The Address Supporting Organization
5th General Assembly minutes
Draft Minutes
Address Supporting Organization Fifth General Assembly
5 May 2004
Amsterdam, The Netherlands (during RIPE 48)
Chair: Mark McFadden
Agenda
- AC Status Report (AC Chair)
- Goals and achievements since last ASO GA
- ASO Secretariat change
- New Members on AC
- Emerging RIR Report - AfriNIC
- AC Work Plan for 2004
- Next ASO GA -> ARIN Region
- Global Statistics Presentation (RIRs)
- Nominees introduction for the election of ASO representative to the ICANN Board of Directors
- NRO Status (Paul Wilson)
- The new MoU ASO NRO / ICANN (Lyman Chapin)
- The "new" IANA (Doug Barton)
- Open Microphone and Questions
AC Status Report (AC Chair)
- Hyun-joon Kwon
- Takashi Arano
- Hans Petter Holen
- Wilfried Woeber
- Raimundo Beca
- Harmut Glaser
- Julian Dunayevich
- Louis Lee
- Eric Decker
Global statistics presentation (RIRs)
Nominees introduction for the election of ASO representative to the ICANN Board of Directors
NRO Status (Paul Wilson)
The new MoU ASO NRO / ICANN (Lyman Chapin)
The "new" IANA (Doug Barton)
Open Microphone and Questions
Welcome
The Chair opened the meeting at 16:10 UTC.
The Chair provided a background and overview of the Address Supporting Organization (ASO) and the function of the General Assembly. He also provided a brief description of the agenda.
Goals and achievements since last ASO GA
The Chair provided a more in-depth background and overview of the Address Supporting Organization (ASO) and its function in the ICANN framework, in particular in regards of an open bottom-up consensus process.
The Chair invited the AC members present to introduce themselves. They were:
The Chair noted the existence of observers from emerging RIRs.
The Chair noted that there are three AC representatives per RIR region. These individuals do represent the RIRs directly.
The Chair noted the duty of the AC to elect two directors to the ICANN board.
The AC has finished working on a couple of procedural items, such as the selection process for directors to the ICANN board or general procedures on the how work is being done within the AC.
The Chair noted that again a substantial amount of work went into RFC 2050, the RIRs' foundation document.
The Chair noted that quite some efforts by the RIRs were put into renegotiations with ICANN regarding a revised ASO MoU, and briefly mentioned the NRO as a means to achieve this aim.
As a result of this, a transition phase will be in place as the new AC will be set according to the new MoU where the NRO will act as the new ASO.
ASO Secretariat change
The Chair thanked APNIC for providing ASO Secretariat services in 2003, and likewise RIPE NCC for 2004.New Members on AC
The Chair briefly pointed out the election terms of AC members and named those whose terms started on 1 January 2004.
Emerging RIR Report - AfriNIC
The AC noted the progress AfriNIC made with satisfaction, also the help and backing provided by LACNIC out of its experience as an emerging RIR.
AC Work Plan for 2004
The AC is to sort out some of the details of the proposed MoU with the RIRs and ICANN, for example in terms of the dropped requirement for a GA or the transition phase to a new AC.
The AC is to nominate and elect a representative to ICANN's nomination committee and to welcome newly elected AC members at the end of the year.
The chair noted that the next upcoming task for the AC is the selection of a director to the ICANN board, possibly already completed after the AC meeting tomorrow.
Next ASO GA -> ARIN Region
The Chair noted that the next ASO GA is scheduled for spring 2005 in the ARIN region. However, a GA is not yet provided by the proposed MoU, which is an item to be further discussed.
The Chair pointed the audience to the ASO website and its general purpose mailing list.
Presented by Leo Vegoda, RIPE NCC
This was a presentation prepared jointly by APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC, and the RIPE NCC. It details the current status of IPv4 and IPv6 address space and AS numbers. [For full details, please refer to the presentation.]
Leo Vegoda noted that the statistics will increasingly contain dedicated African figures as well, along with emerging AfriNIC.
The Chair made some initial remarks on the nomination and election process for directors to the ICANN board. He then introduced the candidates, Raimundo Beca from Chile/the LACNIC region and Lyman Chapin from the US/the ARIN region.
Raimundo Beca noted some core points in his statement for running: his track record of strong commitment to the addressing community, his wide experience with board seats, his multi-cultural backgounds, his large experience with multi-national (N)GOs and his ongoing strong committment to all aspects of the addressing community.
Lyman Chapin noted some backgound of his presence on the ICANN board, in particluar his involvement in ICANN's reform process during the last 2.5 years. He also commented on the development of the new MoU and the creation of the NRO as something being done by the people concerned instead of ICANN itself and regards the new MoU as a success story already. Also the change in people on the ICANN board as well as of ICANN staff during the last 2.5 years was helpful.
Q by Suzanne Woolf: Is ICANN after the reform an effective in govermental processes like the UN and WSIS?
A: ICANN role is two-fold: can be an effective voice for some of the concerns, but is not competing for attention and authority with such organisations. If ICANN focusses on its role and function, it does a good job - if it goes beyond that it tends to stumble.
Q by Louis Lee: MoU review was long overdue. What were the reasons and what lessons were learnt?
A: One we knew already before: bottum-up works better that top-down, this experience was made numerous times.
Q by Raul Echeberria: Are you happy with the relation between the NRO and ICANN so far, in particular with the LoI signed in Montevideo?
