ASO AC Teleconference 5 October 5 2005

AC Attendees:

Sanford George (SG) – ARIN
Lee Howard (LH) – ARIN
Kenny Huang (KH)  APNIC
Hartmut Glaser (HG) – LACNIC
Sebastian Bellagamba (SB) – LACNIC
Hans Petter Holen (HPH) – RIPE NCC
Wilfried Woeber (WW) – RIPE NCC
Sabine Jaume (SJ) – RIPE NCC
Jean Robert Hountomey (JH)  AfriNIC
Alan Barret (AB) – AfriNIC

Observers:

Ray Plzak (RP) – ARIN
Paul Wilson (PW) – APNIC
Adiel Akplogan (AA) – AfriNIC
Olof Nordling (ON) – ICANN Staff
Adriana Rivero (AR) – Secretariat

Apolgies Received:

Louis Lee (LL) – ARIN
Takashi Arano (TA)  APNIC
Hyun-Joon Kwon (HJK)  APNIC
Julian Dunayevich (JD)  LACNIC
Raul Echeberria (RE)  LACNIC
German Valdez (GV)  LACNIC
Axel Pawlik  RIPE NCC
Raimundo Beca (RB)

Minutes taken by AR.

Draft Agenda:

Welcome & roll call
Agenda review
Minutes from September Teleconference
Status Open actions
Report from committee on web site/translation issues SB, SJ, LL.
ICANN Strategic plan – new letter from Paul Towmey
Status on IPv6 Global Policy
Planning for Vancouver
WG on procedures – Status and path
– propose a working phone meeting
AOB

=================

1) Welcome & roll call

The teleconference, chaired by HG, was opened at 22.00 UTC
As per roll call 10 AC members and 5 observers were present. Quorum was established.

2) Agenda review

HG proceeded to read the proposed draft agenda.

WW proposed adding the issue of the AC Chair and the mechanisms of communication under AOB.

After adding this item, the draft agenda was approved.

3) Minutes from September Teleconference

Hearing no comments, the minutes from the previous teleconference were approved.

Action#051005-1 (Secretariat):
To change the status of the Minutes of the September teleconference from draft to definitive and post them on the website.

4) Status Open Actions

At the request of the Chair, AR proceeded to read the list of open actions. The status of these actions was modified as follows:

Action #0509-1. AA:
To follow up on Sylvia’s contact address so she can be invited to the next AC meetings.
CLOSED.

AA commented that he had managed to get in touch Sylvia and that she said that she would attend this meeting. He added that he had provided Sylvia’s new contact information to AR. AR added that she did not ask to be called to today’s teleconference. It was decided to see if for the next teleconference she will call or she will ask to be called and that no new action was needed.

Action #0509-2. SEC:
To remove the geographical reference and to change the status of the spellchecked Minutes of the July 27th teleconference from draft to definitive and post them on the website.
CLOSED.

Action #0509-3. LH:
To formalize a response to ICANN attaching a letter that ICANN, based on their decision, may or may not use to respond to the author of the Competing Addressing Registries and send it to the list.
OPEN.

SJ commented that the action is still open. HG said that somebody needs to contact the NRO, SJ volunteered to do it. RP said that the NRO has decided that each RIR will be in charge of translating documents into their own languages; that the ASO can decide which documents the ASO wants translated, not which languages. SB, SJ, LL will try to put something together. The language issue will be removed from the action list after RP’s input about what the NRO will do. The following action was decided:

Action#051005-2 (RP):
To ask for information from the NRO about what they will do regarding the language issue.

Action #0509-5. SEC:
To post a link to the “IPv6 Global Policy Status Overview” document prepared by ON on the ASO website. CLOSED.

Action #050727-5. CHAIR:
To prepare a more refined proposal for the Vancouver meeting and circulate it to the list for further discussion; to get in contact with the ICANN staff to see what is the actual availability of rooms and space so that we can have a more concrete proposal on the table during the next couple of weeks.
OPEN. (This action will be discussed in today’s agenda)

Action #050727-2. CHAIR:
To prepare a welcome letter for new ASO AC members.
OPEN.

It was decided to include LL and RH in this action, as they were the most active on the matter. The following new action was decided:

Action#051005-3 (AR):
To send a message to LL asking him to put together all the contributions he prepared about welcoming new ASO AC members.

