ASO AC Teleconference 22 June 2010

AC Attendees:

• Jean Robert Hountomey, JRH – AfriNIC
• Vincent Ngundi, VN – AfriNIC
• Alan Barrett, AB – AfriNIC
• Naresh Ajwani, NA – APNIC
• Kenny Huang, KH – APNIC
• Tomohiro Fujisaki, TF – APNIC
• Louis Lee, LL – ARIN
• Martin Hannigan, MH – ARIN
• Jason Schiller, JS – ARIN
• Sebastián Bellagamba, SB – LACNIC
• Hartmut Glaser, HG – LACNIC
• Francisco Obispo, FO – LACNIC
• Dave Wilson, DW – RIPE NCC
• Hans Petter Holen, HPH – RIPE NCC
• Wilfried Woeber, WW – RIPE NCC

Secretariat:

• Laureana Pavón, LP – LACNIC

Observers:

• Kuo-Wei Wu, KW – ICANN
• Olof Nordling, ON – ICANN Staff
• Raul Echeberria, RE – LACNIC
• Paul Rendek, PR – RIPE NCC
• Axel Pawlik, AP – RIPE NCC
• Ray Plzak, RP –
• Paul Andersen, PA –

Agenda:

1) Agenda bashing

2) Approve minutes from last ASO AC meeting

3) Global Policy Proposal – ASN

4) Global Policy Proposal – IPv4

5) new Global Policy Proposal – IPv4 post exhaustion

6) AC Communication – wiki & website, webex/adobe connect/etc online tools for live meeting

Lunch. Roll call to reconvene

6) (cont.) new Global Policy Proposal – IPv4 post exhaustion

– PPFT activity

7) Board selection procedures

8) Increasing interaction of RIR activities with communities at ICANN & others

9) ICANN BoD Update :)

10) 2010 AC Work Plan

– face-to-face meeting #2? (NRO support?)

11) 2011 AC Work Plan

– ARIN Sec.

– teleconference sched (monthly vs. bimonthly? day of week? time?)

– face-to-face meeting

12) ITU IPv6 WG

13) Updates from RIR meeting

14) A&T RT update

15) AoC Review Teams

16) AOB

– Changes to the ASO MoU to shepherd policy? Or NRO NC function?

17) Adjourn

——-

1) Agenda bashing

Everyone suggested agenda items and LL finalized the agenda.

2) Approval of minutes from 10 June meeting

A motion to approve the minutes of the 10 June 2010 ASO AC teleconference was presented by AB, seconded by SB. There being no objections, the motion carried.

Action item 0622-01: The Secretariat to change the status of the minutes of the 10 June 2010 teleconference from draft to approved.

LL mentioned open Action Item 0410-2: In accordance with the resolution that was unanimously approved by the ASO AC, the Chair to send a letter to Raimundo Beca thanking him for his services on the ICANN Board of Directors.

LP said she would send the letter in English and Spanish to LL so he can send it to RB.

3) Global Policy Proposal – ASN

LL explained that it was ready for the NRO EC to take their next steps and then send to the ASO AC. He asked when it would be ready, to which AP replied soon, perhaps in 2 weeks – one month. LL added that if it’s before the next scheduled meeting we won’t cancel the meeting but hold it in order to consider that.

4) Global Policy Proposal – IPv4

LL asked ON for latest status, to which ON replied that it’s exactly as posted on the ICANN website, that there have been no changes since 4 June. He also asked if there had been any updates in AfriNIC, to which AB replied that to the best of his knowledge the board has not yet ratified the policy and added that there had been some concerns regarding the text in the different regions and that it had been through the PDP but was now stalled at the board ratification stage.

WW asked whether they should do something about this, to which LL replied that they don’t have anything to do except the letter they sent in December advising the CEOs of the RIRs that they would likely not find consensus for a single policy proposal because they feel there are substantial changes

RE added that he thinks that a GPP does not exist to be discussed until it’s received from the EC. Tracking is ok, but it’s just an exercise to be aware of what is happening, as there’s no need for formal action. Several agreed. MH said that it’s still not a global policy and there’s nothing to discuss until we get it from the EC.

JS noted that everyone thinks its going to fail because of the significant changes, and AP added that basically we see it’s diverging and does not qualify as a GPP so they will not send it to the ASO AC for ratification.

SB said that in his opinion this discussion was abstract and presented some background: we began tracking GPPs when we realized we had a role after receiving the proposal, simply to facilitate our work by tracking the proposals as they develop, but we have no role now. He added that he wouldn’t dare any include any opinions in the minutes about the GPPs as it’s out of their scope. His opinion was that they should just keep silent until the policy is presented to us.

NA asked why is it that when they hear the word development process, they don’t have a role. In his opinion, if it says “development process” they should have a role. SB replied that according to the MoU they don’t have a role..

HPH said he was more interested in whether the proposer would come up with a new proposal, rather than discussing whether we should discuss this or not. He said that the topic is interesting for the community and he’d like to know whether there will be a new proposal.

RE said that the AC has a role in the PDP for GPs. He added that the role is after the policy proposal has been received and that the GPP has not come to the AC yet. As to HPH’s comment, he replied that anyone, as an individual, come up with a new proposal if they want, but that’s different issue; perhaps it would even be acceptable to do it as the AC, but again, that’s a it’s different matter.

NA said that he believed that their role starts when the 5 RIRs send us a proposed policy and not after the policy is done.

JS said his interpretation of the MoU was that the role of the AC is to hold the policy proposal until we can hand it over to the local RIR communities for them to process, that early on our role is to act as a holding place for the policy. He added that, if a global policy is proposed in one RIR, we need to make sure it is presented to the other 4, but that beyond that our only role at this point is a place where the global policy can be parked until the RIRs pick it up. Once it goes through the PDP in all the regions, it then goes to the EC which sends it to us. If the same text is not passed in the 5 regions, we need to judge whether the changes are editorial or substantial and make a recommendation to ICANN board to ratify the policy or else express our concerns.

HPH read the following from the MoU: “The members of the Address Council will request that the global policy proposal be placed on the agenda for next open policy meeting in each region, in accordance with the applicable policy process” and said that the AC could make sure the GPP is placed on the agenda. He then read the following: “It is recognized that the outcomes of consideration of a proposed global policy may differ in terms of specific language and detail from region to region. The staff of the RIRs will work with each other, and with the policy proposer to document the common elements of such outcomes. This common text will be ratified by each RIR, by methods of its own choosing.” He commented that it in his opinion the ball lies with the RIRs.

