AC Attendees:

  • Alan Barrett, AB – AfriNIC
  • Naresh Ajwani, NA – APNIC
  • Kenny Huang, KH – APNIC
  • Tomohiro Fujisaki, TF – APNIC
  • Louis Lee, LL – ARIN
  • Martin Hannigan, MH – ARIN
  • Sebastián Bellagamba, SB – LACNIC
  • Hartmut Glaser, HG – LACNIC
  • Dave Wilson, DW – RIPE NCC
  • Hans Petter Holen, HPH – RIPE NCC

Secretariat:

  • Laureana Pavón, LP – LACNIC

Observers:

  • Einar Bohlin, EB – ARIN
  • Kuo-Wei Wu, KW – ICANN
  • Olof Nordling, ON – ICANN Staff
  • John Curran, JC – ARIN

Apologies:

  • Wilfried Woeber, WW – RIPE NCC

Agenda:

1.- Approval of the 13 May teleconference minutes.

2.- New GPP: Global Policy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post Exhaustion.

3.- AOB.

4.- Adjournment.

1. Approval of the 13 May teleconference minutes.

LL welcomed everyone to the meeting at 1310 UTC.

Motion to approve the minutes of the 13 May 2010 ASO AC teleconference by HG, seconded by DW. There being no objections, the motion carried.

Action item 0610-1: The Secretariat to change the status of the minutes of the 13 May 2010 meeting from draft to approved.

2.- New GPP: Global Policy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post Exhaustion.

LL observed that this proposal had been sent to the Chair and the Secretariat and that, in accordance with our procedure and the MoU, it was now necessary to decide, first, whether this is a global policy and, if so, send it on to the five RIRs. He added that he hoped that everyone had had a chance to read it and asked whether anyone wanted to make a motion.

LL proposed the following motion, which was put forth by AB: “Having examined the proposed global policy for IPv4 allocation by the IANA post exhaustion, the AC has determined that it meets the definition of a global policy.”

DW asked whether this motion meant that someone in the RIPE region should take action or do we first sit tight and see what the authors are going to do. LL replied that the postings to the regional policy lists were drafts looking for comments, not submissions, and that at this moment no one has take any formal action in the RIRs. He observed that if the AC determines that it is a global policy they will have the PPTF formed to request to their respective RIRs within 10 days that the policy proposal be placed in the policy forum. LL added that this does imply some activity for the ASO AC member of each region, but that our policies state that we expect the authors to shepherd the policies within each region. If this doesn’t happen, then we don’t have a procedure for the ASO AC or the NRO NC members to handle it.

DW wondered what it was that had been sent to RIPE, whether it was a draft text. He said that from what he’d seen it looks like a global policy to him, but that the only copy he’s seen is not the formal proposal yet.

LL mentioned that he had sent a pdf file containing the policy proposal to the mailing list, adding that the pdf is what should be worked on, discarding anything that was previously sent to the mailing list, as any versions submitted previously to the RIR lists have been modified to consider feedback.

LL said that he’d heard from one of the authors that they were going to make some grammatical and non-substantial changes to the definitions part (spelling, etc.) and said he’ll be asking the PPTF to send a slightly different version to the AC but that he’d send it to the whole AC first.

SB noted that in his opinion they should focus on the formality of the proposal that was received, not on its content. He added that the AC has nothing to do with the content itself. He said that the formality meant giving feedback to the authors regarding whether or not it looks like a global policy. SB said that LL had summarized very well what a global policy must accomplish in order to be global: if it has anything to do with IANA then, according to the MoU, it’s global. He observed that they are not meant to shepherd the policies or deal with their content, that their role in the PDP is simply to stick to the formal definition: it has to do with the IANA and has emerged with a single text from the policy forums of the five RIRs.

In this sense, SB suggested that wording to the effect that “if it emerges out of the five RIRs with a single text” should be added to the proposal in order to fulfill the definition. AB agreed with SB. LL then proposed a second version for the motion:

“Having examined the proposed global policy for IPv4 allocations by the IANA post exhaustion, the AC has determined that it meets the definition of a global policy if it has the agreement of all RIRs according to their global policy development processes and ICANN and we recognize that it requires specific actions or outcomes on the part of IANA in order to be implemented.

DW said that in his opinion it was not necessary to include the extra clarification.

At this point, AB proposed the following alternative wording for a new motion:

“Having examined the proposed global policy for IPv4 allocations by the IANA post exhaustion, the ASO AC has determined that the global policy proposal, if approved and ratified, would satisfy the conditions for classification as a global policy as defined in Section 5 of the ASO MoU.”

This motion was seconded by MH and a roll call vote was conducted with the following outcome: 10 votes for, none against. The motion carried by unanimous decision.

LL asked for five AC volunteers to form the PPFT so that they may request their respective RIRs to take this policy proposal in their policy development process.

The following AC members volunteered: MH for the ARIN region, AB for the AfriNIC region, SB for the LACNIC region, KH for the APNIC region, and DW for the RIPE region.

DW proposed the following motion: “The AC designates AB, KH, MH, SB, and DW to form the PPFT for this global policy proposal, and directs the PPFT to request to their respective RIR within 10 days that the policy proposal be placed in the policy forum for their region for processing in accordance with the regional policy development process.”

This motion was seconded by MH and a roll call vote was conducted with the following outcome: 10 votes for, none against. The motion carried by unanimous decision.

EB observed that the ARIN PDP requires that someone must submit the proposal on a template and according to the PDP. He asked whether the authors or the PPFT will submit the proposal, to which MH replied that this is an implementation detail that the PPFT can handle.

LL said that he’d noticed that the APNIC PDP also has a template that asks certain questions that are not addressed within the text of the proposal, therefore the author would need to assist/submit the proposal in the APNIC region. LL added that the PPFT can contact the authors personally or, if you have any trouble reaching them, through LL or MH.

DW requested clarification as to what the next step was, whether once the PPTF is set up they should contact the authors individually saying that we’re about to submit the proposal to the PDP in our RIRs, to which LL replied that, if assistance is not needed, they should simply send a courtesy note but that, if assistance is necessary (templates), then they should definitely contact the author. He clarified that in some cases the text in the pdf can be submitted directly.

EB mentioned once again that in the ARIN region it is necessary that the proposal be submitted by the author, to which LL replied that in ARIN’s case the assistance required from the authors would be to have them submit the proposal themselves.

MH added that implementation issues can easily sorted out by the PPFT and that, in addition, he is one of the authors so he believes there will be no problems.

3.- AOB

No further business was proposed for discussion.

4.- Adjournment.

Motion to adjourn by MH, seconded by KH. There being no objections, the meeting was adjourned at 13.45 UTC.