ASO AC Teleconference 4 October 2006

AC Attendees:

Sebastian Bellagamba (SB), Chair
Alan Barrett (AB), Co-Chair
Sanford H. George (SHG)
Hartmut Glaser (HG)
Martin Hannigan (MH)
Hans Petter Holen (HPH), Co-Chair
Jean Robert Hountomey (JRH)
Kenny Huang (KH)
Sabine Jaume (SJ)
Louis Lee (LL)
Mao Wei (MW)


Therese Colosi, Recording Secretary (ARIN)


Einar Bohlin (EB)- ARIN
Raimundo Beca (RB) – ICANN
Olof Nordling (ON) – ICANN
Bart Boswinkle (BB) – ICANN
Raul Echeberria (RE)- LACNIC
German Valdez (GV) – LACNIC
Axel Pawlik (AP) – RIPE


Raymond Plzak


Sylvia Geha Kezengwa
HJ Kwon
Francisco Obispo
Wilfried Woeber

Draft Agenda:

  1. Welcome
  2. Agenda Review
  3. Approval of the Minutes
  4. ASO AC Face-to-Face Meetingin Sao Paulo, Brazil
  5. ICANN Board Selection Procedure
  6. ASO AC NomCom Representative for 2007
  7. RIR Trip Report
  8. Any Other Business
  9. Adjournment

1) Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 22:21 UTC. The presence of a quorum was noted.

2) Agenda Review

The Chair called for any comments. There were no comments.

3) Approval of the Minutes of June 7, 2006

HG moved that:

“The ASO AC approves the Minutes of August 2, 2006 as amended.”
“The ASO AC approves the Minutes of September 12, 2006 as amended.”

The motions were seconded by AB.  The motion carried with no objections.

4) ASO AC Face-to-Face Meeting in Sao Paulo, Brazil

The Chair stated he had resent his e-mail of 14 September to the Council’s list today to further discuss the points of the meeting. He explained that the days for the two public forums had changed on ICANN’s agenda to Monday and Thursday. He proposed the ASO AC hold its meetings on Tuesday and Wednesday.

Discussion ensued with HG commenting that Tuesday would be difficult because the constituencies will also be holding meetings and there will no availability of meeting space.  He stated that the schedule for the meetings at ICANN does not currently show the ASO AC’s meetings because all intended meetings need to be proposed via letter to ICANN in order to obtain meeting space. The Chair stated he did receive e-mail from the contact at ICANN and that he would inform ICANN of the ASO AC’s intent to hold their meeting.

The Chair called for any further comments. RE suggested the ASO AC hold a public meeting. The Chair was amenable to the idea.  SJ stated she would not be able to attend the meeting in Sao Paulo.

The Council agreed with holding their meetings on Tuesday and Wednesday, and the Chair stated that they would wait to see if ICANN will help them with meeting space.

The Chair reviewed his proposed agenda with the Council outlining the following points:

  1. Chair Selection and Board Selection Procedures:
    a. Chair Selection: Nominations.
    b. Board Selection Process.
  2. Breakfast with ICANN Board.
  3. Session on Current Regional Policy Issues.
  4. Planning Face-to-Face Meetings for 2007.
  5. Regularly Scheduled Meeting:
    a. Scheduled for the week during the ICANN meeting in Sao Paulo.
    b. Chair is proposing to include RE’s suggestion of having the regularly scheduled meeting in an open fashion, and that the Council discuss this idea.

RB then suggested adding an item to the agenda to include a meeting with the GAC for informational purposes. The Chair agreed.

The Chair asked the Council for input on the agenda stating that there was time to continue refining it.  LL stated that with regard to meeting with GAC, it would be interesting to know their thoughts of the adopted IPv6 Global Policy, that it may help the GAC to know the ASO AC is listening. He suggested this as a possible topic for the meeting. The Chair accepted his suggestion.

The Chair stated he would resend a revised draft agenda to the ASO AC’s list tomorrow, October 5, 2006.  The Chair called for any further comments.

MH stated he had read there was a GAC addressing council and asked what the GAC component of the addressing council was.  Discussion ensued as to whether or not this council existed.  It was the sense of the ASO AC that there was no such Council.

MH stated he felt that if there is no functional component as an addressing group within the GAC, and the ASO AC cannot meet to address the group as a whole, he would like the ARIN-region representatives to meet with the U.S. representative to introduce themselves to one another. He felt this could be done as a courtesy to the U.S. Representative.

HG suggested contacting the GAC Chair to find out if a Council exists. The Chair stated he would send an e-mail tomorrow, October 5, 2006, to GAC Chair to find out.

The Chair re-iterated that he would finish the Agenda in the next few days and e-mail the ASO AC SEC to write to the ICANN contact regarding meeting space for the ASO AC’s proposed meeting in Sao Paulo.

5) ICANN Board Selection Procedure

HPH asked AP and RE on the status of the procedure for use in the next election.  SB responded that at the ASO AC’s last meeting, the SEC stated he will work with the NRO EC and that the procedure would be in place for next year. HPH stated he was very concerned and that he is looking for advice from the NRO EC to ASO AC on how to proceed.

HG suggested asking the NRO to approve the procedure, and the ASO AC could start with their schedule on the selection of Board members.

MH suggested they use the lessons learned and information to use from last year. He felt there were no immediate issues on the Procedure, and that it should be approved easily. SJ agreed with MH. MH then suggested he do a presentation on lessons learned and present it to NRO to help the Procedure to move forward.  It was agreed that MH present his slides to the list, and discuss them at the next meeting.

HG also suggested the ASO AC work on the questions and the paperwork independent of the NRO; and then meet in Sao Paulo and get the final approval.  All agreed.

6) ASO AC NomCom Representative for 2007

The Chair stated that the NomCom is urging the ASO AC to select a representative prior to the ICANN meeting. He stated that the Council does not have a formal procedure for this, but his personal opinion was to re-elect SHG since he served this year and possesses the expertise. HG stated that he too served as a representative and was re-elected for a second year. During that time he proposed, in a report of the NomCom submitted to the Board, that the term last two years in order to avoid a learning curve for the elected representative each year. To this end, HG supported the Chair’s nomination for SHG. SHG accepted the nomination.

HG moved that:

“The ASO AC reappoints Sanford H. George as Representative to the NomCom for 2007.”

This was seconded by MH. The motion carried via roll call with 10 in favor and one abstention (SHG).

7) RIR Trip Report

APNIC, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.  The Chair asked MW or KH to provide a brief report.  KH reported events from the APNIC meeting to the Council including discussions regarding end assignments of IPv6 and multi-homing. He stated at the Member’s Meeting he made a presentation introducing an overview of the items with which the ASO AC was involved.

8) Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business.  HG stated that at the last ASO AC meeting suggested that 1) the ASO AC send a letter of recognition after they receive the implementation information from ICANN; and 2) ICANN or IANA send an explanation as to what is expected from the RIRs.  At that time HG stated he would like to see a written document stating that the RIRs do not have to request allocations. David Conrad (DC) answered that he would send this to the ASO AC. HG also pointed out that DC had stated the date for implementation of the policy would be October 1, 2006.

HG stated that except for an announcement from the ICANN General Council, he had not seen any further information from DC or ICANN. The Chair stated he too recalled the discussion at the last meeting, and that if there was information regarding implementation – the Council had not received any information.

AP responded that RIPE had received e-mail from IANA on 3 October regarding receiving a /12 allocation, and that he would will mention it in a presentation at the current RIPE meeting in Amsterdam on 5 October.

The Chair stated that when he received communication from John Jeffery at ICANN, he requested on 19 September that ICANN provide the anticipated implementation date of the v6 policy in the form of a formal letter. The Chair stated has not received an answer to date, and suggested waiting a few more days.  All agreed.

The Chair called for any other business.

Note: The following portion of these minutes was edited for clarity by Raimundo Beca.

RB informed the ASO AC that a new agreement (JPA) was adopted between the U.S. Department of Commerce (DoC) and ICANN, which replaces the old Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). He stated that he voted against the adoption of this new agreement, but that it was not because he was against the agreement in itself but only with the wording of one of the Responsibilities of the “Affirmation of Responsibilities”. He explained that the “Affirmation of Responsibilities”, which is an Annex to the JPA, is a set of principles that ICANN is now committed to follow. To this extent, this set of responsibilities replaces the old concept of “oversight” of ICANN activities by the USG. He explained that, specifically, his concerns were with the wording of Responsibility Number 8, related to IP addressing. In RB’s opinion, the initial wording proposed for this Responsibility was definitely insufficient. He explained that he tried to amend this initial wording, but he only was successful in replacing the word local by regional in the commitment to “continue to collaborate at a local and global level” with the RIRs in the addressing policy making. He recalled that generally, in the addressing community, it’s understood that a local level is a national level. He stated that in his opinion, even after this critical amendment, the wording of this Responsibility is still unacceptable. His main concern with the adopted wording is that ICANN is committed to maintain its legal agreements with the RIRs, in circumstances that there is no legal agreement in place between ICANN and any singular RIR.

Effectively, the only legal agreement in place is between ICANN and the NRO. He explained that due to the fact that the JPA and the “Affirmation of Responsibilities” were voted as a whole and not point by point, he was forced to vote against. Effectively, he couldn’t subscribe a commitment that can’t be honored. Finally, he stated that he is not opposed to the new DoC/ICANN agreement, which he considers a substantial improvement of the previous situation, but that his negative vote was only intended to highlight that the wording of Responsibility Number 8 needs to be amended.

Note: The Council did not raise questions about this statement, nor did the Council discuss its content.

The Chair thanked RB for his comments.  The Chair called for any other business.

SJ asked if she could inform the community at the RIPE meeting of SHG’s reappointment on 5 October. The Chair stated that SJ could make the announcement, and that he would send the announcement to ICANN as well the same day.

HPH reviewed the timeline for Board Selection Procedure stating that the calculations were not correct and suggested revising it and sending the calendar to the ASO AC. The Chair asked him to please do so. AB stated that he would help HPH with the revision.

The Chair called for any other business. There was no other business.

9) Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 23:26 UTC.  HG moved to adjourn, and this was seconded by LL. The motion carried unanimously.

Last modified on 29/01/2020