ASO AC Teleconference 7 September 2005

AC Attendees:

Sanford George (SG) – ARIN
Lee Howard (LH) – ARIN
Louis Lee (LL) – ARIN
Takashi Arano (TA)  APNIC
Hartmut Glaser (HG) – LACNIC
Sebastian Bellagamba (SB) – LACNIC
Hans Petter Holen (HPH) – RIPE NCC
Sabine Jaume (SJ) – RIPE NCC
Alan Barret (AB) – AfriNIC

Observers:

Ray Plzak (RP) – ARIN
Richard Jimmerson (RJ) – ARIN
Paul Wilson (PW) – APNIC
Raul Echeberria (RE) – LACNIC
German Valdez (GV) – LACNIC
Adriana Rivero (AR) – Secretariat
Axel Pawlik (AP) – RIPE NCC
Adiel Akplogan (AA) – AfriNIC
Olof Nordling (ON) – ICANN Staff

Apolgies Received:

Hyun-Joon Kwon (HJK) – APNIC
Julian Dunayevich (JD) – LACNIC
Wilfried Woeber (WW) – RIPE NCC

Minutes taken by AR. and GV.

Draft Agenda:

Welcome & roll call
Agenda review
Minutes from July 27th Teleconference
Status Open actions
Report from committee on AC advice to the ICANN Board on competing addressing registries LH, SB, WW, AA, RB
Report from committee on web site review SB, SJ, Ll
Report from committee on translation issues SB, SJ, LL
ICANN Strategic plan – Letter from Paul Towmey
Status on IPv6 Global Policy
Planning for Vancouver
AOB

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

The teleconference, chaired by HPH, was opened at 2300 UTC

1) Welcome & roll call

As per roll call 9 AC members and 9 observers were present. Quorum was established.

HG asked whether anybody had been able to contact Sylvia Geha. After establishing that nobody had her new e-mail address he proposed that AA should try to find out her e-mail address, adding that she has not participated in any of the teleconferences and is therefore not an active member of the AC. The following action was decided:

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

AB Supposing we’re unable to contact Sylvia, what procedure should be followed in this case?

RP The corresponding RIR must decide whether they replace a non active member or not.

2) Agenda review

HPH proceeded to read the draft agenda that he had previously e-mailed to the participants. The draft agenda was approved.

3) Minutes from July 27th Teleconference

HG: I suggest removing the reference to Montevideo, Uruguay, included in the minutes after the date and time. It was a conference call, so we should not mention any city in particular. Also there are some typos that should be corrected.

HG moved to remove the reference to Montevideo and approve the minutes subject to spellchecking. The motion was seconded by LL. Hearing no further comments the Minutes from the July 27th Teleconference were approved and the following action decided:

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.

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 and is attached at the end of this minutes.

5) Report from committee on AC advice to the ICANN Board on competing addressing registries LH, SB, WW, AA, RB

LH sent a few e-mails to the members of the committee and also to PW, only received comments back from AA. LH thought that the Internet Governance paper contains two different things that could be considered to look like proposals and that the proper place to discuss any proposal is the public forum of each of the RIRs. LH volunteered to contact the author and suggest the ASO AC could take this for him to the RIR forums or he could make the proposal himself, or alternatively we could find someone to co-author. Not sure that what action should be taken on behalf of the ASO AC LH proposed to the rest of the members that our advice to ICANN is that we can ignore this proposal, this particular group does not need a response from ICANN, but be advised that we’ll be writing a response LH raised the question whether it’s appropriate for us to bring proposals to the public forums of the RIRs or should we contact him and suggest that he present his own proposals.

HPH mentioned that as this was referred to us by the ICANN Board we need to provide an answer, our answer could very well be to inform the Board that the AC will contact the authors of this paper and refer them to the proper procedural way to take it to the RIR communities, not through the ICANN Board which is not the correct procedure.

AB. supported this idea. Inform the proponent on the correct procedure.

