ASO AC Teleconference 5 January 2005
AC Attendees:
Sanford George (SG) – ARIN
Lee Howard (LH) – ARIN
Louis Lee (LL) – ARIN
Kenny S. Huang (KH) – APNIC
Takashi Arano (TA) – APNIC
Hartmut Glaser (HG) – LACNIC
Sebastián Bellagamba (SB) – LACNIC
Hans Petter Holen (HPH) – RIPE
Sabine Jaume (SJ) – RIPE
Observers:
Ray Plzak (RP) – ARIN
Germán Valdez (GV) – LACNIC
Raimundo Beca (RB) – ICANN Board of Directors
Adiel Akplogan (AA) – AfriNIC
Barbara Roseman (BR) – ICANN
Adriana Rivero (AR) – LACNIC- ASO Secretariat
Apolgies Received:
Julian Dunayevich
Wilfried Woeber
Axel Pawlik
Minutes were taken by AR and GV
1) Election of new Chair
– roll-call to establish quorum
– list of nominees
– short statement from nominees
– election by roll call
2) Nomination of co-chairs
– proposal by new chair
– confirmation by roll-call
3) Agenda review (for the rest of the meeting)
4) Minutes from last meeting
5) Meeting schedule 2005 – phone & physical
6) Work plan 2005
7) Transition of Secretariat
8) Transition from old to new MOU
9) Report concerning transition of the NRO EC
10) Report from RIR meetings
11) Report from ICANN meetings
12) Global policy update (update on what’s in the pipeline in the different regions)
13) Any other business (AOB)
The teleconference was opened at 23.05 UTC
As per roll call, nine members of the AC were present. Quorum was reached.
HG chaired the beginning of the meeting.
– Roll-call to establish quorum
With 9 AC members and 6 observers present quorum was established.
RB proposed a minute of silence for the victims of the recent tsunami in Asia; the proposal was accepted and effected immediately. HG mentioned that APNIC’s website lists some NGOs that are open to receive donations to support Asian victims.
– List of Nominees
One nomination was received during the reception period, HPH was proposed and seconded. HG inquired whether there were any other candidates; there were not.
– Short statement from nominees
Although HPH had sent a statement of interest to all the AC members, HG asked HPH to present the high points of his statement.
HPH stated that he is willing to accept the nomination as Chair of the Council; that he has previous experience as Chair of the AC of which he has been a part since the beginning; that he is a firm believer in transparency and open processes and that he will support this in the AC; that, while the role of the AC is strictly defined, he believes that we as members of the AC also have a greater responsibility as members of the community and we should use this to coordinate and work as individuals in the community in a slightly broader sense.
HPH also added a brief description of his affiliation, mainly that he is no longer working for an ISP; that he started another job last September for a company that is not an ISP or a member of any of the RIRs; that this may also be a benefit for the community, that it will be perceived that this is not just a closed club for ISPs or members of the RIRs.
– Election by roll-call
With 8 votes in favor and 1 abstention (HPH), HPH was elected by the consensus of the AC.
At this moment HPH took over chairing the meeting.
– Proposal by new Chair
The newly elected Chair proposed HG and TA as co-chairs.
HG and TA accepted the proposal.
– Confirmation by roll-call
HG and TA were confirmed as co-chairs by the unanimous vote of the 9 members present.
Action #0501-01 CHAIR:To send a letter to ICANN notifying and introducing the newly elected chairs.
3) Agenda review (for the rest of the meeting)
The newly elected Chair proposed the discussion of the matter of the process that is going on in the UN regarding Internet Governance.
It was agreed that the topic be discussed under agenda point 13, AOB. There were no other changes to the agenda.
4) Minutes from the last meeting
HPH inquired if everybody had received the draft minutes and whether there were any comments. He added that these draft minutes are available at www.aso.icann.org, under meetings there is a link for the November teleconference draft minutes; that draft minutes are usually sent to the members and later published on the website.
There being no comments or objections to the minutes by those who attended the last meeting, he then proposed to vote. HG seconded this motion.
The minutes were unanimously approved.
Action #0501-02 SEC:To change the status of the minutes of the AC meeting on 3 November 2004 from “draft minutes” to “definitive minutes.”