AP said that, in his opinion, the AC formally has no role before the NRO EC forwards a formal policy to the ASO AC. He said that this particular case doesn’t match the definition, so they won’t pass it, the AC may never receive it. He added that as members of the community they can track it and so on, but not formally as the AC.

SB agreed with HPH and AP. He added that the AC’s role before receiving the policy from the NRO EC is not about the content but about the process in each RIR, and that they have no say on the content formally as the AC, simply to say that the PDP has been followed and hand the policy to the ICANN board.

NA proceeded to read Section 6 of the Process Description under the heading “Attachment Global Policy Development Process” of the MoU. He said, according to his understanding of the text, they have a role to ensure whether the PDP has been followed.

LL proposed removing the topic from the agenda until when/if they see something come from the EC.

MH said that for the most part agreed with RE and SB in that there’s nothing to discuss. He added that there’s the question of what happens if the EC never forwards the proposal: how does the EC handle the declination, what is it’s response to the community, is there a process in the EC to handle this situation so that the community knows that nothing is going to happen? He added that the process itself hadn’t really shed a good light on the RIR system and that the lack of a clean cut on a policy that is going to fail to be forwarded would appear to be messy. He wanted to know how the NRO EC would handle that.

AP agreed that it would be cleaner that after a GPP has been ratified in all the regions to inform the AC about what they do about this, if there were a positive “No, we’re not going to send this to you.”

JS made a comment on what NA had read: if rewriting is done to unify the text, we have to make sure that it is in the spirit of what the 5 regions passed. He noted that this policy has been discussed in 3 regions, board review is underway in another, and it is under discussion in the fifth, and asked whether it seems feasible to bring positions together and have a common text. He added that we have a role and responsibility to see that the changes are editorial and within the spirit of the proposal.

WW said that the common text would have to be ratified by each RIR.

AP proceeded to read Sections 4) and 5) of the process description. He added that in the absence of a common text nothing would be forwarded to the AC.

JS said that both the EC and the advisory council concur that the text differences are significant and cannot be unified without impacting the spirit of the policy in each region.

NA said that it was his interpretation of sections 4), 5) and 6) of this process description, it doesn’t have to come from the NRO EC, there is no mention of NRO in between the RIRs and the ASO AC

After some further discussion, DW said he was fine with finishing this issue here and removing the topic from the agenda more or less permanently. Several agreed.

5) New Global Policy Proposal – IPv4 post exhaustion

LL commented that there’s a new PP in the works and that perhaps they’d like to have a discussion on the process and content of that PP.

MH asked for clarification about what they were going to discuss, as they’d just decided that they shouldn’t discuss content. He asked whether they should discuss if it’s a global policy and what does the AC do seeing that it’s the first time its been submitted.

LL said that the last time they had agreed that it’s a global policy, they’ notified all the RIRs to put it into their PDPs within 10 days. He added that the request for content had come from JS.

JS said that if they were going to have that discussion they need to have it as part of the larger NRO discussion, perhaps later.

LL said they would be limiting that topic, and the update was that everyone has been notified. In reply to a question posed by VN, LL said the version that was submitted to the AC is the one to be considered as the global policy, the one that’s going to be put into the PDPs.

6) AC Communication – wiki & website, webex/adobe connect/etc online tools for live meeting

WW said he’d present a brief report about non-progress, adding that mostly the long progress was due to some lack of time on his end, plus the fact that they had cancelled the recent face-to-face meeting where he’d planned to do some sort of test drive and display/explanation. In the meantime, the helpful colleagues from RIPE NCC had installed a wiki facility on the same server that hosts the ASO website, and he’d recently received an alert from them that the wiki software on the machine was more than a little broken and unstable and the wiki facility was actually putting the availability of the website at risk. WW said he’d received the suggestion from RIPE NCC to think of not moving in the direction of a wiki but rather in the direction of using a CMS or the engine behind the ASO website. He said that perhaps they had not chosen the right wiki package, or that it might not be a good idea to have the website and the wiki on the same sever.

In view of the above, WW said the formal question was whether they should allow the RIPE NCC to dismantle the wiki facility from their website. All agreed that if it was putting the website at risk it should be dismantled.

WW then asked whether they still think that the wiki facility is a good idea, because if there’s no interest in that there’s no point on having the RIPR NCC spend on something that won’t be used.

FO said it was necessary to limit the scope of the wiki: if it’s an internal wiki it’s easy to have a place to store templates, minutes, etc., as it’s worth having a memory of what we’ve discussed. For example, this conversation we just had a few minutes ago regarding the scope of the AC and what we should do, those internal discussions should be stored somewhere, not as an authoritative source of information, but simply to record that we had that discussion.

LL said he’d like to make the group as open as possible, that he was not comfortable with the idea of an internal wiki to store internal conversations, but agreed about storing templates or other things of value. He added that those could be stored on the public website, but that in that case there wouldn’t be any way to stop people from making ill use of those materials in their name.

HPH said that previously he had offered his own wiki, and that he saw two reasons for having a wiki: 1) the docs aren’t updated, 2) when we want to collaborate in developing common a common text, a wiki makes it easier to do the editing. He agreed that the templates can be stored somewhere else. He also wondered how often we work on the same documents.

WW said that originally the wiki was just meant to be tool to facilitate collaboration within the AC, and that later the idea had surfaced to have a wiki accessible to the outside world. He said he has no personal preferences, but that his experience is that having an internal wiki is really helpful and that as soon as you start to coordinate things (e.g. developing an agenda) everybody can contribute ideas, but that this is not meant for public consumption, as everything for public consumption should go to the website and be managed through CMS. As an example, he observed that things such as travel and accommodation arrangements are better managed through a wiki than a CMS. He suggested that they either ask HP to continue offering his wiki on an informal basis or that they find another option.

WW concluded by saying that if it comes to maintaining templates and docs that should go to the public website, but that it might be a good idea to test drive the CMS and decide whether it’s the exclusive job of the secretariat to maintain the website or whether we should all contribute.

LL said that the secretariat was the right place to maintain the availability of this, regardless of the platform. He thanked HPH very much but said they shouldn’t to put his on his shoulders.

AB said he has some experience using wiki for internal collaboration (arrivals, room numbers, etc) and that in his opinion it’s very useful. He said that if the secretariat feels it would be easy to provide an internal wiki it would be useful.

WW said that it might be a good idea to spend a bit instead of getting cheap stuff that gets us into problems. He asked a question to the NRO: could it cost a little bit to use a commercial wiki or does it have to be free and in the public domain?