HPH. Do we need to give more substantial advice to ICANN on the content of this paper, or should we limit our advice to the procedural aspects we just discussed?

RB Perhaps it’s better to limit the advice to the procedure.

LL We can start with the procedure and see if anybody at ICANN requests more information.

LH offered to write a letter for HPH to send to the ICANN Board saying that we’ve reviewed this paper and are trying to describe to the authors how it can be forwarded to the public policy forums as proposals, but no action is required on the part of the ICANN Board. The second thing to do is to contact the authors and tell them what they need to do if they want to propose this to the public forums. What would be the appropriate action to take?

HPH Agreed with the idea of drafting a letter and sending it to the list. Then send it to the ICANN Board.

RP Because we have a request from the Board the only correct thing to do is to respond to the Board. It’s inappropriate to contact the authors.

After further discussion the next action was proposed

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.

6) Report from committee on website review SB, SJ, LL

SJ Sent a report to the list

LL it should be revised and presents a mockup of a new ASO webpage. The idea is that if we all agree in the direction we’re giving this paper perhaps the Secretariat could try to work on it.

HPH highlighted the excellent work being done this committee, There are many good ideas.

RE Before the Secretariat undertakes the mission of modifying the website it’s important to know more opinions from the AC.

SJ Agree with RE, certainly it is welcome input both on content and layout.

HPH Are you suggesting that we need more time, that we should discuss this on the list and make a final decision our next meeting?

LH It is a good idea. The proposal contains many items, so the mailing list is the best way to discuss them. Although at an initial glance the mockup looks very nice.

RP At some point the committee may want to contact the Secretariat to verify that the changes that are being suggested are feasible and can be implemented a timely manner.

SJ Most of the proposals consist simply of changing the layout or the way information is organized on the pages, we are not suggesting any significant changes. But in any case I will try to discuss this with the Secretariat.

AA Suggests that the Secretariat or the people in charge of the website participate in the proposal itself so that we know from the beginning what can be done and what cannot. I suggest that the Secretariat be part of the committee.

HPH: There are two proposals: a) To discuss this on the list and then make a decision during the next teleconference, and b) to invite the Secretariat to participate in the working group.

These proposals were agreed.

7) Report from committee on translation issues SB, SJ, LL

SJ: This agenda item is closely related to the previous item. One suggestion would be to go back to the open forum to see what the public is expecting from us and also to be in contact with the GAC people and RIR people (communications managers) to see how we can obtain more information and clarify views in order to move forward with this. Basically there are three things that must be decided: which languages, what to translate and who will pay for the translations?

HPH: What is the NRO position regarding translations?

PW: Regarding the translations for the NRO website, the NRO has decided that it’s regional issue, that each of the RIRs will decide which of the documents need to be translated into which languages and then the translations will be made available on the NRO website in the most suitable way. The reason for this is that each RIR has different requirements and different priorities.

HPH: There are two possible ways in which the AC may approach this issue. The first is a passive approach: simply to follow the NRO approach and implement similar translations on the ASO website as needed. My assumption is that the NRO would decide to translate the appropriate documents into the appropriate languages, so there would be little that the ASO could add. The second is a more active approach: to decide which documents need to be translated and what languages should be considered. Personally I am for the first option, both because it would mean less work and also because I don’t have a clear idea on this matter.

AB: Perhaps it would be useful if the RIRs could provide translations of the documents they feel are necessary and the NRO could commit to posting the translations, in other words to decentralize translations.

LH But if we do that wouldn’t it be difficult to find the articles on the website?

HPH: That could be resolved at a later stage. The first question that needs to be addressed is which languages and documents need to be considered. So my question to the AC is whether we should wait for the NRO decision or provide them with some active advice?

SJ we should let the NRO deal with this issue. If we start saying which documents we would like to have translated we might create confusion.

HPH Should we keep the group running or should we close it down and wait for the NRO translations and the reopen it if necessary?