5) Meeting Schedule 2005 – Phone & Physical
HPH inquired if there were any comments on the meeting schedule proposed for 2005 that was posted on the mailing list.
It was decided that teleconference meetings should continue to be held every second month and that emergency meetings will be called if necessary. After discussing several possibilities, it was decided that these meetings should be held at 22:00 GMT, that this time should not be changed during daylight saving periods, and that if it is deemed necessary it can be modified in the future.
Action #0501-03 SEC:To publish the new schedule that HPH will send with the GMT times on the website.
RP mentioned that the AC should adopt a procedure for the notification requirements for these AC meetings.
Action #0501-04 CHAIR: To look into proposing a procedure for the calling for meetings.
In relation to physical meetings, RP mentioned that the NRO EC is interested in funding two meetings of 12-15 persons plus other meetings for smaller numbers, but that a proposal is not ready.
HPH inquired whether they should wait for this proposal or just check the members’ availability to see when it would be possible to schedule these physical meetings.
HG asked whether the physical meetings will coincide with the RIR meetings, to which RP replied that there are two possibilities: ICANN meetings and RIR meetings.
RB expressed that it would be desirable that at least one of those meetings would be held back to back with ICANN meetings.
It was decided that the decision regarding physical meetings will be postponed until the next meeting, until we have the decision of the NRO EC.
Action #0501-05 CHAIR: To put together a table of the availability of the AC members for the coming RIR meetings so it will be easier to determine when the next physical meeting can be scheduled.
HPH requested comments on the proposed work plan for 2005, which is based on the work started by the previous Chair of the AC.
LH asked whether the AC should have a role in the ITU’s and the UN’s activities regarding Internet Governance. This will be discussed in agenda point 13.
LH noted that some RIR meetings were not listed, specifically some AfriNIC meetings and the dates of some other meetings.
LH asked whether there should be a review of the global ipv6 policy. He stated that he believes that a harmonized IPv6 policy was adopted by all the RIRs, but that he has the impression that there have been some divergences and that probably there should be some discussion about it so that the RIRs can decide whether to keep the policy or diverge.
HPH stated that in his understanding the ipv6 policy document is not a global policy but a globally coordinated policy and therefore not an issue for ICANN and the AC as such; that we also have an issue on the IPv6 global policy, meaning the policy that IANA should operate under (similar to IPv4). He asked for an update him on the status of the global IPv6 policy in the different regions.
RP reported that the status is that it has gone through discussions in all four RIRs, that it has not survived in the same form in any of them, and that consideration should be given to forming an editing team to formulate a policy. He added that putting together the editing team for preparing the global coordinated policy in 2002 was an effective instrument and that maybe this is what will be done here.
HPH asked whether this should be added to the road map, if it needs to go through a full round.
Before continuing with this subject, HG proposed the following changes to the proposed work plan for 2005:
– to move the item “tentative seating of three AfriNIC AC members pending recognition” from the first quarter to the second quarter.
– to take out of the list the item “elections for vacant seats in five regions” because this is not an action on the AC, this is a private item for each RIR
– to add to the work plan the “Election of representative of the AC to the Nom Com” in November-December
– to postpone the item “nominations for AC officers 2006” until the first meeting of 2006.
Changes were accepted.
SJ mentioned that the ICANN strategic plan has been published and asked whether we should comment on it as the AC or if these comments should be made individually.
RP stated that there is time to present comments until February 28.
HPH proposed that this issue should be discussed on the mailing list and later call for a meeting and adopt it before the stated date, to which RP replied that it would be necessary to have a detailed document and not a simple position so this implies a large amount of work.
HG asked whether the NRO is discussing this plan, to which RP replied that they are.
HG also asked whether these comments are only for the NRO, to which RP replied that each RIR requested comments after the meeting in Cape Town, and that all RIRs have announced on their website a call for public comments which is open right now.
HG According to the new MoU, one of the AC members will be appointed by the boards. Then probably, we can do a joint work (NRO EC and AC). Now that we are together it is easier, we should work together.
RP commented that the ASO AC is part of the ICANN structure and the NRO is not, therefore it might be a slightly disjointed activity, but there could still be a joint set of comments which could be signed by the Chair of the EC and the Chair of the AC.
HG asked whether the other RIR boards had already appointed their members to the AC
RP said that every RIR has now 2 persons elected at large and 1 person appointed by the board (on the ac).
