Sebastian Bellagamba (SB), Chair
Alan Barrett (AB), Co-Chair
Sanford H. George (SHG)
Hartmut Glaser (HG)
Hans Petter Holen (HPH), Co-Chair
Sabine Jaume (SJ)
Sylvia Geha Kezengwa (SGK)
HJ Kwon (HJK)
Louis Lee (LL)
Francisco Obispo (FO)
Mao Wei (MW)
Wilfried Woeber (WW)
Raymond Plzak (RP), Secretary (ARIN)
Einar Bohlin, Policy Analyst (ARIN)
Therese Colosi, Recording Secretary (ARIN)
Richard Jimmerson – ARIN
Raimundo Beca – ICANN
Olof Nording- ICANN
Raul Echeberria – LACNIC
German Valdez – LACNIC
Jean Robert Hountomey
- Agenda Review
- Approval of the Minutes
- Letter to send the Global IPv6 Policy to the ICANN Board
- Letter of Condolences
- Response Letter to ICANN Board
- RIR Reports
- Any Other Business
Chair called the meeting to order at 22:05 UTC. The presence of a quorum was noted.
2) Agenda Review
The Chair called for any comments. RP made an administrative announcement that ARIN is intending, for the September teleconference, to use both the conference service and VOIP to handle conference calls. Information would be forthcoming to the ASO AC. The Chair thanked RP for the information.
3) Approval of the Minutes of June 7, 2006
HG moved that:
“The ASO AC approves the Minutes of July 12, 2006, as written.”
This was seconded by AB. The Chair called for any objections. There were no comments.
The motion carried unanimously.
4) Letter to send the Global IPv6 Policy to the ICANN Board
At the last meeting, the Chair tasked the SEC to send the letter to ICANN’s SEC on 13 July 2006. RP gave an update stating that he provided the council copies of all messages to and from ICANN on the matter and the task had been accomplished.
5) Letter of Condolences
At the last meeting, LL stated that there was information posted on the ICANN website regarding Peter Dengate-Thrush’s recent tragedy. He requested the Chair send a message on behalf of ASO AC. The Chair stated he would send it on 13 July 2006. The Chair stated he did send the letter to the ICANN website on July 13, and it is posted there for viewing.
6) Response Letter to ICANN Board
At the last meeting, LL raised the issue of drafting a response to the anticipated message from ICANN regarding clarification of the proposed policy; and, HPH volunteered to work with LL on the matter.
LL moved that:
“The ASO AC approves this letter to the ICANN Board as presented.”
This was seconded by HG. The Chair called for any discussion. WW posted to the list before the meeting a message regarding a minor modification deleting the word “proposed”. He felt that since the policy has been agreed upon in all regions, and is awaiting ratification, it should not be referred to as ‘proposed’. RB suggested referring to it as “policy forwarded for ratification” in lieu of the word ‘proposed’. WW agreed with this wording. HG stated that he too agreed.
The Chair called for any objections to the suggested changes offered by WW and RB. Opinions were stated, and it was the sense of the AC that no one felt so strongly as to vote against the text as presented, keeping the word ‘proposed’. Therefore, WW withdrew his suggestion to change the text, and all were in agreement to leaving the word ‘proposed’ in the text.
Discussion then ensued on new issues that arose since the five RIRs agreed upon the Global IPv6 policy such as, allocating a /12, and the issue of HD ratio. The Chair stated that if the Council had received a formal request from ICANN, the ASO AC would need to address these matters, but there has been no ‘formal’ request. He stated the Council needs to send the advice on the global policy as they now know it.
After a lengthy debate as to whether these issues should be addressed in the policy or not, it was the sense of the ASO AC that the proposed policy remain as-is. This due to the fact that all agreed that these new issues were, to date, ‘rumors’ only and have not been formally requested for investigation. The ASO AC also agreed that moving the policy forward does not preclude the possibility of amending the policy in the future.
It was noted that MH had sent apologies because of a schedule conflict. HPH addressed the issue of MH’s recent posts to the ASO AC list in which MH expressed concerns about the policy requesting a delay due to the fact the ASO AC did not have IANA’s report, and stating that he is not ready to forward the advice to ICANN. HPH asked if any other ASO AC member had a chance to speak with MH regarding his concerns. SJ stated she had e-mailed MH, but had not received a response.
HPH stated that MH had been in touch with tier 1 carriers, and wants to submit his own advice to ICANN. HPH felt it strange that one member consulted with a small group this late in the process, not publicly, and secondly wants to submit a dissenting view to the ICANN Board as a member of the ASO AC. HPH stated he was slightly puzzled and the others members also expressed their confusion in the matter.
RB stated to the Chair that any member or observer to the ASO AC has a right to send a personal message until to the ICANN Board until 4 August. The Chair agreed with RB but stated he could not explain MH’s postings to the Council. The Council reviewed that the ASO AC has until 12 August, 2006 to provide advice to the ICANN Board.
The Chair called for any further discussion. There were no further comments. The Chair then called for a roll call vote on the motion. It was noted that HG had dropped off the call (22:59 UTC).
The motion carried unanimously via roll call vote.
7) RIR Reports
It was noted at the last meeting that reports from those attending RIR meetings had not been consistently provided. The Chair called for brief reports for the following meetings.
A. APNIC – Perth, Australia. MW provided a brief overview of events of the meeting. The Chair called for any comments. There were no comments.
B. ICANN – Wellington, New Zealand. The Chair provided a brief overview of events of the meeting.
C. ARIN – Montreal, Quebec. No overview provided at this time. Report will be provided as next meeting.
D. RIPE – Istanbul, Turkey. No overview provided at this time.
SJ suggested providing all reports to the ASO AC’s list, and also provide them on the respective RIR websites. Therefore, the Chair called for any objections. There were no objections. The Chair stated that the rest of the reports would be provided on their list and also on the RIR’s websites.
E. AfriNIC – Nairobi, Kenya.
F. LACNIC – Guatemala City, Guatemala.
G. ICANN – Marrakech, Morocco.
8) Any Other Business
The Chair called for any other business. There was no other business.
The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 23:09 UTC. AB moved to adjourn, and this was seconded by SJ. The motion carried unanimously.