Action #050710-4. SB, SJ, RP, CHAIR and CO-CHAIRS:
To come up with procedures for AC approval before the next conference call. List of ASO AC procedure. OPEN.

Action #050710-5. SB, SJ, RP, CHAIR, CO-CHAIRS:
To review and finalize the procedures to call for AC meetings before the next meeting. OPEN.
There is a written proposal that has not been discussed on any agenda. It should be discussed further and included as an agenda point for its approval during the next meeting.

Action #050710-6. LL, RH:
Fine tune the procedure for New ASO AC members and present it at the next AC meeting for its approval.
(This action will be included in 27-2).

Action #0505-09. SB, SJ, LL.
The three will go through the website, forming a work group that will see what needs to be done and forward suggestions to the Chair, Co-Chairs and Secretariat for action.
OPEN.

It was decided to include this action as an agenda point for the next meeting so that more feedback can be received. It was also established that this item will be discussed under agenda point 05) of this teleconference.

Finally, at SJ’s proposal, the following action was decided:

Action#051005-4 (Secretariat):
To send the minutes and the list of open actions to the working group or persons who are in charge of the actions before the following teleconference.

5) Report from committee on web site/translation issues SB, SJ, LL.

HG: This was just discussed under action #0505-09.

LH reminded all the AC members to visit the new website and present comments.

6) ICANN Strategic Plan – New letter from Paul Towmey

HG: HPH received a letter from Paul Towmey and sent it to the list. Would you like to go into details?

HPH: What I understand from the letter is that there is a requirement from the ASO to provide some feedback, and there is also a meeting in Marina del Rey on 18-19 October. The question is whether the AC should take part in this meeting or not. If we decide to participate in the meeting we should probably create a working group to provide feedback to ICANN.

SB: I’m not clear about why we should provide feedback. Do we have an official request for comments from ICANN?

ON: There is an issue statement. I’m not certain whether HPH has received it but it has been dispatched very recently (I believe it was today). It is basically an 8 page summary of the input received during the Luxembourg meeting and later. This paper would be the basis for the 18-19 October meeting in Marina del Rey.

SB: The paper is available on the ICANN website, but I don’t know how to handle that document, as it points out some major priorities, some big titles, but not specific issues.

ON: An overview as well of the way it will be handled: This is the first version of this paper and following comments and the Marina del Rey meeting there will be a second version of the document and another call for comments. This in turn will constitute the basis for the Strategic Plan that will be discussed in Vancouver. Basically there will be three rounds of calls for comments. It is a bottom up process as requested in previous ICANN meetings, particularly Mar del Plata.

RP: Just one comment: I didn’t expect the NRO, or the RIRs via the NRO, to contribute money to the ICANN budget. However, ICANN seems not consult with us about how to spend that money. It seems to me that ICANN is being remiss in its attempts to work bottom up, particularly when talking about the budget.

ON: I think the perception may be as you say. But the formal standpoint is that the interface with the addressing community is via the ASO. How should we handle this? Should we have parallel submissions or contacts from ICANN to the NRO EC or is that something which we could continue to dispatch via the ASO AC?

HG: Olof, do you know if Paul Towmey invited someone from the NRO to the meeting next week?

ON: I do not know. I do know for sure that invitations have been directed to ASO through the supporting organizations and the advisory committees. In order not to run so much in parallel I think perhaps this is the preferred way to keep the communication line going. But if there are strong views to the contrary I could bring them to Paul Towmey. Particularly, the matter of comments to the Strategic Plan has been referred to the ASO AC; perhaps a direct contact would be more appropriate.

HG: This is my understanding: In Luxemburg, because the Strategic Plan didn’t have a very strong bottom up process, a new time schedule was requested, one that included consultation with the supporting organizations, advisory committees and other members. As I remember, next year the plan for 2006-2009 will be approved including some bottom up information in the process. The letter that HPH received mentioned clearly that the supporting organizations and advisory committees have the opportunity to respond to the Issues Paper. This response must contain two elements: 1) An indication of whether the issues that have been identified in the Issues Paper are the correct issues. In order to decide on this we need to see the final version (wording) of the paper. 2) The items or the issues we would like the ASO to identify, the strategic priorities and how ICANN should go about addressing these priorities. In the letter Paul Towmey sent to HPH the idea was to select no more than 5 priorities for the next 2-3 years. My question is: Has the NRO received an invitation to be at the ICANN meeting in Marina del Rey?