HG said that we should use the new structure of the AC to show that we are together. He proposed that there should be a specific conference call to discuss this issue in an extra meeting, not an AC meeting.
RP commented that possibly it would be difficult to coordinate an organization within the ICANN structure with an organization that is not within the ICANN structure. He also suggested that it would be best to have it after January.
HG proposed to start a discussion on the list.
BR proposed that the discussion be used to see if the AC has specific points to comment on and if it turns out that there are no points that people feel strongly enough about to make a joint comment we can just present individual comments, although she believes a joint comment would be useful.
HPH asked for volunteers to go to the document and post their resume of comments to the list; then the chair of the AC and the chair of the NRO EC will consult and see if it is sensible and practical to make a joint statement.
SB volunteered for the work, asking whether the HPH would be signing as the chair of the AC or as chair of the Number Council.
HPH summarized the situation stating that there are three options: a joint statement from both the AC or Number Council (or both), and from the EC in the exact same wording or two different statements, or no statement at all.
LL stated that if the AC decides that it has strong comments, it can submit those to the EC and if they decide that they want to incorporate these comment too, then we can sign it all together as the NRO NC, the NRO EC, and the ASO EC. If the EC decides otherwise, there can be separate documents.
SJ and TA volunteered for the work on the document
Finally, the following action was decided:
Action #0501-06 SB, SJ, TA, RP, HPH SB, SJ, TA will start a discussion on the list concerning the ICANN strategic plan and then RP will take it to the EC. The chair will then consult with the EC and see if it is feasible and practical to come up with a joint statement based on the list and based on the EC.
LH asked whether the ASO AC needs to make a final recommendation to ICANN on AfriNIC status or if this has already been done, to which RP replied that it will be considered and acted on in the April meeting. The recommendation is that it should be voted on in March so we can take action before the April meeting in Mar del Plata.
RP: the NRO has named a coordinator for the transition from the perspective of the 4 RIRs and that is Richard Jimmerson from ARIN
HG: If the NRO could send to the AC a report, before the AC March meeting, we can take action before the April (ICANN) meeting in Mar del Plata.
RP Said there will be something forthcoming.
HG So, this needs to be added to the agenda for the next meeting
RB According to policy ICP2 there is no need for the AC to give an opinion at this stage, but it could help.
RP: It has provisional recognition, there’s no formal requirement for recommendations
HPH: As I said before the AC’s responsibilities include providing recommendations to the ICANN Board considering recognition of the RIRs. This will be added to the work plan and to the agenda for the next meeting.
There were no further questions about the work plan.
7) Transition of the Secretariat
HG commented last week LACNIC took over the duties of the Secretariat.
GV stated that the Secretariat rotates yearly; that in 2005 LACNIC is taking this role from RIPE for the year 2005; that the transition is being done smoothly and transparently and that for the AC everything will continue the same. He added that LACNIC is taking the responsibility of the Secretariat for this meeting; that there is great coordination with the other RIRs. He expressed his gratitude for the cooperation of RIPE during the process of taking over for this year. He stated that LACNIC is ready to do it in a totally transparent manner; that they are only waiting for the green light from RIPE in order to take over web page administration; that right now any necessary modification are being sent to RIPE but that next week technical aspects will be solved and the Secretariat will be entirely in the hands of LACNIC and that they are ready to take over the Secretariat duties.
HPH asked whether it is planned to move the web servers from their current location in Amsterdam.
RP reported that the NRO EC has an action to devise a server plan for all the joint tasks that will be undertaken, and we will have a server plan in place which will dictate which servers will be in place and where secondary servers will be located.
HPH proposed the following action:
Action #0501-07 CHAIR To thank the secretariat we had in 2004 (RIPE)
HPH then proceeded to welcome the new secretariat.
8) Transition from old MoU to new MoU
HPH asked whether there are any actions needed to be taken by the AC as a result of this transition, and commented that the question is how we should go through the new MoU and see if any new procedures need to be established. He added that RP had already mentioned the need for a new procedure for calling for meetings. He also received an email regarding the procedure for electing board members to the ICANN board, since the procedure made reference to the GA that no longer exists in the MoU. The HPH asked the AC whether a small task force should be formed in order to go through the new MOU and see if there are any new procedures that need to be established.