AP said there will definitely be a cost involved, but doesn’t know if they’ll have the budget. He said that if the secretariat asks for it they’ll be happy to consider it in the budget.

RE had a different suggestion: If the AC appoints somebody to deal with the issue of the wiki, this person could deal with LACNIC (current secretariat) engineers, and perhaps decide to buy something but only after reviewing available solutions. He suggested appointing somebody for this task.

FO asked how the ASO website was managed right now, to which PR replied that it is hosted at RIPE NCC. He said that they’d produced a document about the items they felt should be static, among them the NRO and the ASO websites. These two websites are static, but access to the server is given to the current secretariat. He said that if a person was appointed to work on this project he’d be more than happy to work with the team at RIPE NCC to help.

WW asked for a show of hands to see who was interested in having a wiki implemented, and enough hands were shown to justify working on this.

Action item 0622-02: WW to work with PR and the RIPE NCC on the wiki. If WW needs more help he can turn to the communications committee.

Regarding Webex, RE said he’d proposed using Webex for one simple reason: they’re using it in LACNIC, who is in charge of the secretariat to the NRO and the ASO this year, all the EC meetings are being held with Webex and it’s working very well. He said it would be good for the ASO as it’s more efficient, it’s a process driven by each individual (each person connects to the conference, each one is responsible for their own connection), it is a low-cost solution (savings), all in all it’s a win-win tool. He said that it was a tool worth testing. He said that LACNIC has a license for 25 participants, but that extensions were also possible. RE said his proposal to replace teleconference services with Webex also related to the fact that there are many problems reaching people through the phone, but with Webex each person has a link and knows what they need to do to be connected. In telephone conferences this is not possible because it costs money to call in, but this problem disappears with Webex. He added that Webex also provides a toll free number in almost every country.

MH said he’d like to see something more formal documented, perhaps a cost-benefit analysis. He added that his initial concern is that flash is not supported on all devices and some people may have issues. He said he’s not necessarily opposed, but that he likes the idea of a test and having a document.

LL said that if they restrict the communications via Webex to audio that could solve the flash problem, to which MH replied that that’s the kind of details he’d like to see documented, along with a test plan as well as a fall-back plan.

RE said he proposed using Webex just for audio conferences, and added that he’s not sure they have the resources to prepare a document as to how Webex works. He observed that all the information is online. He also said that if the AC wanted to continue with the teleconference system they are currently using he’d be happy to do so.

PR noted that the RIPE NCC is also using Webex.

MH said that it sounds good to him, that there’s no need for a document on the technical details of how it works, but simply a cost-benefit analysis and a fall-back plan in case it fails. He added that he would support something that saves a lot of money.

Action item 0622-03: RE to do a write up on Webex and send it to the list (including features such as chat that we can make use of).

HG commented that when they began using it at LACNIC they had 1-2 days to test the platform and then used it with 100% success: first we learned, then we used.

HPH supported the idea and said they should try it next meeting.

WW said it’s a good idea to find something that’s as reliable or more reliable than phone services these days. He said what they’ve experienced is that people calling in through VoIP have problems, his feeling is that the quality of the phone bridge services during the most recent conferences are getting worse, it’s mostly the last mile, or maybe under-provisioning of the phone bridge provider using VoIP. He added that it’s tiring to be in a conference and having to do the reverse engineering of what was said all the time. He concluded by saying that if the Webex would improve on these issues he’d rather try it soon.

RE said WW’s was a good point and that’s the reason they need to test the tool. He said in his experience it’s a very reliable solution: they’re using it at LACNCI board meetings, other conferences, NRO EC, ISOC board of trustees, ISOC chapter meetings (where HPH has been present), they’ve had more than 10 people connected remotely and it has worked very well. He added that as in the case of any on-line tool the service depends on the quality of the Internet connection available, so they need to test it.

MH said he was not contending that Webex is not going to work, he was just saying that we need to prepare a short document on cost-benefits and have a fall back plan.

RE said it costs less than USD 100 / month, including the toll free calls. He added that they are saving more than USD 1000 per LACNIC board meeting.

There being nothing further to discuss in relation to this action item, the meeting was interrupted for lunch.

Roll call to reconvene after lunch break.

LL said that before lunch they had not had an update on the PPFT activity, and asked PPFT members to provide one (DW, AB, MH, FO, KH).

KH said a proposal has been submitted to the mailing list, but after some discussion it was established that it had been a draft version that differs from the one that’s supposed to be put around, so it still needs to be done in the AfriNIC region.

MH said that he was one of the (many) authors, and that a draft had been sent to all RIRs to see if there was going be significant feedback. He clarified that a draft had been sent to the RIR list, but that Version 1 is the one that was sent to the ASO AC. He wondered whether it had been formally submitted to the PDP.

LL said it needs to be filled into the form on-line, the authors need to do that. He said as one of the authors he can work with him on that.

AB said it had not been formally submitted, that a draft had been posted on June 4, he’d sent a message to the authors detailing the process they need to follow but the message was delayed. He said he was not sure whether he needs to submit it to the formal process or if the authors will do that. He said that he’d sent the authors information about the process and was waiting for the authors’ response. He concluded by saying that in AfriNIC the proposal could be presented either by himself or by the authors, but that he’d prefer if the authors did it.

MH said he’d submitted the proposal to the ARIN PDP formally on behalf of the authors, so it’s been completed.

FO said the draft version of the policy was submitted on June 4 and that at this time they haven’t officially received Version 1, so their status is the same as AfriNIC’s.

DW said he’d contacted RIPE NCC with a view to entering this to the PDP. The situation is that in the RIPE region someone needs to formally own the policy, it could be himself or the authors, but he’s awaiting contact from the authors to see what they prefer. He concluded by saying that it’s not formally entered in the RIPE region.

LL said the process was pretty clear.

MH noted that he doesn’t understand the purpose of the 10 day period: What does the PPFT have to do in 10 days if not submit the proposal to the PDP process? He said it’s pretty pointless, that he’d understood they’d act as shepherds and that if that’s not the case it was fine, but he needs clarification to know how they’re going to move the process forward. He stated that his personal preference is that the author submits the PDP or works with an author to help him. He asked for clarification on what the 10 days are for.

SB said he doesn’t see their shepherd role: We submit the policy and it continues through the regional PDP as it stands, we simply submit the policy on behalf of someone else. MH agreed that shepherding is beyond their scope. The PPFT will only be responsible for entering the policy into the PDP. He said his definition of shepherding is either submitting or guiding someone to do that.