SJ: I would be happy to continue.

RP The committee should move forward and identify which documents or types of documents are candidates for translation. This would be a worthwhile effort. Which languages should be considered is the most difficult issue, and as PW stated we have decided to do this on a regional level. But certainly a joint effort on the part of the AC to identify the content to be translated will be very useful.

LH Agree completely. It’s very useful for our committee to identify content that need to be translated, this will save the NRO EC the work of identifying this content and give us the opportunity to state which content we consider important for translation. In the end the NRO can decide whether to take up our suggestions or ignore them.

SJ Can we interpret this by saying that each RIR should decide what kind of documents they would like to have translated? Is this what the committee should do?

LH The committee should also have the freedom of stating their opinion or suggestions and taking that proposal to the open forum.

HPH: To summarize the discussions, I believe we should keep the committee on translation issues running.

The following action was decided:

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.

8) ICANN Strategic Plan – Letter from Paul Towmey

HPH: I received a letter from Paul Towmey basically requesting more participation from the AC on the strategic plan. I responded to this letter with copy to the ac-coord list. At the last teleconference the AC decided to refer this to the NRO. Was this referral picked up by the NRO? What are the plans of the NRO to act on this? What should the AC do about this? Are there any further actions needed on this matter?

At this point SJ was disconnected from the teleconference. As it was established that there was still quorum, the meeting continued.

AP: Yes, we picked up the referral and we are taking action. No further action is needed from the AC, thank you.

9) Status on IPv6 Global Policy

HPH invited ON to make a brief introduction on the status of the IPv6 global policy.

ON The Board met on August 16 and discussed the Board’s newly adopted review procedures for the IPv6 global policy proposal. I drafted an IPv6 Global Policy Status Overview document which was reviewed by RE and others for which I thank them very much, the chairs of the supporting organizations and advisory committees. This document is now posted on the ICANN website. That’s where we stand. I would like to request news from RIPE, AfriNIC and perhaps APNIC in relation to the versions of the document, as in some cases there are different versions. During this early awareness stage and your advice and information on changes will be greatly appreciated.

PW APNIC is presenting the second version of the IPv6 policy document today in Hanoi.

AB It’s the second version that’s on the AfriNIC website. It’s on schedule to be discussed at the AfriNIC December meeting.

HPH From the RIPE region I can inform that the policy development process is now getting in shape and in place. We’ve had one for a long time but now we’ll have a more formal one that’s more similar in structure to the ones other regions. I believe the IPv6 global policy proposal is not yet on the new list of open policy proposals. I would like to ask AP whether the staff is actually working on a third version of the proposal or will the second version be proposed as is?

AP For now the second version is the official one.

RE The current status is concluded in ON’s report, it shows that the same version of the policy has already been approved in two of the RIRs and is being discussed in the others.

HPH Because I’ve been asked this by a couple of sources, another question I want to ask is what is the procedure for aligning the proposals when there are changes made in one region? Does the proposal need to go through another round?.

RE When a process like this is established there is no warranty about the results or outcome of the process. We cannot predict if there will be consensus in every region regarding one proposal. What I can say is that what usually happens is that if some changes are introduced in one RIRs, the other RIRs will consider those modifications in their lists. There is the possibility that the proposed changes are not approved in all the regions, in that case a proposal will not be distributed.

HPH This is what I am looking for because of two reasons. One is that when this comes on the table in the RIPE region what we probably should do is to discuss the second version of the document and then perhaps suggest improvements based on community feedback. But maybe the formal decision should be on the second version if that’s possible, because then we would have consensus on that second version and it would be optional for the RIRs to consider further language improvements. This way all regions would have a common base: the second version.

HPH: Another thing I was thinking about is that we should also add a link from the ASO website to the document prepared by ON, which is now posted on the ICANN website

All other members present were in agreement with this suggestion, so the following action was decided:

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

ON raised a question for HPH: When I update this document, can I send it to the AC Board or how should I proceed? I would like to have it verified by you or by somebody designated by the ASO AC.