RP: ICANN has not communicated with the NRO at all on any matter regarding the Strategic Plan, even though ICANN says it will contact supporting organizations and other parties.

ON: As I mentioned before, ICANN believes it should communicate with the ASO through the AC.

RP: But there is nothing in the letter to the ASO AC that says “please consult with the people that are paying the money.”

HPH: I was trying to read the letter again to understand whether the invitation from ICANN is limited to members of the AC only or whether we can interpret it in such a way that we can bring along with us the NRO EC, i.e. the people with the money.

ON: ICANN sees the ASO globally. In my understanding the ASO is seen representative or as the interface with the addressing community. I take it that this is for the addressing community to appoint as they see fit.

HPH: A question to the NRO EC: I think there was an action referring the Strategic Plan to the NRO EC. Has there been any further action on that in the NRO EC?

RP: We discussed it today and in our last meeting in Hanoi. Our intent is to invite comments. These would be unsolicited comments because they weren’t requested by ICANN.

WW: May I come back to the more formal aspect of who will be invited or contacted? To me it looks pretty funny that the AC or the ASO has been established as the follow on from an MoU between the NRO and ICANN. Actually the NRO is the financial interface between the addressing community and ICANN. The mandate of the AC or the ASO, from my point of view, does not include any aspect of financial issues or the like. So it’s really surprising to me that ICANN, in order to get sorted out with the address community, tries to channel that through the AC or through the ASO and then depend on the AC or the ASO to forward the issues to the NRO. I don’t see a good reason why ICANN would not simply try to reach as broad as possible number of communication points instead of trying to follow hierarchy and relying on one party to forward information to another party, particularly when requesting comments.

LH: There’s a difference between an ICANN supporting organization and other kinds of organizations. This particular meeting is a meeting for the Chairs of the ASO and the AC, different from the NRO EC. There’s a big difference between the elected representatives on the ASO AC and the staff of the RIRs (NRO EC).

HG: Can we, as ASO request, invite or bring with us for this meeting comments from the NRO?

ON: There’s no problem with that.

RP: I think WW makes a clear distinction. If one were to read the language of the ASO MoU it deals only with policy matters.

HPH: While in principle I agree with WW, my concern is that the addressing community is missing out on the opportunity to influence ICANN’s Strategic Plan because of technicalities. I also think that maybe we can make this easier if we follow up on the action between the two of us.

RP: I agree one hundred percent.

HPH: We could extend this by making a suggestion to ICANN on what to send in which direction so that formalities don’t stand in the way.

HG: Three comments: First we must discuss whether we will participate in this meeting; second, we must decide how we can participate; and finally who will be present at the face-to-face meeting? We can start an active discussion in which the ASO and the NRO work together. In brief, I believe there are three steps in this decision: 1) whether we accept the invitation; 2) how we will contribute, and 3) how will we handle the face-to-face meeting (how many persons should go). In response to the first part of the question, I believe the ASO must go to the meeting.

AA: I think that we all agree that we have to participate, but we must see how we organize ourselves internally so that we can forward all our contributions to the ICANN Strategic Plan. The NRO EC could work on the Strategic Plan and send recommendations and comments to the ASO AC.

RP: Two final comments: 1) ICANN still does not understand that the addressing organizations are different from the names organizations and tends to treat us the same; 2) just an example: this action sounds as if I said “Hartmut: I’m going to take your money but I’m not going to tell you what I’m going to do with it, instead I’ll ask your neighbor.” I agree with AA, the ASO AC is formed as an addressing policy body but they have reach into the community and therefore should be consulted on these matters. I think it is correct that most of the matters regarding finances and so forth are not within the purview of the AC and therefore they should not be the prime addressee on this matter; it should be the NRO and the NRO would consult with the AC.

LH: I disagree. The AC must advice the ICANN Board on all the matters they require, and the Board has asked for advice on identifying strategic issues for ICANN to look at for the next three years.

RP: I believe the MoU states that the ASO AC is supposed to provide advice on policy matters.