DW said he thinks he sees what may be a conflict with their procedures and the PDP, at least in the RIPE region; it’s not possible for him to simply insert a proposal to the PDP and he thinks any PPFT member would have a problem presenting the policy without the author. He believes that in all cases it would be easier if the author presented the policy.

LL proceeded to read section 6.4.1 of the ASO AC Operational Procedures, and MH said that based on that it’s easy to say it’s the RIRs problem but that wouldn’t be fair, so perhaps they could ask the authors if they’d like to team up with a PPFT member of their region to enter the proposal.

DW said the RIPE NCC are used to doing this in general so they wouldn’t need him, but he has no problem with following that procedure. JS said his concern is that it violates the established procedure (within 10 days the ASO AC will submit it to the different regions), to which DW replied that he doesn’t believe it violates the principle, but that he does believe they should modify the document.

WW said that in fact, coming back to the procedure, they have less of a problem than they think: submitting a proposal doesn’t mean supporting the content and, procedure-wise, the only single responsibility left with this set of individuals is to potentially withdraw the proposal if it doesn’t receive any support. He concluded by saying that it’s a community-driven process.

LL said that in the APNIC region there’s a box that asks “how does this affect the RIRs” and that this is not covered in the policy proposal.

MH suggested that the PPFT follow up on this and put it into the agenda: satisfying the procedure and the spirit as well.

7) Board selection procedures

LL noted that as there is no seat to appoint next year, this gives the ASO AC time to update the procedure we’re using.

DW said he was happy with the results, but that he did have some observations looking ahead. His primary concern with the operating procedure and the way that it is implemented is that they are very fragile. He said that this time everything had been fine, that decisions had been made and they can stand by them. His concern is that the procedure establishes rigid deadlines and meetings schedules that must be met, and asked what would happen if, e.g., they don’t have quorum, etc. DW said he doesn’t have a specific alternative proposal, that the procedure they have is fine and very well, but that it’s rigid and needs to be changed so it can be implemented without entering a limbo if one of the deadlines is missed.

NA said that he wanted to acknowledge that the matrix they had used last time to score the candidates was an example that perhaps the other nom-coms could use, to make everything more quantified and easier to put across. He said that credit was due for that particular approach.

HPH followed up on what DW had said, agreeing that that’s the biggest flaw: what if none of the publicly nominated candidates is qualified? We need some safeguarding mechanisms to secure qualified candidates, so we should look carefully at why the procedure says X days, perhaps it should say “no more than X days” or “at least X days” and clearly specify a procedure for the secretariat to run the process so we can have standard, high-quality elections year after year. He said that’s a perfect job for the secretariat, and that they should concern themselves with finding the best candidate

AB supported the comments about the time scale of the procedure and said he saw 2 problems: 1) it’s difficult to understand (which time periods overlap and which are consecutive, etc) and 2) it’s too rigid. He added that he supports the idea of a more flexible procedure.

WW said his concern is that while trying to clarify the procedure they are losing flexibility, that they won’t ever be able to think of all the risks and special situations and come up with a procedure that takes care of all these irregularities (e.g. we end up with a small number of candidates and find out that one or more candidates are no longer eligible). WW said his point is he’d rather like to see the procedure outline what the drivers and background thinking is (i.e. what we want to achieve) instead of casting it into rigid deadlines. He’d rather see the reasoning behind the provisions and strongly suggest that they use a wording that is documented and published that allows some flexibility for the next round of appointment. WW said that what he’d disliked in the past were the artificial restrictions on implementing the process from unrelated lines of thinking (e.g. the number of candidates for in person interviews was limited). He strongly recommended reviewing the procedures in light of what they want to achieve, as in the end it’s the AC’s decision as a group to decide which candidate is most appropriate for the job using all the tools that are available. He agreed that they should try to eliminate those strict procedural rules from the overall document.

HPH supported the idea above and suggested the following: perhaps we should have a first round of written interviews, then a second round of telephone interviews, and in the end a third round of face-to-face interviews; perhaps there could even be some financial support for the candidates to attend interviews. He said that it’s important that calls for nominations are more than X days and that calls for comments are more than X days, but wondered whether it is more important to proceed in the best manner or to finish before a set deadline.

DW said he liked the idea of multiple rounds, as it implies that after each round one or more candidates could be eliminated. He noted, however, that that would require a meeting of the AC, and that if they’re not careful that would be a point of failure.

NA said there were two aspects to consider: 1) administrative process, procedures, where he agreed with WW and HPH on the idea of having an admin process just to provide some kind of direction; and 2) a logic, reasoning for appointing somebody to the board. He said that the second aspect should not be sacrificed, it should be transparent and supported by all the other elements.

AB disagreed that we need to publish how the AC makes their decisions, they do need to call for nominations and comments, but their spreadsheets, notes, etc. should remain private. WW replied that they should be very careful not to disclose the reasoning behind their decisions, as that would invite a questioning round (why did they choose certain criteria, etc). WW said that if that were lost, then it would become a purely clerical process, which he does not believe is their job as the AC. He said the MoU and ICANN’s bylaws establish many requirements in terms of goals all the groups and parties that put people onto the board need to achieve. He added that what they think is the most important thing at a certain point in time can be discussed, but the individual ratings should be entrusted to the bodies making the decision.

LL said that, if in the end they publish some sort of scoring chart, they should make it clear that it’s not the only input.

DW said he was influenced by how they conduct tenders in his day job: they conduct themselves on the principle that the information can be revealed, even if the actual information revealed at the end of the process is limited. He said he quite likes that even if we choose not to reveal the information, we can still keep the documentation that NA is speaking of.

HPH said that what they’re in fact discussing is how open and transparent they should be. He noted that it had been said the previous day at a different ICANN meeting that there needs to be more openness, but added that perhaps somebody else should do the groundwork.

LL asked whether KW had any comments based on his own personal experience.

KW said he’d appreciated the process and said he’d found it very fair. In his view if there’s a place to improve it’s in the teleconference interviews: face to face communication is much better.

WW mentioned that in the general nom-com, for privacy reasons, they don’t even disclose who is going to be interviewed to avoid nasty situations. He said he thinks they actually have to strike a balance between openness of the process and protecting the privacy of the candidates.

KW agreed, saying that he personally had been a bit bit uncomfortable that it was announced who the candidates were, adding that if the interviews were private it would be much better to protect both.

