Wednesday, 16 May 2018
GERT DÖRING: Good morning the Address Policy Working Group. All of you, thousands! Everybody awake now? Good morning. This is the Address Policy Working Group. If you are interested in DNS, please go over to the side room. But looking at the number of people in the room, I think you are the hard core of Address Policy special interest folks, thanks for coming. I heard it was a really good party yesterday. I'm seeing it in some of the faces.
I'm Gert Döring, as I think all of you know. Sander Steffann, my co‑chair for the last time this time, and this is the agenda for today.
First of all, well the usual agenda bashing, minutes, blah blah blah. Then we have Working Group Chair selection and this time it's, well it's something special since we actually change work group chairs and not just step down and step up again. A quick talk from Axel Pawlik on ASO and ICANN and sort of what to do about it. Then we have a quick talk from Filiz about global policy proposals because there was one in the LACNIC area that was intended to be a global policy proposal and it turned out that the last global policy proposal was so many years ago that hardly anyone resource what a global policy proposal S so it's good to have a refresher on that.
Then we have the usual topic by Marco giving us an overview what's happening worldwide. Like, Jordi Palet having five policy proposals in every single regional registry and nobody else getting anything else done.
More details on that later.
Then we have also the usual topic, feedback from the NCC RS by Andrea. This one might actually go to the first slot, even if it's listed in the second slot, depending on the timing with the other items.
Then we discuss the Open Policy proposals that we have in the machine and some more discussion in the Open Policy hour.
So, agenda bashing. Anything that needs to go to the other slot due to conflicts? Anything that should go to this slot due to conflicts? Anything I missed? No. So we will stick to this agenda.
Minutes. Minutes from Dubai have been sent to the mailing list. ‑‑ have been announced on the mailing list and published on the web. Big thanks to the NCC for doing really great job on the minutes. And any comments on the minutes? Anything that needs to be changed?
No, so I declare the minutes to be final.
People in the back row, please listen. I can see you.
So, Working Group Chair selection. The process we have in this Working Group is one of us gets to step down every second year and is free to step up as a candidate again. In the last years, well we always have been back and since it's sort of hard to compete with a willing incumbent, nobody ever volunteered to be a working group Chair. So there was a bit boring so this sometime it's a bit more exciting because Sander said he wants to Chair a different Working Group now. It's not clear yet which one, but not this one. Cannot just step down and become a white badge wear err ‑‑
SANDER STEFFANN: I did already volunteer for the arbiters panel, I'm not going away completely
GERT DÖRING: Anyway, Sander is stepping down. We published that on the list. And well the process says publish on the list no later than four weeks before the meeting. Then candidates make themselves known on the list and we get feedback and we decide by consensus which is actually a bit complicated if we have more than one willing and capable candidate because well, stepping up is saying this guy sucks, is not something that's happening, so I expected lots of silence in here with two good candidates, and this is why I put in quite a lot of time for this item here. Fortunately, it solved itself because all of a sudden on the mailing list everybody said plus one for Erik and Sean then said, yeah well, since everybody is liking Erik, I'm no longer competing. So we have one candidate. And without further ado, I would suggest that we all hum for Erik and then we have a new Working Group Chair.
Big thanks to Sean. Could you please stand up and get a round of applause.
I think you would have done a good Chair but if the competition is too fierce... I am stepping down at this time, next year at this time, so we will see. So Erik, please come up
GERT DÖRING: So we have a new Working Group Chair, he has to have a yellow badge so you know who to avoid. And Sander has been doing this for 11 and a half years, so that's a big thank you and a big round of applause please.
So, and with that we all sit down again because now the stage belongs to Axel.
AXEL PAWLIK: Good morning. Thank you for coming. I can see a couple of you. So, this is a relatively quick talk about the future of the ASO and open consultation with the tag line what are we going to do about it?
So what is it? We're talking about the Address Supporting Organisation within ICANN, you might have heard about it, you should have heard about it. For those of you who are new, the ASO is the Address Supporting Organisation, it's part of the structure of ICANN, when I first travel for the RIPE NCC many many years ago, I went to LA to one of those ICANN meetings and I signed the ASO MoU probably before I knew what it was really. I was in the job for a week or two. So, the ASO is ‑‑ has a role in the ICANN organisation. The ICANN structure. And it does its work mostly through the ASO Address Council. So, the Address Council has a small but important role in coordinating global policy development. It defines procedures to select individuals for the various other bodies within ICANN. It does provide, if asked to do that, advice on typically addressing issues to the ICANN board or to the other ICANN bodies if they ask. It selects candidates for two seats on the ICANN board and one seat, one person on the ICANN OMCOM. That's all fine, then a couple of years later, the RIRs got together and said we will organise ourselves a little bit better than before and we call our he was in the number resource organisation and we did an MoU with each other and another MoU clarifying the first one, the ASO MoU, with ICANN and we said the role of the adware supporting organisation within ICANN is now fulfilled, but a number resource organisation. And the ASO Address Council, oh that is now fill filled by the NRO number Council. Same people, different title there but they do the same things. That's how it is currently.
So who is in terms of people, who is the ASO? We say these days because basically within the ICANN field it's the CEOs of the RIRs and the NRO Executive Council and also together with the NRO number Council we formed the ASO. And the good people on the number Council from your region is newer Anna Herve and Filiz, they are somewhere down there. Thank you for doing all that work. Oh my God, there's a big blob there. It's all simple on the left. It says you know, there is communities the RIRs and we know those guys. And through the ASO somehow they interact with the big ICANN blob and there are lots of other things, the route server system advisory and security and stability Advisory Council and generic names things and country code names things and at large things and governments even.
So, it's rather complicated, how they all work together within ICANN.
It has become clearer but more complex. After the IANA stewardship transition. There was a whole lot of talk and work done on accountability and making sure that somebody can control this ICANN thing by various ways. And the name it got was the empowered community. All of us together that we sit and work within ICANN are part t the ASO as well. That has the effect that the ASO is asked more to do things, participate a bit more within ICANN. Lots of those processes are somewhat mechanical. But basically, more procedures, extra work being required from the ASO. ‑‑ from the ASO Address Council and also from the CEOs of the RIRs.
