The ASO AC Chair, Barbara Roseman, opened the meeting at 4:05 P.M. and began by reviewing the agenda.
AC operational update (Barbara Roseman)
- Status reports given on emerging RIRs.
- Reviewing RFC 2050 - discussion under way for reviewing. Considering writing new policy documents. People want the documents to come from the membership themselves. Chair gave the website where one can go to join mailing lists.
- Global IPv6: Chair gave update on this issue and urged all to attend meetings on this topic.
Chair mentioned that ARIN was now fulfilling the function of ASO Secretariat. She then identified the three members of the ASO AC from each region:
APNIC: Takashi Arano, Dr. Kenny S. Huang, and Seung-Min Lee
ARIN: Eric Decker, Barbara Roseman, and Cathy Wittbrodt
RIPE: Hans Petter Holen, Sabine Jaume, and Wilfried Woeber
Overview of RIR policy process and status (RIRs)
A representative of each RIR presented an overview of the process and status of their region. Each stressed that bottom-up decision-making, openness and transparency, and community participation were the foundations of their policy-making processes. Presentations can be found at the ARIN, RIPE NCC and APNIC websites.
Q&A:
Q: APNIC to sign ICANN contract?
A:Paul Wilson of APNIC stated: This has not been decided as of now, and more decisions are to be made. Open discussion at the APNIC member meeting is the best time to discuss this issue.
Q: Will contract be opened to public?
A: Stuart Lynn of ICANN stated: Once ICANN and the RIRs agree, the policy agreement will be posed for comments to be received. The document still needs approval of the ICANN Board.
Paul Wilson added that the ICANN contract is an operational matter for APNIC rather than a matter of public policy. The matter has been discussed in regular EC meetings that have been minuted. Minutes have been published on the web site.
Global statistics presentation (RIRs)
Son Tran of APNIC presented the status of resource statistics for the RIRs. These statistics are available on the ASO website.
IPv6 Policy (Takashi Arano)
Takashi Arano explained the current status of IPv6 policy in all regions and stressed the importance of a globally coordinated policy. He also stressed there should be stronger coordination on the mailing lists and that the discussion should be more moderated and guided. He posed the questions of whether there should be a voting system on the mailing list and whether or not there should be more power on the ASO Ð or that would that be too top down? Takashi urged APNIC members to become more demonstrative in voicing their opinion, reiterating that this is open to all and that (good) input was critical.
Discussion:
It was noted that in regard to the global-v6 discussions, although there were positive iterations of the draft, there were no clear indications as to the next steps in forming and agreeable policy. It was also noted that the delays involved in achieving global policy raise the question of whether a single global policy is actually necessary. There was a comment that there seems to be a difference from region to region in attitude towards new things, and that this makes it hard to create new policy. It was suggested that new policies could be tried in the regions with the greatest need to help determine whether the policy would be satisfactory for the others.
It was suggested that online voting would be a dangerous option.
It was suggested that using the IETF as forum to make a decision would require a long period of education before it would be possible.
There was a question about the background to the APNIC EC decision to proceed with the ICANN-RIR contract. It was stated that the AC is not involved in any way with the ICANN-RIR contract process, and that this topic should be raised in the APNIC member meeting, rather than this forum.
In response to another question, it was stated that the EC discussions on the ICANN-RIR contract related to the latest draft of a contract, which had been under discussion for a quite some time. It was also stated that the APNIC By-Laws provide for the AMM to review decisions by the EC.
There was a comment that multi-national companies have problems in dealing with differing regional policies, and that this is provides a strong argument for seeking to achieve global policies.
There were comments relating to the ICANN reform proposal. It was suggested that discussion be deferred until the presentation by Stuart Lynn.
Nominee introductions for the ASO elections to the ICANN Board (Barbara Roseman)
ASO Chair announced where the nominees were from and presented a chart of the names from the ASO website. Nominees were from AfriNIC, LACNIC and RIPE. Only one nominee, Mouhamet Diop was present. He emphasized that a representative of the African nations must raise the community's awareness. Mouhamet gave a synopsis of his experience for the position to the board. No other candidates were present.
BR stated that this was not a public voting process, but that the ASO will read all statements of support.
ICANN At Large Study Committee Discussion (Pindar Wong and Adam Peake)
ALSC is currently seeking comments on the final report and election guidelines. Pindar asked to please send any comments to the ALSC by end of this week. He then presented overview of the draft plan and draft survey results. In interest of time, he directed the rest of presentation to the comments list.
Adam Peake gave a presentation explaining what the NAIS committee does. The committee reviews At Large elections and the future governance structure of ICANN. Their mission can be found on www.naisproject.org. The committee reached an agreement with the At Large Study Committee, and would like to reach the membership organized in a national, regional, and global way to provide advise and support - in the role of a watchdog. Membership can comment on policy and help them to understand policy and act as a source of innovation and ideas. He urged all to visit www.icannatlarge.com and forum.icann.org to comment on Stuart's proposal. He also gave comments@atlargestudy.org to go to for Pindar's portion of the presentation.
ICANN - The Case for Reform (Stuart Lynn)
Stuart discussed the background to the recent ICANN reform proposal. He acknowledged that the ASO and RIR processes have been working smoothly and have been the most successful areas of ICANN. He explained that the proposal is intended as a starting point for discussion, and that no decisions will be made on it directly. There was a general discussion of the need to create a more workable forum that would protect the processes that are working, but would improve the areas that are currently not working as they should be. It was noted that it is difficult to figure how the proposed public/private partnership could be formed. However, it was argued that a solely private ICANN is not able to achieve what it set out to do. It was stressed that the proposal is not a 'government takeover', but an attempt to bring government into the process in a responsible way.
Discussion:
There was a question about the current status of the original White Paper that established ICANN's guidelines. It was suggested that ICANN began as an experiment, and that it would be surprising if all that was valid then was still considered to be valid now.
It was noted that an available diagram describing the proposal is quite useful but that it is not accurate in suggesting that the GAC nominates the 10 At Large Trustees.
There was a comment that there is certainly a need for ICANN leadership, as there is too much machinery required to maintain it. However, the suggestion to involve governments was criticized on the lack of knowledge about internet; slow and bureaucratic process; and reluctance to make funding available. It was explained that the intention is not to rely on governments to solve ICANN's problems, but to provide better access to a broader range of useful people. It was also explained that the evolution of ICANN has led to it becoming bureaucratic and unable to be fully responsive. It was argued that the intention of the proposal is to help make ICANN more agile.
There was a question about the ability of the proposed restructure to protect against corruption. Concerns were expressed about the ability of government involvement to affect the possibility for corruption. It was suggested that multiple At Large groups may be necessary to provide appropriate checks and balances.
The Chair requested the meeting to focus more on the potential impact on the ASO and the RIRs.
There was a discussion about the nature of the negotiations surrounding the draft ICANN-RIR contract. It was suggested that the position of the RIRs is different than the other constituents of ICANN, and questions were raised about why there was a need to change arrangements from the RIR point of view.
Concerns were raised about the effect of changes on the existing ASO Board members. It was explained that no decisions on the proposal would be made at the Ghana meeting.
It was noted, as an example, that IPv6 is becoming a national strategy in many countries and that increased government involvement in the process could politicize these issues.
It was also noted that in contrast to the APNIC member and stakeholder survey (which were conducted by independent consultants), that the ICANN proposal appears to be the result of internal ICANN staff efforts.
ASO Chair closed the meeting at 6:29 P.M.