RP reminded those present that the new MoU requires that procedures that are devised by the AC must be presented to the NRO EC for final approval. That now there’s a lot more room, greater flexibility, for the AC to come up with procedures.
Action #0501-08 Chair and Co-Chairs:To identify a list of the procedures that need to be established regarding the transition from the old MoU to the new MoU, take that to the list, and then start to work on the most important ones and call for volunteers for the work.
9) Report concerning transition of the NRO EC
RP stated that positions on the EC are rotated, that there are no elections. Chairmanship is transitioned from APNIC to RIPE NCC so the new chair is Axel Pawlik, the secretariat transitions from RIPE NCC to LACNIC so the new secretary is Raúl Echeberría, and the treasury transitions from LACNIC to ARIN so he himself is the new treasurer. Also Paul Wilson, former chair, is functioning as a liaison.
RP added that the EC also took actions in the meeting in Cape Town to add AfriNIC as a full member of the NRO and that there are still some details that will be worked out shortly, in which case Adiel who is currently an observer will become a full voting member.
LL reported that the only new item from the ARIN region was that LH was appointed to be on the ASO AC and the NC.
It was established that there were no meetings in Asia-Pacific region or the RIPE region since the last AC meeting.
HPH stated that the most important action since the last RIPE meeting was that there has now been published a new formal policy process proposed by the RIPE chair based on previous discussions held with HPH during several meetings, there is no official proposal for comments on the mailing list but hopefully in the future we will have a more formal process for submitting policies and proper secretarial support from the RIPE NCC in order to keep track on the policy proposals in the future.
It was established that there were no meetings in the AfriNIC region since the last AC meeting, but that the next AfriNIC meeting will be held on 26, 27 April in Maputo.
HPH stated that this meeting will be added to the work plan for 2005.
HG reported that LACNIC presented its report from Costa Rica during the last meeting and that there is still no final date set for 2005; it will be in late May or early June although the country has not yet been established.
11) Report from ICANN meetings
It was reported that a meeting was held in Cape Town in December.
HG reported on this meeting. He reported that in his opinion it was a very positive meeting; that some of the changes are now on the table and that we are seeing new openness, new strong relationships between stakeholders and board and staff, that he sees progress in these relationships. HG added that in his opinion the most important activity in Cape Town was the ccNSO, which now has over 40 members. That they just finished the election of the council, they now have 15 members on the council and they just finished the first election of two new board members for ICANN. That the procedure they are using is consultation to all members and then formal approval by the council. The two new names are announced on the website – Peter Dengate Thrush from New Zealand and Demi Getschko from Brazil, and that they will probably be in functions before the end of January. That it will be the first time after the reform of the bylaws that the ICANN Board has all 15 members. That now the new budget is in place ICANN has more possibilities to fulfill its mission.
HG reported that the other very important point at the Cape Town meeting was the WSIS discussion, that there was a workshop and it was discussed by the public forum where many contributions were received; that in December 2005 there will be discussions in Tunisia in relation to Governance in which he understands that the address community should take part. To summarize, HG stated that in his opinion the meeting was very positive and that we are on the way to see new results and cooperation between all stakeholders, ICANN and the community.
RP: the NRO had a meeting with the Government Advisory Council, which took 1,5 hour. 45 minutes of formal presentation, 45 min of q and a period, a very good session, we agreed on a liaison strategy between the GAC and the address community.
RB: in Cape Town we proposed to have a face-to-face meeting of the AC during an ICANN meeting.
RP mentioned that the EC is also looking at other activities, in addition to having two full face-to-face meetings of the AC each year.
HPH concluded that the AC will be looking forward to the funding proposals from the EC for these meetings and will work hard in order for the meetings to be successful
12) Global policy update (update on what’s in the pipeline in the different regions)
RP added one item under this agenda point. He reported that at the Cape Town meeting, Paul Wilson as the chair of the NRO EC, acknowledging the signature of the MoU between the NRO and ICANN, noted that in September the AC had submitted to the ICANN board a global policy proposal – that of the allocation of IP address space from the IANA to the RIRs – and that the board had not yet acted on it and he also noticed that according to the new MoU there is a clock on that which we expect will start ticking on the 1st of January when the new MoU comes into effect. He added that this is a 60 day period, that by approximately the end of February the time period will run out.