HPH responded that sending it to the ac-coord was a very constructive way to prepare this document, so it was welcomed to send drafts to the list so the ac-coord members can give constructive feedback.

Everybody was in agreement with this suggestion.

10) Planning for Vancouver

At this point SJ rejoined the conference.

HPH proceeded to present a brief report of what has happened since the last meeting: Not much work was done. HPH did follow up on the action to set up a joint meeting with the Board. Sent a letter to Vint Cerf and received positive feedback; V Cerf forwarded that to all of the ICANN Board and also copied the ICANN meeting planner (Diane Schroeder). Nothing yet received back from Diana on the timing for this meeting. HPH will contact Diane directly over the coming days in order to get suggestions for securing time slots for the meetings we need to have.

GV: The Secretariat can help in this issue in order to make any of the arrangements for the meetings: meetings rooms, phone lines, etc. The chair can count with secretariat support for whatever it is necessary. The secretariat can also be in contact with ICANN staff in order to make arrangements. Just let us know how we can help you.

HPH, that’s a good suggestion. I will definitely take you up on that. ON do you have any feeling or information on what the schedule for the ICANN meeting will be?

ON: It’s a matrix. In the very beginning you have separate meetings with different constituencies, so the demand for venues is higher at the beginning of the week, then the event concentrates on the public forum and the final Board meeting and there are fewer meetings. So, the demand for space and so on is highest at the very beginning. This is the usual way meetings are scheduled.

HPH: The meeting is supposed to end on Sunday December 4 (Board meeting) and I believe on Saturday there will be an open policy forum. These are just my assumptions based on past agendas because the new one hasn’t been published yet. Is there an open policy forum also on Friday?

HG: Half day on Friday and half day on Saturday.

HPH: The question is planning for the AC meetings.

HG: Normally the GAC uses the first three days and sometimes they even start one day earlier. It will be impossible to have our meeting before the GAC meeting. Perhaps Diane is working on the agenda right now, so my proposal is to send another letter to Diane Schroeder and request a room with a certain number of many places (20-25) and wait. The main thing is that we have enough time to wait and see, there is no need to hurry.

HPH Agreed with this to some extent. However some requests from one or two members of the AC to finalize the schedule so that they can make travel arrangements.

HG Propose to have the meetings before the public forum and after the GAC, perhaps on December 1st.

HPH It was suggested at the last teleconference that we could follow the same approach as in the Luxembourg meeting, where the organizing RIR, in this case ARIN, would arrange a regional meeting with the GAC. Do you, Ray, have any information on this?

RP talked with Sharyl (GAC Chair), some discussions have been taken. RP will get back directly to HPH.

HPH We are talking about four meetings: one with the AC, one with the Board, one with the GAC, and perhaps an open forum of the style of what we did at the Stockholm ICANN meeting as suggested by RP during the last teleconference.

Everybody agreed with this.

11) AOB

HPH received an e-mail from RP on coordination between the NRO and the AC. HPH understands that RP has been asked by the EC to work on this and then we will come up with a proposal on how to best coordinate our activities. HPH also sent an e-mail to the list in the sense that he has been invited by Paul Twomey to participate in the interview process for the Vice-President of Policy position. HPH ask for comments on this?

HG: My question is related to the position of Vice-President, is this for the position that Paul Verohef had in Europe?

HPH: That is my understanding. the position has not been announced on the ICANN website in detail. At the moment there’s an indication that a position is open but there is no job description yet. It’s a work in progress within ICANN.

RE: Maybe ON has some information he can share with us. As far as I understand there are already some candidates for the position. It is not clear how can there be candidates for a position the job description of which has not yet been posted.

ON: What happened is the following: A job description was announced and applications were received. Following internal discussions ICANN management has realized that there would be some changes and, rather than having the mixed position that Paul had, perhaps we should have two separate positions. So, applications were received in response to the original posting, but I assume that there will be one position for policy development and another position for the other tasks that Paul had.

