I recently had the opportunity to represent ARIN Advisory Council at the LACNIC & LACNOG meeting in Santiago, Chile. It was a well attended meeting with almost 400 attendees from 32 countries including 24 from the Latin American region. The main topics of the LACNIC meeting included a discussion about the IANA transition that was instituted by the US Government and there was some interesting content about the infrastructure development in the region including exchange points and submarine connections.
A few notes from the meeting…
The conference included a broad discussion of the current structure and involvement of the US Department of Commerce’s contract with ICANN for the IANA services. A number of individuals who had different perspectives on the historical relationship between the USG and Internet organizations discussed how we should move forward with the proposed transition of the USG’s oversight function.
The next day during the discussion new ideas emerged from the region about a possible oversight model.
Proposal for a Multistakeholder Oversight Numbers Council (MONC)
Permanent body that would support the NRO, would meet once per year to supervise the development & oversight of IANA functions, similar to the sitting fiscal committee of LACNIC.
It was suggested that oversight role should be done by this body for the numbers portion of the IANA functions. Members of the Council would have to be selected or appointed to fulfill this role. How that would happen is not part of this initial idea draft.
One thing that was noted here is that this is a new idea and that it should be given time for discussion to see if it has merits. There aren’t a lot of details on the structure here at this time, but they should come with time. These along with other ideas are being debated on the IANA transition mailing lists.
The videos from the two sessions can be found here:
Public Policy Forum
This policy change opens the opportunity for non-mulithomed organizations to get an ASN to be independent from their single upstream. It also changes the time period to use the ASN from 2 weeks to 6 months from date of application.
Comments: Some concerns this policy change isn’t necessary but this new policy is a little clearer. With RPKI it is nicer for small orgs who are singly homed to use their own ASN, as it makes it easier when they do have to change providers. RIPE has also started the discussion to remove multihoming as a requirement for ASNs.
Show of support: 45-0-2
This update to the policy development process is an attempt to clarify some issues that have occurred in the past. The current PDP is from 2008. The draft add terms or timelines where actions and times aren’t clear in process. The new PDP draft clarifies the roles of moderator, LACNIC as the secretariat, and the community.
The draft policy gives the board the option to remove the WG chair for non-action of their duties. Defines formal duties of the WG chair and the timeframes to perform their duties.
Creating a new appeal process: The draft defines a new appeal process within the PDP. There were comments that there are issues in the appeals proposal so the new appeals section has been removed from the draft.
Show of support: 37-0-1 (to move forward w/o appeals section)
There were some objection to the action of the chair noting consensus because the draft was changed substantially (appeals process was removed, during the meeting) therefore if should be returned to the list not to last call right away. So this policy will be sent back to the list before being sent to Last Call.