LL read sections 8 and 9 of the MoU.

AP said that there is no review scheduled at this time; they’ve been looking at terms of reference but haven’t scheduled anything yet.

LL said that what he’d been hearing is that they should begin a review and update of their procedures such that they finish before they have to use them (the end of 2011, traditionally nominations are received around October).

RE said they can approve the procedure this year if they manage to finish, for which they’d need two things: 1) let us know exactly what you are changing, 2) if the message from you is clear we can approve it quickly.

PR said they produce a lot of documents, and in his opinion the larger the group the harder it is. He said he’d be more than happy to have the writers at RIPE NCC help the AC put their ideas on paper. He suggested that the best way to go about it would be a brief telephone conference to write down ideas and send it to the list.

AB agreed with the idea of forming a subcommittee and volunteered to be a part of it. Several other members volunteered but no motion was presented.

MH proposed an alternative way to do this: simply ask the secretariat or the original volunteer (PR) to take a crack at it and send it back to the list for feedback. At RE’s suggestion, the following action item was decided:

Action item 0622-04: The secretariat to look at the notes from this meeting and produce a draft version of the procedure to include the modifications that were discussed and send it to the list for feedback and discussion.

DW said he thinks that the secretariat did an excellent job in the process this time around, but that he’s also aware that a lot was being laid at the door of the secretariat, a lot of responsibility without a formal framework, without adequate input. He added that it’s necessary to define a formal role for the Secretariat as has been said in the past.

9) ICANN BoD Update

LL said RP and he had been talking about increasing the interaction of RIR activities with the communities of ICANN and maybe other organizations. He asked RP whether he would like to address the group.

RP apologized for being late and said that the conversation he and LL had had last night had stemmed from the observation that there are no problems with the interaction between the CEOs of the RIRs or the EC chair and the CEO of ICANN, but that the problem is the broader participation of persons outside of the addressing community in the PDPs of the RIRs. He said that when those other parties participate it makes processes that much stronger.

RP said one of the things he’d been exploring is a way of introducing policies being discussed in the regions to a broader community. He said the announcements of new policy proposals now occur on policy lists and really nowhere else. RP said that a real problem is that a lot of regional policies can impact people outside the addressing community both from a direct impact to also being complementary to policy discussions in the other Supporting Organizations. He said that he had discussed this with Doug Brent (the ICANN COO). He said that Doug would be sending a message to the RIR CEOs suggesting that there be a mutual exploration of ways for broadening the awareness of the community outside of the addressing community of policy discussions in the various RIR regions. One suggestion could be looking at a way of somehow setting up an automatic feed (RSS) for when a policy announcement is made in any regional forum that also gets into the ICANN announcement cycle (viewed by other SOs and ACs). It’s not going to cause a stampede of people but it will stir interest and will serve as an educational tool for the rest of the community to find out what’s going on.

RP commented that he and LL had also discussed that perhaps the AC may want to take it as an action on a periodic, routine basis to provide maybe some background info regarding the policy proposals, “what does it mean to you,” as PPs are probably not plain enough to be understood by people outside the addressing community. This would be a way for the Advisory Council to provide information to the rest of the community basically in what amounts to an ongoing outreach activity.

LL said he could see the AC creating some sort of template for a “how this might affect your region” kind of document.

JS asked how this differs from what ON and ICANN are doing in terms of global policies, to which LL replied that ON makes factual and calendar related analysis but doesn’t include an analysis of effects. He added that because they are experts and have the charter to provide advice it would be great to take a crack at this.

RP said it’s different in that ON complies with board procedures (a set format, etc.), but that what he’s proposing (certainly ON could be involved) would be a completely different activity to try to get people more involved in what’s going on in their region. This would be more of an education activity on what is done day to day by the regional registries.

WW asked whether the main target would be to include other parties that are not yet participating or whether this is a cross-region activity, to which RP replied that it would be to involve other parties in the region that are not participating but may perhaps be affected.

JS asked whether they could manufacture an additional alias that people could join at any time, or whether they need to do more than making announcements, to which RP replied that the most efficient mechanism will be the best solution.

JS asked the following: Is this just putting out an announcement that X policy is being announced in region Y or are we trying to achieve something else? RP replied that initially it could be re-broadcasting the announcements, and in a 2nd step perhaps the AC could get more involved conducting some sort of “what you need” analysis – a report of what’s going on in the other regions, they could be put together and distributed (leveraging existing things, repackaging them to get the information out).

NA agreed, saying that it was a good idea.

RP said he’s also the co-chair of a GAC working group, and that in the bylaws there’s an unfulfilled requirement for the GAC to have liaisons to different organizations. He said they’d tried with the RIRs, and in the only place they were sort of successful was the GNSO. He suggested perhaps going back to the GAC and seeing how they want to go about it. He added that the GAC liaison cannot speak on behalf of the GAC, unless there was an established position by the GAC on a particular topic.

RP said the GAC views its liaisons as being representative of the GAC, that’s a big hurdle. He said Board GAC Joint Working Group had a discussion about the GAC liaison to the nom-com in which he’d pointed out that the ICANN bylaws only says that the GAC will appoint a liaison. The bylaws do not say that this person is a representative of the GAC or even that the person appointed as liaison be a member of the GAC. He said that this was true for all other liaisons described in the bylaws. RP also said that the GAC is looking for ways to get involved earlier in the policy development process in the various Supporting Organizations. He noted that that have taken pride in that they have succeeded in doing this in the GNSO. In how to go about creating successful liaison relationship with the GAC, RP offered the following advice: be as flexible as possible, but find something that gets things started.

LL suggested that perhaps a member of the AC could be the liaison, to which RP added that perhaps there could be 5, one for each region. LL asked which ASO AC members were familiar with their GAC representative: not many were.

MH summarized the situation as follows: the GAC are too busy to come to our meetings and join our mailing list, and we are too busy to go to theirs.

RP said some are quite adamant in that as much as they’d like to participate they really can’t. MH asked why, and RP replied that for government reasons (they speak for the governments).

MH asked whether they are even going to be able to keep up with our speed, to which RP replied that they don’t have to keep up in the sense of being in step, but info must be presented in such a way that they can understand and so forth. For example, the presentations that the NRO were giving to the GAC on IPv6: we spent time talking about how it affected public interest, not touching technical aspects, but concentrating on “ is this policy fair?”

MH said that sounded like a great idea, but that he certainly wouldn’t have time for something like that. He suggested having some kind of staff or paid support to get the job done correctly. RP said that at this point anything was possible and was willing to help to get this moving.