RE This process is not very clear.

ON Yes, I understand your point. What I gave you is my informal understanding on how things stand now.

RE: The process is not clear at all, it’s in fact quite confusing. It is not clear how the candidates will be evaluated.

HPH This is what I am trying to clarify. The message sent by Paul Twomey says that they have not yet closed the advertising of the position nor have they finalized the candidate list and applications are still being received. Interviews will be conducted in the next few weeks there will be a clear job description published so that people can have the opportunity to send their applications. Only then will there be interviews with the candidates.

RE: Is the position based in Europe?

HPH: Right now the website does not say where the position will be located. Perhaps ICANN would be more interested in finding the right candidate, not the best location.

RE: How can candidates apply without knowing in which continent they will have to work? In my opinion more transparency and information should be provided to the community so that we can receive applications from the best candidates available. The most serious candidates will not apply without a clear job description, without knowing where the position is based, etc.

HPH: Yes, but I would like to defend ICANN a bit here because perhaps I have overstepped by communicating this. This is a communication of the President of ICANN to the chairs of the supporting organizations in order to get more resources allocated for the interview process. From what I understand an original posting was made and some applications were received. Following internal discussions on what would be the right structure, the original job description was removed from the ICANN website and now two job descriptions will be posted. These new job descriptions will be the starting point of this process.

RE As HPH, you are free to provide advice on any. But if it is a formal participation and you are going to represent the AC, then the AC should request more information and assurances.

HPH: The participation is as chair of the AC.

RE In order to protect yourself and the AC, the AC should request more information.

HPH: Agree

ON: On the ICANN website there is a brief statement in the sense that the requirements for the position are currently under review and that a revised job description will be posted shortly.

HPH proposed the following action item: that the Chair draft a response to Paul Twomey requesting more transparency on the process along the lines we have been discussing.

This proposal was not acted on.

LH sure that ICANN will post the job description. we shouldn’t be involved in reviewing résumés, salaries, etc. This is a hiring decision, there’s not a lack of transparency problem.

There being no further business to discuss, HPH moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by SJ.

To conclude, HPH thanked those present for participating in the teleconference.

The meeting was adjourned at 2445 UTC.

LIST OF ACTIONS

NEW

Action #0509-1AA
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.

OPEN

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.

Action #050727-2. CHAIR.
To prepare a welcome letter for 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.

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

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.

CLOSED AFTER MEETING 20050907

Action #050727-1. SEC.
To amend the July 10 minutes so as to include a statement saying that the July 6 teleconference was cancelled for lack of quorum, to change the status of the minutes from draft to definitive, and to publish them as final minutes

Action #050727-3. CHAIR
To formally present the thank you message to Doug Barton.

Action #050727-4. CHAIR.
To prepare a statement taking in consideration that the creation of new TLD has no apparent impact on addressing issues and submit it to the relevant forum.
OVERTAKEN BY DEADLINE, although the point was made to ON during the previous teleconference.

Action #050727-6. CHAIR, SEC.
To call for a teleconference meeting on October 5 at 2200 UTC.
This meeting has been announced on the website, the formal call will be sent out to the list at the appropriate time.

Action #050727-7. CHAIR.
To refer the ICANN Strategic Plan to the NRO EC.

Action #050710-8. LH, SB, WW, AA, RB.
As a group, to review the paper for competing addressing registries and draft recommendations; to invite Paul Wilson and Geoff Huston to join this working group
REPLACED BY Action#0507-3

Action #0505-10. SB, SJ, LL:
To think about translation issues as they review the website, to prepare recommendations and then present them to the AC.
REPLACED By Action#0507-4

Last modified on 29/01/2020

Address Council

ASO AC Teleconference 7 September 2005

AC Attendees:

Observers:

Apolgies Received: