ASO AC Meeting 2 November 1999


  1. Welcome and introduction
  2. Selection of AC chair person
  3. Review ASO board member terms
  4. Review of Functions of the AC
  5. Operations of the AC and possible meetings
  6. General Assembly – function and scheduling
  7. AOB

    1. Welcome and introduction

      • Sabine Jaume (France): Employed by Renater, the academic network in France;Cathy Wittbrodt (USA): Former member of ARIN Advisory Council, involved in routing engineering with @Home;
      • Raimundo Beca (Chile): Vice-President of Strategic Planning, Telefonica CTC Chile; also chair of the Internet Commission of AHCIET;
      • Jianping Wu (China): Director of CERNET, China Educational Research Network, and professor of Computer Science department at Tsinghua University, China;
      • Takashi Arano (Japan): Responsible for network and routing design at NTT, Japan; also chair of JPNIC’s “IP Working Group”;
      • Hans Petter Holen (Norway): Employed by SOL, a small ISP in Norway; and chairman of LIR-WG chair within RIPE;
      • Wilfried Woeber (Austria): Responsible for ACOnet’s LIR since 1993, RIPE DB-WG chair, member of initial board of RIPE NCC after RIPE NCC became legal entity;
      • Hyun Je Park (Korea): Manager of Thrunet, a major ISP in Korea;
      • Dave Meyer (USA): not present, but introduced by Cathy Wittbrodt: works for Cisco and involved in multicasting work within the IETF.
      • Rob Blokzijl (The Netherlands): former physicist, founder and current chairman of RIPE, founder of RIPE NCC, involved in AMSIX (Amsterdam Internet Exchange Point), and currently employed by National Institute of Nuclear Physics and High Energy Physics (NIKHEF);
      • Ken Fockler (Canada): previously employed in IBM, founded NetNorth in 1984, later started CA*NET, helped to establish and served as president of CAIP, served as a Director of CANARIE, and served on the ARIN Board for a year. currently operates his own consulting company.
      • Pindar Wong (resident of Hong Kong): started first commercial ISP in Hong Kong; involved in many initiatives for development of Internet in the Asia-Pacific; helped to establish, and is currently chair of APIA; previously held an “alternate” position on the APNIC board; is currently chair of APRICOT.

Paul Wilson from the APNIC, currently providing the ASO secretariat function, opens the meeting.

The Address Council (AC) members introduced themselves:

The three new ASO-ICANN directors introduced themselves:

    1. Selection of AC chair person

Hans Petter Holen is nominated as chair of the meeting, and accepts this nomination.

    1. Review ASO board member terms

      • Ken Fockler: for a term of 1 year
      • Pindar Wong: for a term of 2 years
      • Rob Blokzijl: for a term of 3 years
      • Pindar Wong: 1 year
      • Ken Fockler: 2 years
      • Rob Blokzijl: 3 years

Hans Petter explained the circumstances surrounding the selection of ICANN Board members by the AC.

Due to the very tight scheduling for selection of ICANN directors, the AC decided to specify the terms for the ICANN directors as an interim measure as follows:

On advice from ICANN, it was expected that these terms could be changed after consultation with the 3 directors, and consideration of their personal preferences and availability.

Pindar Wong informs the audience that the three directors discussed this among themselves, considered various criteria and came up with the following preferred distribution for terms:

The Address Council resolved to accept these revised terms, and to submit a formal request to ICANN for the new terms to be recognised.

    1. Review of functions of the AC

Paul Wilson as ASO secretariat walks through the MoU and describes the tasks of the AC as described in the MoU (primarily sections 2 and 4).

Pindar Wong asks for clarification of the relationship between ICANN and the RIRs. Paul explains that this is outside the scope of the AC, and will be settled in by negotiation between the individual RIRs and ICANN.

Paul Wilson describes item 2h) of the MoU regarding ICANN’s nomination of an observer from the emerging RIRs (LacNIC and AfriNIC). It is clarified that ICANN will be the body who will designate individuals as observers.

There is a question from the audience as to the procedure for an emerging RIR to become an observer.

Andrew McLaughlin (ICANN staff) explains that ICANN will get together with the existing and the emerging RIRs to discuss this issue and will inform the AC about this. Cathy adds that one has to be careful, because there might be competing organisations and it might then be difficult to make a decision.

agenda | top

    1. Operations of the AC and possible meetings

Ken Fockler (ICANN Board) comments that there will be various channels through which the AC might receive proposals for policy review. The AC might want to discuss how they operate and what they will do with this input.

Kim Hubbard (ARIN) clarifies that the ASO/AC is not the body who actually develops the policy; rather, they consider proposals and give advise, while policy is developed in the regional open forums.

Wilfried Woeber adds that this whole procedure is only going to work if the AC and the RIRs collaborate and keep each other informed. This is not an attempt to get involved in the RIRs business and operations, but the wording in the MoU section 5 is vague. This needs to be reviewed.

Hans Petter summarises by stating that the AC will start studying the role of the AC and its relation with the RIRs and the existing policy groups in the various regions.

Paul Wilson explains that according to the MoU, the AC will have a secretary, serving for a terms of one year, and rotating among the RIRs. APNIC will initially perform this role.

As ASO Secretariat, APNIC has established the ASO web site, at The required public feedback mechanism is currently not yet set up, this will be done very soon.

Wilfried Woeber proposes to start working on the mailing list and then agree on phone conference if there is a need to do so. As soon as the AC is up to speed, it will have a clearer view about the need of physical meetings. It is neither appropriate nor useful to agree on a number of meetings at this point in time.

Bill Manning (ISI) asks if there is a requirement that the AC meetings to be open. It is clarified that the MoU specifies that the AC does not have to have open meetings, but that the agendas and the minutes of these meetings and decisions need to be published.

A representative from U.S. Small Business Administration urges the AC to develop operations and a structure that is as open and transparent as possible, so that is also easy for small businesses to follow and to have access.

Hans Petter agrees that these meetings should have a proper structure and agendas and minutes. He clarifies that on the other hand the main policy discussions will continue to be held in regional open policy meetings. These structures and procedures need to be clearly defined and documented.

agenda | top

    1. General Assembly – function and scheduling

Function of the General Assembly is discussed and clarified. The GA’s role is clearly defined in the MoU.

Rob Blokzijl proposes to hold three GA meetings per year, one in each region in conjunction with the regional policy meeting, and offers to host the first GA meeting in Amsterdam in February. This needs to be further discussed with the RIRs for planning and logistical reasons.

Kim Hubbard suggests that, in accordance with the MoU, only one GA meeting is needed per year, and having one meeting would encourage maximum participation in that meeting. With three global GA meetings, people would only visit their local meeting, defeating the purpose. It was agreed to start with the organisation of one meeting.

Wilfried Woeber raises the question of requirements and procedures for the election of the next ICANN director from the ASO. Andrew clarifies the ICANN procedures and required timing, and discussion follows about timeline for events such as call for nominations, election, and notification to ICANN.

In order to follow this time frame, the next elections will have to be either at the RIPE Meeting in May or the ARIN Meeting in April, with call for nominations issued at least 90 days prior. This will be further discussed with the RIRs.

agenda | top

    1. AOB

        1. Ad hoc group

      Hans Kraaijenbrink reports from the meeting that was held earlier that day. He is grateful for the people who participated. The meeting agreed on a proposed charter for the ad-hoc group, to be published later today, and discussed at the ICANN meeting the following day. The group will be open to everyone to participate. There will be small editorial group to collect the results and to make sure the deadlines are met. Hans expects that the group will be operational within one month. Further deadlines will be specified in the ad-hoc charter.

      Paul Wilson asks when and how the editorial group will be formed.

      Hans Kraaijenbrink explains that he had hoped to identify individuals through private discussions during this week, but this will probably not be possible, so hopefully during the next week. He urges the AC and/or the RIRs to also participate and to specify individuals. However, the group should not consist of more than 10 people.

      Hans Kraaijenbrink explains that the ICANN public forum has been used for the public charter, there will be a requirement to review the work and results of the group widely. It is fully open and fully transparent. It might be that some groups will use private discussions before they post an opinion to the mailing list.

      Ken Fockler asks if the editorial group will sum up at some point? Rob Blokzijl asks if they will do more than that, such as to produce a report.

      Hans Kraaijenbrink explains the tasks of the editorial committee: the actual work will be done on the public forum, but in case the group gets stuck, a small group of highly involved and motivated people can step in and stimulate further discussion. The editorial group should not change the input, just collect. Hans would like Tony Holmes from BT who was one of the initiators of the ad-hoc group and John Klensin from the IAB to participate. Jim Baskens already volunteered to participate. Hans asks for a few people from the RIR community to participate as well. Raimundo Beca volunteered to serve as a member of the editorial committee, either as an individual or nominated by the ASO Council. However, a final decision on ASO Council nominees to this editorial group was postponed to a later date.

        1. Other

      Nii Quaynor (interim board of AfriNIC) stresses that he supports the ASO MoU and introduces two people who are present at the meeting and who are also involved in the AfriNIC developments: Yann Kwok from Mauritius and Zakaria Amar from Mauritania

      Julián Dunayevich, on behalf of the LACNIC´s Interim Bureau, stated that LACNIC fully supports the MoU.

      Finally, Andrew McLaughlin again welcomes the AC members and the new ICANN directors, and congratulates all parties for a constructive start.

Meeting Ends 4.30pm

Last modified on 02/07/2020