NA said that the process the GAC follows has more considerations than what we have, and that it would not be a bad idea for the ASO AC secretariat to interact with the GAC secretariat on what they’d like to know.

JS tried to synthesize as follows: it sounds a feasible approach might be to create an alias, to make sure that when a new policy is announced it’s sent to that alias, to inform governments of the alias, and set up a mechanism where they can ask questions / concerns about policies and we could reply. Would that be a goods starting point?

RP said they are more interested in “early awareness” type issues, as the longer they wait in a process, the louder you have to speak and the more forceful you have to be.

AB said he was not comfortable with giving special consideration to governments or the GAC: they should subscribe as everybody else. It would be fine to have some mechanism, as suggested to aggregate all regional policies in a single point, and if there are people in government who want to monitor that then its fine.

LL said they’re not asking to do this specifically with GAC, but to follow the regional policies. RP added that the discussion had devolved to the GAC, but that the original idea was informing SOs and ACs about regional policies.

AB said he’d support that.

LL asked RP whether at this point he needed any help from the ASO AC, to which RP replied no, but that the AC could explore ways to be more active in this respect as the idea is to get some movement.

WW suggested an idea: a simple page on the NRO website giving pointers to the regional policies under discussion might be helpful.

JS said the wanted to make the following point: it should be a separate alias because some people may not be interested in all ICANN announcements, to MH replied that the implementation would be very simple to work out.

A show of hands in support of RP’s idea showed that all were for the idea, none against, no abstentions.

RP offered to answer any questions, at which point MH mentioned he’d heard the IANA had hired somebody new.

RP said they’d hired Elise Gerich. She is charge of the IANA. She’s a very well qualified person and among other things was the author RFC 1466 which assigned blocks of IPv4 addresses to various regions. She’s very open to conversation.

It was suggested to deal with AOB item: ASO MoU with RP in the room as he would be able to clarify (shepherd policy, section 4.5.6).

RP said he’d like to see the proposal before commenting, but that his general view is not to try to modify the document as in that case you’d have to open the entire document to negotiation. Perhaps you can do it in a different way, perhaps generating procedures documents. In that case you can do it internally. He added that he’d be hesitant to modify the NRO MoU for the same reasons and would rather look for the simplest route possible.

MH said he agreed completely and had sent an email to the list to that effect, which he proceeded to read.

RP added that a lot can be done without touching these agreements.

RP said that as of July 2009 he’s been on the GAC working group which he hopes will conclude its work by the end of this year, also the board governance and the board risk committees, and the structural improvements committee. He said he’s also going to be involved with a board advisory committee that keeps track of what’s going on inside all the affirmation of commitments review teams and advises the board on what’s happening and what they need to do.

He said he’s also very active in getting the board to do the business of the board and not to do things they shouldn’t do. RP said that his years of experience inside RIRs as a participant in policy processes have given him a good experience base and the command of many examples of how things work. He added that the bottom line is that he’s been very active in the board, specifically in representing the view point of the addressing community. He concluded by saying that he’s going to miss RB but also welcomed KW to the fold.

KW mentioned the committees he’s working on: IANA committee, had a meeting with ISOC (RE was there), also public participations committee.

JS said they’d heard a question this morning during another meeting: “What should ICANN do to avoid a crisis with IPv4 depletion and what should be done to avoid image issues for ICANN?” Are the ICANN board concerned about the image they give to the outside world?

RP said the real answer that the RIRs and the NRO have consistently tried to say is that there are appropriate things for the RIRs to do and there are proper things for ICANN to do, you really don’t need ICANN to do the same thing that the RIRs are doing, but instead ICANN needs to put on the upper-level hat and talk to the appropriate people and use their position to influence and basically carry the same message that RIRs have been carrying for years: mostly reassurances, “there will be problems and glitches, but things are improving, people are moving to find solutions.” RP added that he’d be hesitant to promote any idea of ICANN actively doing something specific as the RIRs are doing, as it does have an oversight function but ICANN needs to take the appropriate approach: you cant’ have ICANN at one level saying something and the RIRs at a different level saying another.

JS clarified as follows: basically the process is working as intended, it’s not broken and doesn’t need to be fixed; ICANN should help to intensify and augment the message of the RIRs. RP agreed: ICANN should support the work that the RIRs have been doing for years; there must be a unity of effort and voice.

KW also agreed. He said that he and RP are on the board and both agreed that their voices should be consistent (ICANN and the NRO and the RIRs) and that ICANN should support the RIRs.

14) A&T RT update

LL said he’s on the accountability and transparency review team, which was created as a result of the affirmations of commitment letter signed between ICANN and the US DoC, which calls for several review teams to be formed to review different aspects of ICANN. He said that this is the first team to be formed, so perhaps they are setting some precedents, and added that the team hopes their work will speak for itself. He commented that this week they had their second face to face meeting, they have teleconferences every other week, there’s homework, there are 4 subcommittees (he’s on two of them), they generate documents on certain aspects of the ICANN board and management that they feel they may not be qualified to review. LL added that today is the last meeting to ensure that the team they are selecting is the best possible team and that also outstanding is the budget they’re operating under and if the board is willing to support the cost that’s been projected for the RT. At this point LL invited questions, but none were heard.

LL continued by saying that the Affirmation of commitments calls for 3 other RTs to be formed, 2 of which have calls for volunteers open right now. He said the ASO is specifically allowed one representative, so the NRO EC previously had decided that the offer would be made to the ASO AC and if no volunteers surfaced the offer would be opened to the community. He noted that as a result of some miscommunication some interested parties were left out and said that so far he had received one possible expression of interest.

LL said the amount of work he’s doing for the accountability and transparency RT might be comparable to what could be expected in the others. He commented that right now the outcome is non-binding advice, but the community will look at that advice wisely. He urged the AC to review the call for volunteers, adding that the process for submissions would be similar to the previous one: send your CV and a letter of interest to the NRO EC, who will forward those documents along with their endorsement for one or more candidates to the RT selectors, then the selectors will score the individuals and select one RT member from the ASO.

MH asked who the selectors are, to which LL replied that they are Janis and Peter.

JRH asked whether whoever the NRO EC recommends for the RT becomes a member, to which LL replied that the NRO EC will endorse one or more candidates, then the selectors will make the final selection. If there is only one candidate, unless there is some major problem, that person would pretty much be in. MH asked what would be considered a major problem, to which LL replied that in the spreadsheet they had used for his RT there was no lower threshold.

NA said that this morning they had said that they wanted to have multiple candidates in the interest of geographic diversity. RP confirmed they are actually looking for geographic diversity. He added that each candidate can specify whether they want to serve on one RT or both RTs and that there may be more than one person from each SO or AC on the RTs.

WW mentioned that he’s considering applying for the whois RT, and asked whether the others thought it was a good idea. He said he was seeking feedback, not a formal commitment

RP observed that the deadline for applying for the team is 13 July, but that the ASO AC may want to set its own date earlier so the NRO EC can prepare the endorsement. LL said that we can set the deadline ASAP.

After a brief coffee-break, (4:00 pm) LL had to leave the meeting. DW reconvened the meeting at 4.00 pm and served as chair from that moment on.

10) 2010 AC Work Plan

DW asked, in particular, whether a second face to face meeting was required. He added that ARIN might consider funding for a second f2f meeting if it’s needed and asked whether it is needed or not.

MH asked whether the NRO will pay for it, to which DW replied that they should first say what they need, then see who pays for it.

NA said he understands ICANN has 3 meetings in a year and also the RIRs, but that they keep getting stuck to decide things. In his opinion 2 meetings are necessary for the ASO AC.

DW agreed, and added that he’s inclined to think that if there’s a lot to do they should meet, perhaps the format should be 2-3 days and coincide with an RIR meeting.

AB said he thinks they have plenty to work on, especially as we reach the depletion of IPv4 there will be more policy proposals and perhaps emergency measures, updates to internal procedures, etc. In his opinion another meeting this year would be useful.

WW added that they should use every possible occasion to meet up, get out of the vicious circle of having an agenda and then setting up the meeting. He suggested first agreeing on a tentative location and blocking the time frame, as there will be lots of interesting things to discuss. In conclusion, WW was in favor of having another meeting, and trying to do it over 2 days.

MH said he doesn’t necessarily support another meeting. In his opinion the level of disorganization of this meeting had been high, not having a published agenda was disappointing. He said he felt like he had given away a whole week of his working life, adding that it’s 4 pm and he’s not sure what they’ve accomplished. He reserved his opinion on having another meeting until they see what’s been accomplished. He said he’d like to see what the EC thinks but would support a more organized meeting.

JS said that as we near depletion it’s going be necessary to meet, adding that he’s comfortable blocking time and blocking the location loosely so long as they do have a reasonable agenda 45 days in advance (for making travel arrangements comfortably).

NA said that organizing the agenda for any organized meeting is essential, and it was something that was actually missed out for this meeting. However, he noted that several things have come out in this meeting, which happens only at face to face meetings, whether some important policy such as IPv4 depletion or others. He said that MH is absolutely right, that when things are not organized it leads to uncomfortable situations, but perhaps they could overlook it this time and for the next time, organize the agenda so that they can contribute more.

KW said of course he did not want to comment on having a second meeting or not, but suggested that if the issue they want to discuss at a potential 2nd meeting is depletion they should go to an ICANN meeting, as everyone is there and it would be valuable for everybody.

MH agreed and pointed out that they could have done some of that during this meeting. They had agreed that they’d have an informational meeting at every ICANN event, yet no one knows what the ASO is doing here today. If we’re going to commit to put on a professional meeting, he’s open to another meeting. Also that it should be in conjunction with an ICANN meeting

VN said it’s important to have another meeting and have an option for everybody to come in and talk about different issues, have more people from the internet community attending (ICANN).

HPH said he thinks that if outreach to ICANN is important they should meet at an ICANN meeting, adding that they’d tried to do it before but were not successful (didn’t did not gain any visibility), but that if the important thing is to get together to get some work done they could meet at an RIR meeting. HPH said it’s important to define what visibility we want to have in the ICANN landscape.

VN said what we can also do is to have both: outreach + maybe a separate walk-in day.

JS said if they want to do outreach at ICANN meetings they could give that task to LL, if we want to get some content together we could get him to comment.

DW asked for a show of hands asking if there was another f2f meeting in the next 6 months who would attend, and all hands showed.

DW said organizing a meeting takes 6 months so we would have to start organizing right now. He suggested trying to sort a date over dinner or on the list and asking the EC if they would be positively disposed to such a meeting.

MH said, with regards to the timing, that exhaustion dates are not written in stone, and suggested picking what we believe to be the IANA exhaustion date, not the RIR exhaustion date. JS commented that even the IANA exhaustion date is not final.

11) 2011 AC Work Plan

DW said that ARIN would be in charge of the secretariat and that the matter of having a second f2f meeting had already been covered. He asked whether any changes to the teleconference schedule were needed.

Discussions ensued regarding potential times (to suit the secretariat, to suit the majority, etc.), and a show of hands was called to see what time those present would prefer:

Show of hands: 1300 UTC: 9; 1500 UTC: 12; 2200 UTC: 8.

WW stated for the record that it is also possible to move the day and that a particular time of the day is also dependant on which day of the week is chosen. He added that they need to have a proposal: move or change the day and move or change the hour; only then will the most convenient solution be found.

Action item 0622-05: All to begin conversations with the new secretariat in the upcoming weeks, find out their preferences and limitations and come up with a proposal for the ASO AC.

FO mentioned that this would be a great task for the wiki.

VN suggested setting up a subcommittee to start working on a draft work plan for the next year, perhaps have it ready for next meeting. There were no objections and the following members volunteered: KH, FO, VN, HPH, LL (the latter subject to acceptance).

Motion proposed by NA: To set up a subcommittee made up by KH, FO, VN, HPH and LL to start working on a draft work plan for the next year, attempting to have it ready for next meeting.

The motion was seconded by VN, none were opposed and the motion carried.

At FO’s suggestion, the following action item was decided.

Action item 0622-06: The secretariat to update the ASO website regarding ASO representatives elected to the ICANN Board.

WW observed that this is a clerical error, but what is interesting is that nobody is aware when somebody is going to take over responsibility from somebody else. He suggested that if anyone happens to see those loose ends they can alert the secretariat so they can correct them.

12) ITU IPv6 WG

JS said it’s important that everyone is aware of the IPv6 study group and what the ITU is looking to accomplish. He added that several papers say that the ITU could stand up as another RIR in parallel to the 5 existing ones, and that some governments feel they don’t get the level of service they deserve from the RIR and feel they would be better served through the ITU. He said they need to be aware that these conversations are happening and that they need to do some education activities as to what are the policy procedures for setting up a new RIR.