HPH suggested that one possible action could be that the chair resubmit that proposal to ICANN, in which case it would be clear when the clock starts ticking. HPH then inquired if there was any action needed by the AC, to which RP replied that there was none, as the AC has done what it was supposed to do last September, and that NRO EC will keep a watch on this and will be communicating with ICANN’s EC regarding the status of this proposal. RP added that he is concerned that when the ICANN board receives a proposal from the AC it acts on it, as we know that this proposal has been received.
RB suggests the AC inquire ICANN asking clarification regarding the 60 day period for this specific proposal since it is not clear whether the deadline applies in this case or not.
Action #0501-09 Chair: To inquire ICANN about the deadline for reply to the global policy proposal document submitted to the ICANN board by the AC last September.
LH suggested to have this discussion at the next ICANN meeting and if ICANN has not taken any action then the AC should act on it.
– The UN ITU process on governance and what should the role of the AC be in that process
LH stated that we are not in a position to represent the RIRs but the address community outside of the RIR staff, and we as the ASO AC are in a better position to discuss with the representatives on the various committees and working groups, to make sure that they know what the issues are. In his opinion, there are pockets within parts of the world who believe addresses are not being allocated fairly, and it is part of our responsibility to make sure that they know what the rules are and that the rules are applied consistently within each region, and how they can effect changing those rules. He added that we should have a role in educating people who are trying to change things.
AA supported the idea of educating and talking to people.
HPH asked whether there were any concrete proposals for actions.
LH made two proposals: 1) to try to offer a paper with the AC’s position and submit it to the existing public fora, although in his opinion this paper would not get too much attention it would still be worthwhile, and 2) to designate working groups and individuals to identify and contact members and representatives involved in the process and make sure they know what they are talking about.
HPH stated that if it is decided to have a paper or a statement volunteers are needed, to which LH replied that this should only be done if he has support from other members. SJ supported this idea and LH stated that he would put something together and send it to the — board. According to their reaction the decision will be made as to whether to submit it or not.
A motion to adjourn the meeting was presented.
The meeting was adjourned at 22.45 (12.45 UTC)
Open Action Items:
Action #0411-01 SEC
To change and to publish the final minutes of the AC meeting on 1 September 2004 on the ASO web pages. DONE
Action #0411-02 CHAIR/SEC
The Chair and SEC to officially notify the NomCom of ICANN about the candidate of the Address Council for the ICANN 2005 NomCom.
Action #0411-03 Chair/Co-Chair
To work on a roadmap to be formally approved at the next AC meeting in January 2005
New Action Items:
Action #0501-01 CHAIR:To send a letter to ICANN notifying and introducing the newly elected chairs.
Action #0501-02 SEC:To change the status of the minutes of the AC meeting on 3 November 2004 from “draft minutes” to “definitive minutes.”
Action #0501-03 SEC:To publish the new schedule that HPH will send with the GMT times on the website.
Action #0501-04 CHAIR: To look into proposing a procedure for the calling for meetings.
Action #0501-05 CHAIR: To put together a table of the availability of the AC members for the coming RIR meetings so it will be easier to determine when the next physical meeting can be scheduled.
Action #0501-06 SB, SJ, TA, RP, HPH: SB, SJ TA will start a discussion on the list concerning the ICANN strategic plan and then RP will take it to the EC. The chair will then consult with the EC and see if it is feasible and practical to come up with a joint statement based on the list and based on the EC.
Action #0501-07 CHAIR To thank the secretariat we had in 2004 (RIPE)
Action #0501-08 Chair and Co-Chairs:To identify a list of the procedures that need to be established regarding the transition from the old MoU to the new MoU, take that to the list, and then start to work on the most important ones and call for volunteers for the work.
Action #0501-09 Chair: To inquire ICANN about the deadline for reply to the global policy proposal document submitted to the ICANN board by the AC last September.
Shelf list (items pending action outside the ASO AC):
Action #0307-03 SEC
Secretariat to investigate technical solutions for conducting e-voting. Once a proposal is made, then the AC can test it and make a decision as to whether to proceed. This action will be held open until there is a new MoU.
OPEN/STALLED
Last modified on 29/01/2020