Now, we have last year done a review, or had a third‑party do a review of the Address Supporting Organisation. We talked about this here before. Items published its review in August 2017. This is a thing that happens regularly, the review of the all the supporting organisations. We have done one of those a couple of years before. This is the last one. We presented the review at the last RIPE meeting, and we said we would sort of talk about this a bit further. So that's what we're doing now.
In February of this year, the ASO, the NRO EC and the AC together issued a joint response out of the items of what we got.
The initial response there was to 17 of the 18 recommendations. Generally items said yeah, it goes rather well, yes, there is a reason the AS D a within ICANN, it serves its purpose, it's nice and transparent but we have a couple of recommendation to say make it clearer to everybody what this is and how it works. So 17 of those recommendations were fairly straightforward and have been replied to and implemented. But there was one big question at the end of the 18th recommendation says "NRO should initiate a public consultation involving the five RIR communities, to determine the future structure of the ASO."
So, this is important. Like I said, the ASO is deeply routed currently within this ICANN system, within the empowered community. And looking at it, we still are in the process of understanding better what will come up, what might come up, than what we would have to do and which ways we should do those things. There is more work. And we have talked to some of you already and here and there there is the feeling that there might be maybe a little bit much for the benefit we get out of ICANN. I mean we get addresses from ICANN, from IANA, we have this service local contract with ICANN, and we get our addresses from there but not that often. And, there is lots of things going on in ICANN around names and other things that might be of limited relevance to our core interests. Maybe.
So, what do we do about this?
The items report has a nice matrix in there and one option says, you could do nothing, just continue. Second option says yeah, increase coordination, make things a little bit clearer. And option 3 calls for a two house ASO Council. I won't go into the details here. You probably have read that before. These those are options they identify, but of course that was just the ASO review and we are in charge and we can say, or you can say how do you want to do this?
So the consultation itself tries to answer a couple of questions. What adjustments, if any, should be made to address the issues of confusion about roles and rising work load?
Should adjustments be limited to the ASO related documents and agreements?
Over what timeframe should this happen?
Are there any strategic aspects that should be taken into account when we make those adjustments?
So, right. Scope of the consultation, the updates and adjustments to documents, procedural clarifications and adjustments, there is again this confusion, ASO, NRO, who is who and what are they all doing, why are there so many acronyms. The complexity between the ASO, NRO, ICANN and the various ICANN bodies. And again relevance cost of the RIRs, we send lots of people around and do work there, it's not coming for free.
What we should not talk about in here is the global policy development process, that is clearly defined, again it's not part of this consultation. And also, the ASO AC's role within that, it's part of the global policy development process. That's all fine, that all works.
So, I am lucky that I'm heading the RIPE NCC, it starts with an R and typically we are the last RIR to come up with updates and also in this row of meetings, we are the last. So I can tell you what the other RIRs have done with their communities so far. Basically they have done the same talk and had a bit of feedback there.
So AFRINIC last week said yeah, we should, as a number community, continue to participate within ICANN. To push our viewpoints on things. We should be careful that we don't mission creep or scope creep there. So we should be very, very alert. And basically, the way they want to do this is ask the NRO NC representatives from the African region to engage with the community, for their community to determine a way forward.
APNIC was actually first this year. They decided not to go for the status quo, so some change should be done.
The Working Group there has developed a straw man proposal. Again, looking at the basically the two house model there, clarifying which part does what. The NRO part and the ASO AC part. It's helpful they say to have a number community to have access to the global community, especially maybe the governments within ICANN through its GAC. And it's our, as number communities responsibility to respond to requests from ICANN or to decline requests.
ARIN said, yeah, probably the relationship with ICANN should be simplified and should remain focused on the core number community matters.
The EC and the AC need to be diligent in declining invitation that is lie outside of the core numbering interests.
NRO, ASO, those things, so many names for the same or similar thing, is confusing. We should probably engage with ICANN as the number resource organisation, with the NC, number Council continuing to handle the global policy development and the ICANN board election matters.
More significant changes may be for later.
LACNIC a couple of weeks ago, roles need to be better clarified, so system thing there. The community there has asked for more detailed information, what this all means.
There is a small group of moderators that has been set up by two ASO AC members and one LACNIC board member and they have a regional discussion list.
So that's what the others are doing. We are looking for your feedback still and again there is the RIPE list and you can send your comments there. We have a deadline of the 30th June for this, and we hope to get some voices here on the microphones as well. And then we'll see what we do with the feedback that we have received in all the regions.
Personally I think it's not unlikely that it's going into a similar direction of straightening out things and making things a little bit simpler and a bit easier and maybe a bit more cost effective. I sort of expect that. But I don't know. It's still ongoing, and if it is getting to become really complicated and very diverse, or divergent between the various regions, then the NRO ACs of the CEO's of the RIRs have said then we would probably look for some structure, like we have done that before with the IANA stewardship transition, there was a CRISP team that worked really diligently and a lot and efficiently, maybe we do something like that if that is needed but maybe we all go into the same direction then it might be easier to just bundle all those opinions up and produce a proposal again to our communities and to see whether we can get consensus on that.
So that's basically my presentation here. What do you think? Do you have any ideas? Do you have any thoughts about this? And I see Dima coming to the microphone. Anybody else?
AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Good morning. Thank you for presentation. Maybe you have some, some more information. How expanded involvement in the different Working Groups in ICANN. I remember there is about a dozen new different Working Groups and none related or of interest to our community and for me I personally sympathise and support ARIN position on this one. We should simplify our relationship with ICANN. Don't try to assist to create a new huge bureaucracy because it's absolutely unpredictable what we will get in the result. It's artificial in versions empowered community and so on. Being involved in ICANN development from the beginning, I am very prefer to keep the distance from all these advent users which have only political goals to be protected from. Nothing more. But I think for people it can be useful for people to see the picture, what's happened with us after the sole named IANA transition.