A: Yes, very happy.
The Chair made some closing remarks on the opportunities to talk to the canadidates as well as to the AC members until tomorrow to express individual views, also on the process of nomination and the expression of support.
[For full details, please refer to the presentation.]
Paul Wilson gave the presentation in his capacity as the NRO chair. It has covered the reasons for NRO's existence and how it has been established.
The presentation has also outlined the formation process of how the NRO will eventually act as the ASO in the ICANN framework and given an overview on the composition of the NRO.
It has then summarised the duties of the NRO's Numbers Council (NC) - such as global policy coordination - and its composition. The presentation has also pointed out that the NC is suspended for the time being that there is an ASO in place.
The presentation has summarised the work being done so far in the NRO framework, in particular the proposed MoU and the signed LoI.
The second part has covered ASO issues: its history, the status quo and its envisaged future, i.e. the NRO acting as the ASO. It has further details the inner mechanics necessary to achieve this.
Q by Tony Holmes: Independance from ICANN appreciated. However, looking at the bigger picture, is it wise and sustainable to claim to be totally independent?
A: Many Interpretations possible, but looking at the facts, nobody could really say that the NRO is an attempt to break apart. The RIRs' actvitities and responsibilities have existed for a long time already, the NRO is justified on this very basis.
C by John Curran: RIRs predate ICANN, the NRO only recognises this. RIRs are mandated to carry out specific tasks, regardless if there is an ICANN or not - NRO is merely a formal structure for this. ICANN was created in 1999, but has still not totally completed its mission.
Q by Tony Holmes: Looking backwards, would it still be the right decision to set the NRO up without community input?
A: There were opportunities for input. However, with hindsight, it would have been better to address these concerns more. But it didn't really provide for a problem.
Q by unknown: What is the role of the NRO in regards of technical coordination?
A: No final outcome yet. Proposal is that NRO would form a central registry; exchange between IETF and NRO on that. NRO sees itself capable to carry out this function.
Q by unknown: Underlying concern that the current mechanism of allocating addresses doesn't work?
C by Geoff Houston: In the light of a current IETF draft on unique numbers, the NRO was felt to be able to carry it out.
Q by unknown: ICANN recently faced US anti-trust investigation. Could the same happen to the NRO? Would it be more resistant?
A: I can't comment.
C by John Curran: All-inclusiveness, transparency and community support solves the concern: ARIN saw it a couple of times. Uniqueness requires a single entity - as the NRO is set up with the full support of the RIRs and their constituencies, no problems are foreseen.
Q by unknown: What happens if ICANN recognises a RIR that is not an NRO member. Would that RIR nonetheless automatically get the seats in the ASO replacement?
A: It is theoretically possible, this comment should go to the public forum for consideration.
Lyman Chapin noted that the LoI is mutually fully backed by all sides: the RIRs as well as the ICANN board in total.
Lyman Chapin pointed out that also the handling in case of disagreement between ICANN and the NRO is specified in the proposed MoU, the jurisdiction for arbitration in such cases is Bermuda.
[For full details, please refer to the presentation.]
After some opening remarks, Doug Barton thanked the AC for being able to present. His presentation is an overview of all IANA activities and, interestingly, each of the communities IANA is interacting with appears to believe it is the only one.
His presentation has covered figures about the management of the root and IETF requests. It has also pointed to a current review process of the relation to the IETF, in collaboration with the IAB and the IESG.
In regards to the RIRs, Doug Barton pointed out that work had been completed not only in the policy area, but also in the operational area. Administrative procedures were streamlined in mutual agreement in the meantime when it comes to the handling of new allocations, in particular when it comes to announcements by IANA that will be made from now on when new allocations are made.
He briefly mentioned the RSSAC proposal to the ICANN board to put IPv6 glue records for TLD operators in the root, furthermore and to some greater detail the currently pending request for a rather large IPv6 allocation from the RIPE region. IAB advise has been sought on this, as so far the requests from the RIRs were for /23s only when this one is considerably larger.
Regarding the emergence of AfriNIC, IANA is happy about the progress made. Doug Barton pointed out that any newly recognised RIR immediately gets an IPv4 /8 block.
He then gave an update on the status quo of the .int registry.
Finally, some closing remarks about IANA's perceived lack of transparency were made, which will be dealt with by a ticket system. The possibility was pointed out for TLD operators to register their IDN language tables with IANA and so share it with other registries.
Q by Geoff Houston: In regards of the mentioned IDN registry and the fact that IANA have run registries for outcomes of the IETF protocol parameter process so far only: will IANA from now on run registries for anyone? How to tell the difference? And what if different people request registries for the same protocol parameters?
A: Answer to #1 is that the notion of either protocol or parameter is carefully avoided. The URL under which this IDN related information is currently found can and will be changed to avoid confusion with other assignments. Setting this up was primarily driven by John Klensin, in general IANA will not run a registry for anybody.
C by Leslie Daigle: John Klensin did not request it in his capacity as IAB/ICANN liaison.
C by Geoff Houston: ICANN is privileged to run the IETF registries. By lumping other functions and roles together under this formerly unique "brand" will eventually dissolve the "brand" - rather keep it distinct from those activities.
A: The issue will de addressed shortly.
C by Suzanne Woolf: Consult the community in case such uncertainties will occur again.
There were no items to discuss.
The Chair closed the meeting at 18:20 UTC.