinating logistics, etc. The Chair thanked Louise.
B) ASO Dinner. The Chair stated that the dinner was held, and was open to the ASO AC teleconference attendees, as well as RIR staff that were in town, and to RIR EC/RIR Board members.
C) ASO Lunch with ICANN Board. A presentation was given to the ICANN Board with 7 discussion topics, and the ASO AC chose the following three to concentrate on, in the limited time they had for presenting:
1. How can ICANN and the NRO better collaborate on matters pertaining to Internet governance?
2. How can cross-constituency communication occur between the ASO and the other SOs; as well as the cross-constituency communication between the RIRs and the other SOs, and their constituencies?
5. How can ICANN assist the RIRs in promoting IPv6? (i.e., promotion, education, new terms for Registry contracts?)
The Chair stated that they did not come to definitive conclusions on the items, but determined that folks would like more information; and, it must presented in a way that they understand, and that would be relevant to them. For example, in addition to the regular Wednesday workshop, the ASO AC could present a 15-minute, tailored presentation to each ICANN Supporting Organization and Advisory Council. The Chair stated that a few of the groups were receptive to this idea. He suggested starting with two groups while the ASO AC refines its format.
He noted that the interaction was productive, but the meeting needed to be longer. Peter Dengate-Thrush, out-going ICANN Board Chair, suggested the meeting be 90 minutes in the future.
D) ASO AC Workshop. The Chair stated that this workshop was not well attended, since everyone there was familiar with the workings of the ASO and the PDPs. The Chair suggested it might be time to try a slightly different format for the workshop. He noted two interesting discussion points that occurred after the presentation was over: 1) Paul Wilson, of APNIC, spoke about their experience as the first RIR to reach the last /8 of their allocation pool and 2) discussions with Raimundo Beca, of LACNIC, and two consultants from ITEMS International, who are performing the ASO Review.
E) ASO Report. The Chair reported he had presented an update on what has been happening in the numbers world: APNIC running out of IPv4, ICANN Board lunch, ASO Workshop, World IPv6 Day, ASO Review. He stated that there was a question & answer period and discussions. It was agreed the following points were important and were good to bring up, but there was not enough time to give them the attention they deserved. Points included: IPv6 outreach to developing regions, and IP transfer policies. The Chair suggested that perhaps these are topics to discuss at the next Workshop. He noted that the format of the report was complimented and well received.
F) ICANN 42. The Chair stated that the next ICANN PPM is scheduled for October 23-28 in Dakar, Senegal. He asked for volunteers from the other regions to participate in the ASO Workshop and ICANN Board Luncheon for this meeting. AB volunteered from AfriNIC, but stated that if FA or JRH wanted to volunteer, he would step aside; a volunteer is needed from APNIC: HG stated he could not participated for LACNIC due to his SSR RT schedule, but that he would suggest to FO or SB that they volunteer; HPH stated that he has been to two meetings this year for RIPE. DW stated he would check his schedule. HPH was open to discussing the matter with him.
The Chair urged members to please begin making travel arrangements as soon as possible.
12. RIR Meeting Report: AfriNIC-14 (June 4-10, 2011).
The Chair stated that the full report of the meeting is available online: http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-14/. He noted that AB had provided a meeting report via email to the AC’s list. AB reiterated that the 2 GPPS (2010 and 2011) were discussed at the meeting. He noted an IPv4 soft landing proposal had reached consensus, and was due for last call that deals with the final /8. The Chair noted that APNIC is currently only giving out /22s, at most, since they reached their last /8.
13. Any Other Business.
The Chair called for any other business. ON suggested adding links from the ASO website where the GPPs are, to the background reports on the ICANN website. The Chair agreed. The Chair further suggested that the last update also be added so that readers can review the most current update on each proposal. ON stated there had been a slight delay for final call from AfriNIC on the latest GPP, but the update will be on the website either tomorrow or Monday.
New Action Item 0707-03: SECRETARIAT/OLOF N. Update ASO AC website with a link back to ON’s report, and the last update for each GPP on the ASO website. ON to liaise with SH to keep her informed.
14. Adjournment.
The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 16: 59 UTC. AB moved to adjourn, seconded by DW. The meeting was adjourned with no objections.
Last modified on 29/01/2020