AXEL PAWLIK: So, many you hear about ICANN, you probably rarely hear about or read about IP addresses in the same article. Traditionally we go to ICANN meetings of course and we reach out to the ICANN community, the other parts of ICANN and we do a bit of a workshop there on addressing issues and what we typically see is that the room to more than half empty and there are maybe lots of people in the room but that's mostly ourselves and maybe two people who got confused and went to the wrong room and maybe a small handful of people who have a real interest. ICANN really as much that much about numbers. Yes, they run the IANA, or PTI to run the IANA and we get our addresses from there and we are part of our global policy development process, but all the various ICANN activities, which are very good and some of us actually are involved in for the route server advisory committee stuff like that, but that's not the core numbers interest. There isn't that much in it for us. It's important that it runs smoothly and that we have our influence where we need the influence the maybe on the ICANN budget, maybe on some of the procedures. But there is so much going on that we still are getting our heads around, I think similar to you, we should be careful what we are engaging with and keep a bit of a distance to all the stuff that has really no number influence.
AUDIENCE SPEAKER: For people hard to understand what does mean this empowered community. It's very simple. It's how to fire the board members. ICANN board members.
AXEL PAWLIK: And how to ‑‑
AUDIENCE SPEAKER: It was discussed, what was really behind it.
AXEL PAWLIK: It's basically a structure, a set of procedures that let's all the sub parts of the ICANN community parts exert and influence on what ICANN is doing, how they are doing it, on the budget, on the directors, to fire individual directors maybe or fire the whole board. As you might have heard over the last couple of years, there was quite a bit of distrust and fear towards the ICANN organisation from its constituents and bringing this forward, making this happen is actually a very good thing because the ICANN that came out of it is a better ICANN than before. But still, our involvement, our relevance in there and the relevance of ICANN for this community, I feel personally, is limited. And our involvement within ICANN and the work we spend and the money we spend on that involvement should be limited as well.
AUDIENCE SPEAKER: As I remember, we have SLA.
AXEL PAWLIK: We have an SLAs ‑‑
AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Practically that's all.
AXEL PAWLIK: Well, there are two things. We have this contract with IANA through PTI, actually our contract is with ICANN.
AUDIENCE SPEAKER: You have a contract with ICANN.
AXEL PAWLIK: We have a contract with ICANN on the ‑‑
AUDIENCE SPEAKER: There is no mention PTI at all.
AXEL PAWLIK: We get our addresses. There is a sliver of IPv4 left and we'll get the last slivers for that in the course of this year and course there is the whole big nice shiny world of IPv6 and we'll get some addresses when we need them in the far future. And that works, we have a contract. We pay money for that. We get reports on how it all works. Service levels, that's good. Then you have the other track with ICANN, and that is about the global policy development process. Numbering, addressing policies, that are developed through all the five regions together ending up in one policy text, that is then checked by the ASO Address Council for consistency and that everybody was involved within the various regions, that text then is thrown to the ICANN board for ratification and we have the ICANN MoU, the ASO MoU with that, the global development policy is an at that. To that, it's clearly defined, the ICANN board has ratified a couple of our global policies in the years back when we needed them. It's also not that often that we need new global policies but it's good to have that in place and documented and that would work as well. But again, that happens every couple of years. Maybe.
AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Regarding old discussions which happened during RIRs meetings, what I think what we can discuss is a role in size and structure of number Council, because we should be ‑‑ remind the last time we have a global policy
GERT DÖRING: 10 years ago.
AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Should we have a huge number Council which now try to find what to do at these meetings. I think it's a good question, because we have two positions now for example, some people on APNIC try to glow up the number Council, to raise the role of number Council. As ARIN, whom I sympathise, prefer guys be realistic, do we need all this bureaucracy?
AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Sebastian Bachollet. This will be the only time I will take the mic during this session and the five days. I just want to introduce myself. I am here as a board member of AFNIC, AFNIC is a .FR registry, and I would like to welcome you in France as we are the registry of this country and I am the only board member and even member of the CEO office here.
Second, I am, as you may know, an ex board member of ICANN and currently member of the at large committee. I must have written what I wanted to tell you. But I think you need to ‑‑ no, it's not the right sentence because I will not tell you what you need to do but I want to give you a few elements from an end user perspective, when I say end user I am a both end user of domain names but I am also end user of IP addresses and first I don't like when ICANN, and I will come back about this word, say the domain name system and they forgot that there is something with IP addresses. They told me no, but when we talk about DNS, we talk about domain name and IP addresses, but when something is not name, it's not no.
Second, when you talk or when we talk about ICANN, we never know what we talk about. You have trouble and I have trouble with NRO and ISO certainly, but there are at least two words for two bodies who are doing things a little bit different. Even if for me difficult to understand everything, it's at least you have two words. With ICANN you don't have two words. Even the current CEO stole the word ICANN organisation who has all ICANN to say that now the staff of ICANN is ICANN org, yeah, and what we are and when I say what we are, what you are, what I am and what we are globally and I think you need to add in your reflection that ICANN will survive and still be useful if it's really a multi stakeholder organisation and I would like to surge you to say because we need you, and when you say we don't talk enough about IP addresses, definitely agree and maybe one thing you need to not just request but say that it must be not negotiable, it's to have a slot where it is possible for people to come because when I was a board member and now when I am a member, I always have conflicting meeting where I have to talk or I have to participate, you need to find a way to do that.
And my second suggestion is that, it was done last time but you need, as the other community, to have at the beginning of the ICANN meeting, to say what you are doing as an NRO or ISO, whatever, from the last ‑‑ since the last meeting, and it could be very useful to understand, because if people don't hear from you, they will not know you. I hope that I was not too long and thank you very much for offering me the possibility to talk to you. Thank you very much.