LH: My position would be that the chairs and co-chairs of the AC should attend the Marina del Rey meeting. As to the question of how and whether the NRO is represented at that meeting or at other direct consultations with ICANN is a different subject.

SB: We represent the addressing community before ICANN. It’s in the best interest of the addressing community that we (the AC) go to the meeting, but it’s also in the best interest of the addressing community that the the NRO is also present. Two questions; 1) Should HG, HPH and/or the other co-chairs go to the Marina del Rey meeting? 2) Is somebody here going to the meeting?

RP: Are we going to set up a conference call service? We need a teleconference.

PW: I second this motion. A teleconference service should be available in order to simplify schedule conflicts with other activities taking place in other parts of the world.

HG: I think we must ask for the conference service but this should be easy to obtain.
Let us go back to some points. First, I remember that myself and others mentioned in the past that the ICANN Board has never asked for any input from our part, therefore if we now receive the invitation we must either go to the face-to-face meeting or be present via teleconference. 2) The NRO and the ASO AC internally need to set out priorities together so that we can have one voice and that we stand before the ICANN as one body. The question is how can we come up with a position on the Strategic Plan in only 10 days? If we accept the invitation and 2, 3 or 4 persons from the AC works with the NRO EC to put together five priorities any one of us could be the speaker at the meeting because he would be speaking for all the addressing stakeholders.

SJ: I agree with HG.

AA: Everybody agrees that the invitation should be accepted. The question is to decide how we will organize or channel our contribution. My position is that the NRO EC could provide the ASO its contribution or comments in 5-7 days and then the ASO AC could discuss it and come up with a joint position.

WW: I have two formal problems with the invitation sent by Paul Towmey: 1) It’s not addressed to the ASO AC but instead it is addressed to HPH personally; 2) The wording of the invitation implies that the AC has an internal hierarchical structure. I would have expected that the invitation would have been issued to the ASO AC as a body and also that it would allow an internal selection process to decide who is going to represent the body.

HPH: My proposal is that the AC should reach a solution today in the sense of appointing two representatives to go to Marina del Rey; I propose one of the co-chairs, HG. I also propose that the EC send the chair or another representative to attend the meeting. I also believe that after the Marina del Rey meeting we should formalize (between RP and myself) procedures between the AC and EC, circulate what has been written and communicate it to ICANN for future occasions.

LH: I understand that the first part of HPH’s proposal is a motion and second this motion: To accept the invitation and to send two delegates, one being a member of the AC and the other being a member of the NRO EC.

Votes were taken by roll call. With nine (9) votes for the affirmative and one (1) abstention (HG) the motion was approved.

It was decided to send two delegates to the Marina del Rey meeting, one from the AC and another from the NRO EC. It was established that several of those present  among them AP, AA, RP, WW  will not be able to travel to Marina del Rey for the meeting. HG observed that he would be able to travel to Marina del Rey, but that he believes that we need to discuss our own priorities before the physical meeting.

HG: Would it be possible to have one EC member present at the Marina del Rey meeting? Or there an easier or better way?

RP: It would be best if the EC were invited.

HG: If the ASO AC and the EC agree on 3-5 priorities I would be willing to speak for both, but I would prefer someone from the EC to be present with me at the meeting.

After further discussions, SJ proposed scheduling another conference exclusively to discuss this issue. Hearing no objections it was decided to schedule a conference on 12 October.

Action#051005-5 (Secretariat):
To call for a conference call in one week on Wednesday 12 October to discuss the ICANN Strategic Planning Issues Paper.

HG: Would it be possible to send to our list the ideas that the EC has already been discussing? This would be of great help.

RP: I would need to communicate with RE, he’s the coordinator on this matter.

HG: Could you ask him and, if he has no problems, could you send it to the list in couple of days.

RP: I don’t know when we will have our comments put together in a manner such that it is ready to forward to you for discussion; it may not be this week.

HG: But we need to have a position before we meet again next week.

RP: I agree, but it probably won’t be ready this week.

LH: I believe it would be reasonable that all of us should read the 8 page document, try to come up with our own list of 3-5 points, and send them to the list in order to discuss them later. This could be a starting point for our conversation next week.