NA said that at the last APNIC meeting, he’d heard 2 points of view: 1) why can’t a member go and get addresses from another RIR?, 2) why can’t every country have their own allotment mechanisms (country internet registries, like ccTLDs)? This is what was being advocated. Perhaps there is some response to clarify that this is not technically possible but in case that’s not possible, sooner or later the other countries may follow this.

VN said that had come up during the GAC meeting this morning and it’s important that the ASO make an effort to reach government officials at policy level, to write some form of communication to the relevant government officials to create awareness so those officials can support RIRs. He commented that the reason some of the African countries support the ITU is that they listen to them and give them what they want, adding that the RIRs should make an effort in that sense.

WW said there’s another driver in those countries where there’s still a monopoly on communications: no matter what you call it, keeping your hand on numbering resources is a very convenient to keep control at national level. He said his feeling is that at global level it’s important to pull this into discussions and that everyone who consciously supports this approach should be put on the spot as a supporter of this monopoly.

NA agreed, but also pointed out that in the morning discussions with GAC it was coming more as a format concern, why can’t there be a format of GAC in RIRs, that there shouldn’t be a challenge for having GAC as another constituency in RIRs and to take their views into consideration. He agreed that every government would like to have this control but said he feels that the format of engaging GAC in RIR may be a solution.

VN said he sees HPH’s point about monopolies, but that the important thing is for policy makers to appreciate these issues: if there’s a lack of knowledge they will listen to the ITU.

HPH said in RIPE NCC this has already been done, in a format different from ICANN. NA asked HPH to forward the information. HPH said the RIPE meetings include a session where the private sector and governments meet.

VN mentioned the possibility of suggesting to the NRO EC that each one writes to the respective government agencies in their region, perhaps using a common text.

JS said that one of the concerns in the ARIN region is that we have open meetings where governments are welcome to participate, but it sounds like that’s not good enough. He asked whether they should just say they have an open process and everyone is treated equally or should they need to make special dispensation for certain groups and, if so, which (governments, large ISPs, law enforcement, etc.)

AB said we need to be careful to distinguish what we can do as the NRO EC or the ASO AC or as the RIRs. As to what the RIRs should do, he said he’d hate to do anything that gives extra legitimacy to governments, as they are welcome to participate in the RIRs’ open processes just like everyone else.

WW said two points of view should be considered: 1) civil service and 2) law enforcement. He was of the opinion that the decisions must be made in the established processes, but what he’s heard during the past 2-3 years is that these groups have boundary conditions for discussions, so providing them with a platform for them to submit their points of view could be helpful. However, he added that it should not be a path to influence decisions, but simply to poll them and obtain feedback.

NA said the background of this discussion was the ITU and their wanting to get involved in IPv6 allocation. He clarified that sovereignty has certain rights and as all sovereigns want to exercise their rights, it’s natural for them to get engaged in IPv6 as well. He added that it is not about what is within our domain or in our scope, but about how we take our points of view to the governments.

DW said he’s aware of what we can practically do (make a motion?), and that he’s also aware that the RIR CEOs talk to each other a lot. He then asked how the AC would like to move forward and whether some action should be taken.

NA said that for him it was sufficient to record our views. DW said that they can discuss this issue in future meetings if we want. VN said that the issue has been discussed and the message has gone across, the minutes will be adequate.

JS said in his personal opinion it’s out of their scope to suggest that the RIRs open this additional forum, but it would be useful to collect information and see how it’s working where they one so we know what is the nature of the interaction, how it’s working, what are the lessons learned.

JS said he’d like to see a report from anyone who’s a member of that region and participates in the meetings (ASO AC, NRO EC, etc.)

DW asked whether there was a motion to request a report, to which HPH replied that he’d sent a link to the mailing list containing information about the group in his region.

AP said that in his opinion it’s working quite well. There’s a round table for government officials twice a year to which they invite everyone possible, yet it’s rare to have more than 30 people there, we do get a fair turnover from new people (not just the core activists). He added that they’ve also started to have working groups for governments, to get some government representatives into the same room with the operators, but they didn’t talk much, didn’t feel good in this open environment so we took those issues to the round tables. He added that during the past meetings some governments have become RIPE members and have received IPv6 addresses. He asked whether this was good enough, and replied that it obviously wasn’t, as it’s hard to find the people in charge. He said the RIPE NCC is about to start a series of IPv6 road shows, they’ve tried out the format and they’ll take that to other regions such as the Middle East. He offered to help other regions and asked whether those present knew people who could host things such as these.

NA asked whether after having the Working group people still have a stronger liking for the ITU, to which AP replied that the people who go to their Round tables are happy and are also happy to support them at the ITU. He concluded that talking to them has helped a lot.

As there as no consensus here, DW suggested continuing this discussion on the list. All agreed.

13) Updates from RIR meeting

Because time was short, DW proposed moving quickly.

VN said that AfriNIC had held their 12th public policy meeting from 28 May to 4 June. During the PP discussions several policies were presented, one on IPv4 (soft landing proposal) reached consensus, the other proposal related to abused contact info (no consensus was reached so the proposal will be sent back to the list for further discussion and will be presented again at our next meeting later this year). There was also a discussion and revision of the PDP.

FO said the 13th LACNIC meeting had been held on May 16-21in Curacao (251 participants, 31 countries). There were tutorials on the first day to update the community on DNSSEC, IPv6 and security; more than 50 people were newcomers. He added that LACNIC meetings also host the meetings of several Internet related organizations in order to share facilities and resources, in this case the LACTLD meeting, IPv6 LAC forum, LAC governments meeting (similar to like GAC with the purpose of raising awareness). Five PPs were discussed in the forum, 3 of which were approved. Also, during the event the installation of a new root server in Haiti was announced. FO said that he’d send a full update to the list.

16) AOB

– Changes to the ASO MoU to shepherd policy? Or NRO NC function?

Following some debate, the following was agreed:

Proposal for NRO NC charter:

The NRO Number Council has the following charter

– Act as the ASO AC according to the NRO/ICANN MoU

– Do other coordination work between the RIRs policy foras useful to the RIR communities

The NRO Number Council should operate in an open and transparent manner with the same basic procedures as the ASO AC where applicable – such as publishing minutes from all its meetings.

It may or may not use the same mailing list.

17) Adjourn

MH motioned to adjourn the ASO AC meeting, HPH seconded, none opposed, meeting adjourned at 5.05 pm.

Last modified on 29/01/2020