AXEL PAWLIK: Thank you. Do I agree with you, it's important that people know that we are there and what we are doing. And I'm not complaining in any way about the lack of attention of the ICANN organisation and ICANN staff and the willingness to give us slots. They have done that and more consistently so over the last couple of years. It's the ICANN community, the people that come to those meetings that have a completely different focus and are surprised that names people turned up and they wonder who we are, but we should speak to that of course.
AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Peter Koch, this is another named person coming here, to my surprise I'm going to echo a bit of what Sebastian has been saying. I can understand the desire to leave or to decrease participation in terms of financial involvement, and also maybe it's a mental health issue at some point in time. But, while we have the three pillars and there is no desperate need for the numbers community to be involved to have the approval of the ICANN board on the whatever next global Address Policy might be. There is only one Internet. And I think it's good and important to have examples of, well working policy making in this multistakeholder zoo, even though for the numbers community this might be more a time of giving than of taking. Subtext, I am asking for your money on that part. Well our money, we're paying a bit of that as well, a tiny bit.
Anyway, so yeah, I think that's important. It is also important I think, as long as the numbers community is welcome in the overall ICANN community, to take that seat, so that nobody else fields inclined to fill a potential vacancy. Thank you.
AXEL PAWLIK: Thank you Peter. As you are the second person to mention leaving, the idea ‑‑ there seems to be some rumour or something in the air about the numbers community leaving ICANN. That's not a thing that comes from the initial feedback, and is not something that I would advocate for either personally. I think it's a time of self reflection and streamlining involvement and I agree, we should be part of ICANN, yes.
NURANI NIMPUNO: Also on the Address Council. I just thought it might be good to clarify two points. We're talking about two different things. So one is the empowered communities and that's a process that came out of the accountability work that happened in ICANN. The ASO sits in a sort of a funny spot there, and it was not something this empowered communities was not something that was initiated by us, but because we are part of the ICANN structure, as in a supporting organisation, it affects us. And that's simply the way it is and it's something we need to ‑‑ we need to find a way of handling that so to speak.
Then the other part it the ASO review. And I think that is actually a process where we want your input and not just in the simplified sort of should I stay or should I go? The ASO structure and the way we structure our work within that, how is that working? Do people understand it? One of the most common feedbacks I get is what was the ASO again? What's the difference between the ASO AC? And who are you again? Do you work for an RIR? I think that in itself is a problem. That is something that actually came up in the review as well, something I think the ASO should take upon itself to improve. But there are lots of other elements in there. You very quickly went through some of the feedback that came through that review but we are actually interested in hearing this community's feedback on that separate from the empowered community, separate from how much we pay to ICANN, what is this community's input into how the ASO works or should work or should be improved. Thank you.
AXEL PAWLIK: Thank you.
FILIZ YILMAZ: Thank you. I want to stress again that especially about the empowered community and Axel please confirm me here, ASO AC part, so the community part is not really involved actually. So, we are not really there to take part into that bureaucratic part, but Axel, the NRO itself is handling who has that contract you have mentioned. So, it is kind of ‑‑ what is to happen, the contractual parties are being put in the right place and the process is being moulded through the changes as they come in, and I think there is some confusion that the community members, the ASO AC part part, we are involved mainly about the global policy development process, and helping out with the selection of the two ICANN board members, the selection side. So the rest is mainly done by the NRO AC, so that needs to be known I think.
AXEL PAWLIK: I can back you up on that one. But of course within the empowered community requests and sort of procedures involve the ASO. So, over the last couple of months we had to figure out who is this ASO? Like is it the NRO AC or what, depending on what the topic of the intervention would be?
AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Hasn't Petter hole has been, RIPE Chair, but also many years on the ASO AC, both as Chair, co‑chair and member since '99 I think, before I also been in the last five years before I stepped down from the ASO AC, on the no, ma'am come, so I have been been through all the faces of being welcome to ICANN meeting being urged to do more at ICANN meetings, being urged to do less at ICANN meetings. I think my first meeting was that oh, you are doing IP, your intellectual property, right? So we have come a bit further than that because we have been there and because we have engaged, not because we have been been on the stage all the time and screamed and jumped to have more discussion on numbers. Because we really want to have you, our community, at RIR meetings involved in the numbers discussions and that happens not at ICANN meetings but at the RIR meetings. And looking at the numbers, up towards 800 people at this meeting, twice a year, times five, the other RIRs are not that big, we have a huge community, even compared to ICANN meetings so, we need to be proud on that and we need to keep that. And I think it's also important to bear in mind that this report that's up here now is not written by the RIRs. It's an independent consultancy company that's gone around and talked to us and what we have told them is hopefully what's in that report. And I think also it's very good that the last recommendation is not to do this or to do this, but that we should discuss it. And I think that's perhaps the most important thing that we should be a bit open‑minded and think is this the right relationship? Are we doing it the right way. Maybe the conclusion is it's okay, but I think we need to have that discussion. So I'm in no position to say that we should move away. Maybe focus is good, to see area we there and do it better, maybe that's the message. What we have seen over the last couple of years with ICANN board directors engaging at RIR meetings, it's a huge improvement and that took us 15 years, 16 years to get there. It was a while, right. So, we need to keep what we have and build further on that I think. That would be my advice.
AXEL PAWLIK: Thank you Hans Petter.
GERT DÖRING: I think that's actually a good closing word on that topic. Thank you Axel for telling us something we should be considering, and even if it's not like the tasking. Basically my slide is already up there.
Filiz, I think everybody knows Filiz, so, no big amount of introduction needed. There was this global policy proposal in the LACNIC region, and it sort of bounced through this list and out of this came the suggestion to have a recap on the global policy development process and thank you for bringing it up.