HG: In conclusion, we will have the conference on 12 October to discuss the ICANN Strategic Plan. We will receive input from the EC and discuss the Issues Paper that is on the ICANN website.

Having decided to discuss this matter further at the 12 October teleconference, it was decided to move on to agenda item 7.

7) Status on IPv6 Global Policy

At the request of HG, ON presented the following report:

ON: The current version of status overview is due for an update following the APNIC meeting and particularly following the upcoming RIPE meeting, which I will attend. Following the RIPE meeting I intend to prepare a draft update of the status overview and send it as I did last time to the AC list for full review and comments before I post it.

HPH: I can give you two advances from the RIPE region right now: 1) The policy development process has been finalized and published; and 2) This global policy proposal has now been inserted into that policy process.

HG: I believe we don’t need to discuss more information. Or are there any comments or questions?

HPH: RIPE NCC has suggested some improvements in the language of the proposal (changes in the text or wording of the proposal) and we have discussed how to handle these changes. It would be interesting to hear from the other regions how they will treat changes to the text of the global policy proposal at this time.

RP: Speaking from the ARIN region, it would have to go back through our policy proposal process, it is too late to be included in the agenda for our next meeting so they would have to be discussed at the meeting we will have next April. However, the nature of the specific changes might be such that the ARIN Board considers them minor changes in which case it may just go to the Advisory Council for advice.

It was established that no action is needed on the part of the AC.

8) Planning for Vancouver

HG asked HPH whether he had any information to share.

HPH: First of all let me apologize for not being able to finish this earlier. I circulated a proposal to the chairs and some other members that I prepared on the basis of what I understood are the meetings we are trying to put together. The next step will be to circulate it to the meeting planner to see the outcome and then circulate it to the AC coord list for final decision. I propose keeping this in circulation on the list.

HG: If the AC has the idea to have a larger meeting with the constituency in Vancouver probably we need to send an announcement so that we can have more specific stakeholders interested in our discussions.

HPH: I agree. We need to have a confirmation from them before we announce the meeting.

HG: My understanding is that the activities in Vancouver can be divided in two different types: 1) those of the AC and NRO related with the GAC; and 2) those of the ASO as a supporting organization with the community and stakeholders. These have two different focuses.

HPH: I believe the meetings are the following: one is the meeting with the GAC, one is the meeting with the Board, one is an internal AC meeting (either as a formal meeting or as a workshop), and the other is a public forum like the one we had in Stockholm. I am working on these activities.

All those present proceeded to discuss possible dates for the meetings, particularly which would be the first date that members would have to be present in Vancouver.

HG: Usually the GAC meets with other organizations two days before the official start of the meetings.

HG suggested that HPH discuss with Diane Schroeder or someone else the scheduled meetings related to the AC.

After further discussions the following action was decided:

Action#051005-6 (HPH):
To set up the final agenda for the ICANN meeting in Vancouver.

9) WG on procedures – Status and path
– propose a working phone meeting

HPH: I think that the working group should have a telephone meeting to complete the review of the procedures. Regarding how to call for this meeting, I believe we had an action item on procedures, I’m not sure if it is my responsibility.

HG: Probably we should appoint someone from the working group to coordinate the teleconference and assume leadership of the group. What about SB?

It was agreed that it should be SB.

Action#051005-7 (SB):
To coordinate a conference call and put together the meeting of the working group (AC procedures).

HPH: The other question I would like to ask is whether the composition of the working group (SB, SJ, RP, Chair and Co-Chairs) is satisfactory to the Address Council. Is the working group representative or are there any other volunteers for the working group? I was thinking about someone from the AfriNIC and APNIC regions.

SJ: May I suggest that once SB has set the date and time for the teleconference he should publish it on the AC list so that if any other AC members wishes to attend they can do it.

HPH: While I like SJ’s proposal, I would actually like more commitment from the group because there is quite a lot of work to be done.

HG: SB can do the work preparing the meeting and then we can have the discussion.

This was agreed by all.

10) AOB

At WW’s suggestion an item relating to “Communications Mechanisms” was added to the agenda.

WW: I’m getting the feeling again that many parties outside the AC and maybe even within the AC have started again to drift towards an internal structure with the chair and co-chairs being used as focal point and points of structure into the AC. If I remember correctly, back in the good old days when we decided to nominate a chair and co-chairs we agreed on limiting the mandate to more clerical functions. We didn’t have the vision of channeling most of the communication and most of the activities through those individuals. I think I made the most part of my point in my comment when discussing the invitation to participate in the Marina del Rey meeting. I cannot participate in that meeting. Perhaps this is something we might want to take up again in our Vancouver meeting.

HPH: In response to that I remember the discussion we had at the beginning. Since then at least 2 things happened: 1) We have an MoU which I’m not certain but perhaps it mentions the role of the chair and co-chairs of the AC, and 2) We have started to adopt more detailed procedures and perhaps the role of the chairs should be more detailed as well. In addition we have an action point to work on procedures between the AC and EC which we could publish to ICANN.

LH: According to the MoU, one of the responsibilities of the AC is developing procedures for conducting business, in particular the appointment of a chair and the definition of the chair’s responsibilities.

At this point HG proceeded to ask those presents if there were any other comments before closing the meeting. The following final comments were received:

SB: Another issue relating to the Vancouver meeting: There is an agenda on the ICANN website. The GAC is working from Monday 28.

HG: Going back to WW’s comments, I would like to add that if HP or any co-chair, in their capacity as chair, receives any invitation or letter this person is only the channel to communicate it to the rest of the AC. Probably this is not the way that ICANN understands this. ICANN sees the chair as a hierarchical position although this is not our position. In fact if we receive any information we pass everything on to the AC so that everybody receives the information at the same time. I understand that this is not a discussion point on today’s agenda, but I wanted to reply to WW’s comment just the same.

AA: Two things to inform regarding the upcoming AfriNIC activities: 1) Registration for the AfriNIC III meeting to be held in Cairo is now open to those who wish to participate, and 2) The dates and venues for the AfriNIC IV meeting has been decided; it will be held on 16-17 April, 2006, in the city of Nairobi, Kenya.

There being no further matters to discuss, following a motion by LH, the meeting was adjourned at 23:45 UTC.

LIST OF ACTIONS

NEW

Action#051005-1 (Secretariat):
To change the status of the Minutes of the September teleconference from draft to definitive and post them on the website

Action#051005-2 (RP):
To ask for information from the NRO about what they will do regarding the language issue.

Action#051005-3 (AR):
To send a message to LL asking him to put together all the contributions he prepared about welcoming new ASO AC members.

Action#051005-4 (Secretariat):
To send the minutes and the list of open actions to the working group or persons who are in charge of the actions before the following teleconference.

Action#051005-5 (Secretariat):
To call for a conference call in one week on Wednesday 12 October to discuss the ICANN Strategic Planning Issues Paper.

Action#051005-6 (HPH):
To set up the final agenda for the ICANN meeting in Vancouver.

Action#051005-7 (SB):
To coordinate a conference call and put together the meeting of the working group (AC procedures).

OPEN

Action #0509-4. SB, SJ, LL:
To identify the documents and pages that the committee feels should be translated and then, in relation to the language issue, wait to see in which direction the NRO will move. (The language issue will be removed from the action list after RP’s input about what the NRO will do).

Action #050727-2. CHAIR, LL and RH:
To prepare a welcome letter for new ASO AC members. Fine tune the procedure for New ASO AC members and present it at the next AC meeting for its approval.

Action #050710-4. SB, SJ, RP, CHAIR and CO-CHAIRS:
To come up with procedures for AC approval before the next conference call. List of ASO AC procedure.

Action #050710-5. SB, SJ, RP, CHAIR, CO-CHAIRS:
To review and finalize the procedures to call for AC meetings before the next meeting.

CLOSED

Action #0509-1. AA:
To follow up on Sylvia’s contact address so she can be invited to the next AC meetings.

Action #0509-2. SEC:
To remove the geographical reference and to change the status of the spellchecked Minutes of the July 27th teleconference from draft to definitive and post them on the website.

Action #0509-5. SEC:
To post a link to the “IPv6 Global Policy Status Overview” document prepared by ON on the ASO website.

Action #050710-6. LL, RH:
Fine tune the procedure for New ASO AC members and present it at the next AC meeting for its approval. (This action is now included in Action #050727-2).

Last modified on 29/01/2020