FILIZ YILMAZ: Thank you Gert. My name is Filiz Yilmaz, I am part of the current ASO AC, address support organisation Address Council, and we will, in the next couple of slides, I will shed some light on the global development, global policy development process. Why is that? Because, yes, recently there has been the mention of a potential global policy proposal in another region, that's LACNIC. I will not get into the details of that proposal much. We are not going ‑‑ I'm not here to discuss the content, but it triggered some questions how the process is to be, and it is quite related and we thought maybe since as Axel mentioned, we are talking about this and the last global policy was from, 2012, maybe it is about time to talk about this. And a refresher will help, hopefully, everybody, if it ever comes to the RIPE region as a proposal, we don't know yet if it will, but it has the potential. So it was tagged.
So, first of all, I mean Axel has done a very good job in explaining what we do. But this is a recap still. We are not actors in the global policy development process is ASO AC, it stands for address support organisation Address Council. This is the name that we know or we are known in the ICANN community, regionally we are known as the NRO NC, number resource organisation number Council. So they are equal to each other.
The establishment was in 1998, in fact, as a response to the creation of ICANN. As we all know, policy development are predating ICANN's establishment, regional communities existed before ICANN. You were already developing policies. And when ICANN came into the sphere, then there was a need to connect us to say that regional policy development and Address Policy development is done in these regions, it will stale there and it will not be done in the global fora, at ICANN fora. While there will be cord nation. So to realise that, the first memorandum of understanding was signed in 1999, indeed with the existing RIRs by then.
So, then, our scope is basically reviewing the global policy development process. Again, I stress this because when this recent LACNIC proposal hit the lists, there was some confusion and we even were asked like, okay, so ASO AC or the NRO NC representatives will Shepard this policy proposal, right, in the regions, well, no, it is still the responsibility of the original proposer to take this. Of course if they need help, RIR stuff is there to provide every kind of help. But our job, as the, you know, 15 people sitting in the Council who are either elected by the at large RIR communities or appointed by the RIR board is just to review the due process. We don't even get into the content of the proposal. We just review the process and we make sure that the proposals that are presented in all regions are identical and they can be categorised as a global policy and then we send it to ICANN.
Our other main job is selecting the two seats for the ICANN board. So, this is already ‑‑ Heme Clermont is there, waive again, and Nurani is here, we are the current 2018 RIPE region representatives to the ASO AC.
So we keep talking about this global policy development process. What are these global policies? Well, there are a few only. As you can imagine. Mainly almost identical type of the resources we have. One works for IPv6 blocks, so it is there to define the allocation policies from IANA to the RIRs, and it is identical for all regions.
Similar policy is established for AS numbers, AS number blocks. And the most recent one is for the IP version 4, not because that is the you know the latest trend, but because we had to adopt a new one once the depletion happened and there was no ‑‑ there was a need to have a new policy after post exhaustion. And this is the one from 2012. It was ratified by then.
So, there is a fourth one, and mainly the current LACNIC proposal touches on this one. It's about creation ‑‑ criteria for establishment of new regional Internet registries. While this is basically saying you know, how a new RIR can be established based on which criteria. And of course, it doesn't relate to Address Policy. However, there is a need for that too, and this is an old one when the Regional Internet Registries came out especially at the time AFRINIC and LACNIC was recognised after the RIPE, ARIN and APNIC.
So, the process itself. This is a graphical design from the NRO site that I knicked, but in other words, if you are a more textual person, it basically says the proposal should be proposed in all regions, and it needs to be identical, whether it is relating to again global policies are there to define allocation and delegation of resources mostly from IANA /ICANN to the RIRs. And AS AC reviews the process followed in each region, once the proposal goes through all the regions and it gets accepted. This is where we get in. Before that we are not even in the mix. And we have a few options here. We can review the process, and if it is due course, then we can pass to ICANN for ratification or we can advise NRO Executive Council, so the heads of the RIRs, to maybe repeat the processes, where we see maybe there had been an issue or we had concerns. Otherwise, we may request some extra time, totally administrative.
And then we send it to ICANN. We say okay, this is good. We reviewed the process. Please could you please implement this.
At this point, the ICANN board have a few options, which is either to accept the proposal by a simple majority vote, they can reject it. And that would require a super majority vote technicality. Or, they may request some changes to the proposed policy. Or they can take no action within a certain amount of time, in which case we will assume that it's accepted and move ahead.
So, it is all very regional. It's all about RIRs. As you can see, ICANN's role here, ICANN board's role here is basically ask to a coordination body, which is our role mainly on the ASO AC, was the process followed that you all needed to follow? And once they get the yes, their job is to implement this.
So, I hope the global policy development process is clear. For the LACNIC part, I believe Marco will give a few extra details about the policy proposals content and where it is right now. The other two news, we talked about appointment, or selection of the individuals to the ICANN board by the ASO AC. We have two members at the moment, one of them has been just reappointed, who is Ron da sill via, who is in fact here I believe. I can't see him waving but I know he is here through the week, and he has been re‑elected to the seat for another three‑year term starting in October 2018, he is from the ARIN region, and the other seat is currently held by ACK Nora may measure a from APNIC region. Both of them I believe are known in the numbers community in general. Thank you very much. And I hope this kind of sets the stage for the global policy. If there are any questions, we can take them. Otherwise... we are also around here for the rest of the week if you would like to talk and get more details on this process.
ERIK BAIS: Any questions?
AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Hello, Sophia Silva. I work for APNIC, I used to fork for LACNIC and I was a policy officer. I'm not doing policy any more but I still have an interest. I was in Panama a few weeks ago and I participated in this discussion about the global policy there, and there was some discussion about the policy space, the policy forum at LACNIC being the right place to discuss about the creation of a new registry. And because this would affect this document ICP 2, some people, and I think I was one that I was saying maybe this is not the right place to discuss about this. So, I guess my question was more trying to confirm, is it right that ICP 2 is considered a global policy? Because I didn't know that, and because I thought it wasn't, I thought that the policy forum was not the right place to discuss the creation of a new registry.
FILIZ YILMAZ: Good question. Generally, general understanding and what happens is often is the global policies are relating to address resources, ASNs and IPv4 blocks, however from the ASO AC side and this might be part of the review again if this falls in or not, ASO AC's website officially lists this under the current global policies that are in place. So from ICANN side, they consider this as something that they need to attach to the numbers community and their understanding for the connection to the numbers community is of course ASO. Accordingly, I can consider this ‑‑ there is no other place for them to define that. Does that help? It's a bit intricate but that's how it is.
GERT DÖRING: If I may comment on this as well. Traditionally the Address Policy Working Group in the RIPE region is the one that does all the policy work, but that's just because, well we have to do most of it. If it's not related to numbers of any sort, you can have the policy process in the RIPE region as well, so the anti‑abuse Working Group had one policy proposal, and there is one that's actually wider than a single Working Group right now, so there is the Plenary and the RIPE list. So, a policy change that would go into forming of a new regional registry is definitely too big for this group. So, there would be the whole RIPE community and the RIPE community list and the RIPE Chair to actually steer that discussion.
HANS PETTER HOLEN: The easiest way to figure out whether the status of ICP 2 is to actually read the posting on the ICANN website where it states that "The following Internet coronation policy is being posted for information of the Internet community. It contains a statement of policy followed by the Internet assigned numbers authority, IANA, in add Mr. This system." So the way I read this, it's clearly developed with this process and if it should be changed, I would argue that it should be changed through this process.
AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Thank you
GERT DÖRING: But not inside the Address Policy Working Group but inside the whole RIPE ‑‑ because ‑‑ the scope is wider.
FILIZ YILMAZ: It relates to the entire community, not the specific interest group. Exactly, yes.
GERT DÖRING: And we're testing this mechanism right now with a change to the PDP itself which is also bigger than Address Policy, so, right now we're testing the mechanics if we can get it done. Because it's a first.
AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Gert may. I hope that chairs and number Council members read the real text and understood that what's the real goal, what was tried to express in such exotic form, because the idea was one stop shop, nothing more. It's not about the registry. He imagination that it can be done through a registry, but his request was the key idea of this policy, it's a one stop shopping. I don't know why he think this way, but his proposal creates a mess. We began to discuss the principles of creation of new RIR. It's not about this. Please read the text what's really behind it. And for me, all discussions shifted immediately to discussion ICP 2, it's a mistake. It's not about ICP 2 at all
GERT DÖRING: We don't actually need to discuss this particular proposal here yet ‑‑
AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Yes. Unfortunately we didn't propose to discuss it. It's just simply because all this ‑‑ because we began discussion on the principles which is absolutely not related to the idea. Thank you
GERT DÖRING: Thank you. And thank you Filiz.
So with that, I hand the microphone to Marco. You all know Marco, he is the good soul at the RIPE NCC who ensures that we as Working Group Chairs get our house in order, meet our time lines, provide answers.
MARCO SCHMIDT: Good morning everyone. My name is Marco Schmidt from the RIPE NCC I am the policy officer and looking at the time it will probably be me standing between you and your coffee break and ill try to keep it as interesting as policy and I will promise you already that I will not overrun.
What I want to tell you in this talk, it's ‑‑ first, I want to tell you a little bit about what is the status of policy proposals in our region. What has changed since the last RIPE meeting in do you buy. Then I want to extend the view to a global view, compare it with the other four RIRs, what is discussed there. You will see there is some interesting similarities. And then I will close with some numbers and some additional information from the policy development office.
But first, what's going on in our region.
We have, right now, three proposals that are in the discussion phase, in the initial discuss phase. The first two proposals 2018‑02 and 2018‑03, will be discussed here in the Address Policy Working Group in the next session at 11 o'clock, so I'm not going much into the detail on that one. I want to spend a little bit of time on the last one, the 2018‑04, the PDP clarification, because Gert just mentioned it, that is a proposal to change the policy development process itself. And as this is impacting all the Working Groups it is right now not discussed in one particular Working Group, rather on one mailing list it is called RIPE discussion, and it is chaired by the RIPE Chair, Hans Petter Holen. What this proposal tried to do, it basically tried to clarify what can happen at the end of the review phase if there was not enough feedback.
Right now, it has become quite a common standard amongst the Working Group Chairs to extend the review phase if more feedback is needed. However, if you read the text of the PDP where we closely, so this option is not explicitly mentioned, and this proposal tried to change that and explicitly will mention the option to simply extend the review phase if the Working Group Chairs think that this is necessary and helpful.
We have run proposal that is in review phase right now. 2018‑01, the organisation LIR clarification in the IPv6 policy. Again this one where we discussed after the coffee break in the Address Policy Working Group.
And we have one more proposal, and this is not discussed here, it will be discussed in, or is under discussion in the Anti‑Abuse Working Group, it's 2017‑02, the regular Abuse‑C validation. Just to give a quick summary to some you who don't know what this is about. In the RIPE database database, it is mandatory to have an abuse contact e‑mail if you have INET NUM resources. However currently it often happens this contact is entered and not really maintained. And this is just observed or somebody noticed this when he wants to send an abuse report and the e‑mail bounced. And right now people can let the RIPE NCC know and we will start to investigate and ask the people that are responsible for that contact to fix it.
The change to this proposal wants to introduce is that we do this proactively, that annually we do some validation on the technical parameters so, if the domain is still existing, if there is a name server configured and if we have indication that is the technical parameter is not working that they would contact the resource holders or the person responsible for that abuse contact and ask them to fix it. And it's currently in last call and if you want to know more about it, I invite you tomorrow to come at 11 o'clock to the anti‑abuse Working Group where this proposal will be presented.
One more proposal has been accepted since the last RIPE meeting, it's the 2016‑04, the IPv6 subassignment clarification. And now it is possible that in IPv6 assignments, that you can give a separate single IP to a customer, to a service customer and it's no longer considered sub‑assignment.
That was the quick overview in our region. Now let's have a look at the global landscape. And I will not, how to say, list all the proposals per RIR. Rather, I have grouped them a little bit per topic. And you will see that in the different regions, those topics have the same direction. For example, about IPv4, a lot of proposals refer to the fact that IPv4 is exhausted or is getting exhausted. For example, in AFRINIC, there is, since quite sometime, a discussion ongoing to strengthen or to tighten the soft landing policy to stretch the available address space a lit longer but it's quite controversial, some people like T some people don't, so consensus is not really in sight there.
At APNIC, they are a bit further. Like us, they are dealing with their final /8 pool and this also soon will be exhausted and there is a proposal how to actually discuss what happens then. Once this pool is exhausted and IPv4 is returned to APNIC, that it will create like a waiting list for people that still want IPv4.
At ARIN, there are a couple of proposals under discussion, a few of them have seen reached last call during the last ARIN meeting, that basically tried to remove information, or requirements regarding IPv4 that are now obsolete. Because ARIN has no IPv4 left. So, quite a lot of requirements that are still in the policy manual are not really needed any more.
A bit similar in LACNIC. There is one proposal, the first one, the 2018‑09, it has currently the policy in LACNIC has a requirement if you want to get your first allocation from LACNIC and you got address space from a provider before, you need to re‑number this one and give it back. And this requirement is suggested to be removed.
And the second one, the 2018‑8, a bit similar. This one actually has reached consensus at the last LACNIC meeting two weeks ago, to remove a multihoming requirement for IPv4 PI assignments.
Another topic of course between IPv4 is IPv6. And also there, there is a global trend to Telia just the IPv6 policies to the reality. So, normal people deploying IPv6 are looking into the option and the policies sometimes needs some adjustments because they were written a long time ago.
We have, right now, in all five RIRs, a proposal, or five regional proposals that called clarification on IPv6 sub‑assignments. In our region, it's the proposal 2018‑02 with a slightly different name. They all have very similar text mainly due to the fact they are all coming from the same proposer and they basically suggest that every non permanent provision of up to a /64 from an assignment is not considered supply assignment it's in the PDP in all five regions but in opposite to what Filiz just mentioned, this is not a global policy proposal, it is one of five regional proposals and what happens in one region, doesn't impact ‑‑ does not really have relevance to the other regions. And right now so far, this proposal has not reached consensus in any of the five service regions.
Proposals that have reached consensus just last week in AFRINIC, during the AFRINIC meeting. Also referring to adjustments to the IPv6 policy for example to extend the allocation criterias? To, to criterias? That we have since a view fears why our region it's not only based on numbers but also on facts like the hierarchy, some fragmentation and some security requirements. And IPv6 update basically remove the requirement that you need to have IPv4 PI before requesting IPv6 PI because quite soon also in AFRINIC this will not make much sense any more.
And then LACNIC also proposal has reached consensus two weeks ago to update their policy document and remove some errors and some statements that are not really clear.
Another topic that is always relevant and still relevant all around the world are transfers. APNIC has the most proposals regarding that topic, and the first one, prop 118 and 119 are out there for quite a while and got a bit stuck. The first one, 118, wants to remove the requirement of a need assessment for an IPv4 transfer. And the second one wants to allow temporary IPv4 transfers. Because the original proposer stepped back during the last APNIC meeting, they took the time to appoint a new proposer and probably at the next APNIC meeting these proposals will be for discussion available again.
Same for the 123, to modify the 103 /8 IPv4 transfer policy. The 103 /8 is the so‑called final /8 pool and in September last year there was a policy implemented that if you receive address space from this block cannot transfer it under any circumstances for five years. And this proposal tried to reword this change a little bit and to say that it only would apply to allocations that were handed out after September 2017, so from the moment that previous proposal policy change became in place.
At ARIN, a proposal that might be quite interesting also for this region, to allow inter‑regional ASN transfers, because our policy, our inter‑regional ‑‑ our inter transfer policy would allow it and we do it already with APNIC. This proposal right now has reached the recommended draft policy status, which means consensus is possible at the next policy consultation in ARIN, and if this would take place, then also AS transfers can take place between our region and ARIN region.
And then LACNIC proposal has reached ‑‑ has not reached consensus but was discussed two weeks ago to align the requirements and the rules for transfers related to mergers and acquisitions with transfers related to policy. Main things are that if a resource that is to be transferred is legacy, it will lose this status during the transfer and also if you receive a resource through a transfer for a merger and acquisition that you would need to keep that resource for one year.
Then I picked another topic that is gaining more and more attention and more and more attraction, it's the validation of data, and in AFRINIC, we have there since quite sometime, a proposal that would give the mandate to the AFRINIC organisation to do a quite intense audit on their members if and how they use the Internet resources. It's also discussed quite controversial because people say yeah, how AFRINIC is going to do this in reality. So there is no consensus inside yet.
Opposite to ARIN, where these two proposals have reached consensus and last call since the last ARIN meeting to do some POC al addition, POC is a point of contact and it's something in the ARIN database to be referred to any Internet number resource, and first one of the 2017‑3 requires ARIN to annually contact those points of contacts and to ask them to confirm that this is still valid and if they don't respond within 60 days, to start a deeper investigation and mark them eventually in the database as invalid if ARIN believe that this is the case. As well, to limit the access to the ARIN online account, to be gain more attention and increase the motivation for those responsible people to follow up. And a bit similar, if somebody enters a new point of contact in the ARIN database, this point of contact will be, get an e‑mail from ARIN and if there is no response within ten days, then this new entry, this new assignment will be revoked.
And in LACNIC, we have a proposal similar, yet more complex, than our proposal 17‑02. It's registration and validation of Abuse‑C contacts. Opposite to our proposal that was mainly focussed on the technical parameters. One would demand LACNIC to validate every three months and only accept human responses within three business days and eventually also follow up and ask them to fix it and to escalate it if they don't respond and fix it on time.
Last of the topics that I picked is the policy development process. This is also some changes suggested going on around the world. In AFRINIC, since quite sometime, they are discussing a change to the PDP. Currently, consensus can be only reached at AFRINIC meetings. And this one would actually introduce something a bit similar to the policy development process in our region, that the proposal has to go through certain phases, like the initial discuss phase, the review phase and the last call before consensus can be reached.
Something similar has reached consensus in LACNIC. I am referring to the second proposal there, the 2018‑10. That there, it will be now also possible to reach consensus on the mailing list, because as in AFRINIC so far, consensus in LACNIC was only possible to reach during the forum, during the LACNIC meeting. This change mainly means that as long as a proposal has at least presented and discussed once as a policy forum, it can each consensus later on the mailing list.
And a few proposals that don't fall into these main topics. One is in ARIN, has reached last call, to provide for so‑called community networks, which are some non‑commercial networks, and special terms and conditions a small IPv6 allocation block.
And in LACNIC, two interesting proposals, the first one has reached consensus, the IP based geolocation that beside information in a LACNIC database LACNIC will have to create a file that contains some information about in which country these resources were allocated or assigned and this can be used for geolocation.
And the last one, there is a proposal out to create a global Internet registry. The idea originally was to allow for global companies to go there directly and not to some regional RIRs. At the LACNIC meeting two weeks ago, it was presented and then actually Nicholas, the presenter himself, referred to the fact that there is this global policy how to set up a new RIR. But people pointed out that they are the rules also and RIR can only be established somewhere where not another RIR exists and so mentioned it might be for the oceans or for outer space. But overall, the feedback was not many people saw at this moment, saw the sense in that proposal. But it's still up for discussion and it will come up at the next LACNIC meeting likely.
That was the global overview. I want to close with a few numbers because I'm always a little bit observing how the participation, how is the engagement. And so far in 2018, we have seen 350 posts, not only on the Address Policy, but also posts to the other two proposals that are out there on the anti‑abuse mailing list and also on the RIPE discussion mailing list. It's coming from more than 65 participants from 22 different countries. And when I put this on the map it looks like this, the darker you have the colour is more people from this country participate in the policy discussions and you see as usual, central and western Europe is rather active, and I personally would like to see more participation from southern Europe, eastern Europe, the Balkan area and the Middle East, because there they might have a bit different point of views, different requirements that should be considered for the policy development as well. So if you are from one of those countries, please feel free to share your wish and ideas if there are policy proposals out there that impact you.
This brings me to my last slide, because I'm losing my voice. So, these are some links that you can download, you can find on my presentation, to the different policy proposals all around the world. And if you don't want to subscribe to too many mailing lists I recommend that you follow me on Twitter and there I regularly update what's going on in our region and globally policy wise and policy development wise.
And that's the end of my presentation. Are there any questions?
GERT DÖRING: Thank you Marco for giving us a good overview. I see Jordi at the microphone.
JORDI PALET: You are asking for more policy proposals coming from south Europe? I'm joking. I am point, just a clarification regarding the PDP thing, both in LACNIC and in AFRINIC. What I actually proposed to LACNIC, because you said the current PDP is just ‑‑ if you you strictly read the document, it's just following the consensus. Well the so‑called consensus in the meeting, while actually they count both, okay, so that's a little bit clearer. So I proposed initially a policy 2018‑6, which was like here in this region, a very simplified policy development process, not so complex which faces as we have here, just updating their policy document. So we measure the consensus only in the list the way we do it here. And also stating that the chairs, instead of deciding the consensus in two minutes after the presentation of the policy in the meeting room, they had two weeks, more or less the same way as we have here and so on. So, that was not going very well in the mailing list, according to the comments, so I decided to present the other one, which was measuring the consensus in the mailing list and the forum.
Now, that one reached consensus, so it's already in last call, so it's only one or two weeks to be really approved and then ratified by the board. So what's happening in AFRINIC is that they have exactly the same situation. They are only measuring the consensus in the meeting room, and the policy that they are discussing is still having the same problem. So, in the meeting, it was discussed again because it has been ongoing for a long time, but it was not called for consensus, and what I suggested both in the mailing list, but unfortunately they were not reading the mailing list and again I passed it during the meeting in the mailing list and also explained it in the meeting itself, is hey, why you stay with text that is not clear about taking into consideration the consensus in the mailing list? And the others agreed to incorporate my text in a new version. So I guess, we will come to a situation where AFRINIC is having basically the same PDP that we have here because they have also their review phase, blah blah blah. But they still need the meeting for measuring the consensus both in the mailing list and the meeting. Okay. So I was not sure in your presentation was clear and I think it's important.
MARCO SCHMIDT: I think it's definitely clear. Thanks for your clarification.
GERT DÖRING: So. We are sort of like eight minutes away from the coffee break. I was considering ‑‑
ERIK BAIS: I have another question for Marco. So, there is a policy proposal currently to change the PDP to actually add the extending of the review phase?
MARCO SCHMIDT: In our region, yes.
ERIK BAIS: So what does that mean for current policies and how do we treat that currently? You know, is it still going as planned with the current policies if it's required currently? Or is there end of review phase even with low discussion then you know we're there, or can we now still say, we can still extend it, waiting for this new policy to be accepted?
MARCO SCHMIDT: I think, I am also looking at Gert, it's quite a common behaviour and so far nobody ever had said something and this proposal is really just to clarify something in the PDP process document itself rather than making a change to the process.
ERIK BAIS: As you said, it's a PDP process thing, so it's not only for Address Policy, it's also for anti‑abuse or services or...
MARCO SCHMIDT: Yeah, exactly. But no impact for ongoing policy proposals and so on.
Thank you very much.
GERT DÖRING: So, I said we are a bit flexible with the timeline, but actually the time we have left now is not enough to cover the next item on the agenda, so we stick to the published agenda and Andrea Cima starts at the beginning of the second lot. We move over to the side room because after the coffee break there is the Connect Working Group in here. They are more interested people because, I don't know, there is more interesting competition amongst the Working Group Chairs, whatever. They have asked us for the big room at the last meeting, and we agreed, and stuck to that format.
So, we meet at 11 in the side room over there. Enjoy your coffee. Thanks for being here.
LIVE CAPTIONING BY
MARY McKEON, RMR, CRR, CBC