Sanford George (SG) – ARIN
Lee Howard (LH) – ARIN
Louis Lee (LL) – ARIN
Kenny S. Huang (KH) – APNIC
Hartmut Glaser (HG) – LACNIC
Sebastian Bellagamba (SB) – LACNIC
Hans Petter Holen (HPH) – RIPE NCC
Wilfried Woeber (WW) – RIPE NCC
Sabine Jaume (SJ) – RIPE NCC
Jean Robert Hountomey (JH) – AFRINIC
Alan Barrett (AB) – AFRINIC
Ray Plzak (RP) – ARIN
Paul Wilson (PW) – APNIC
German Valdez (GV) – LACNIC
Adriana Rivero (AR) – LACNIC
Raimundo Beca (RB) – ICANN Board of Directors
Olof Nordling (ON) – ICANN Staff
Axel Pawlik (AP) – RIPE NCC
Adiel Akplogan (AfriNIC)
Takashi Arano (TA) – APNIC
Hyun-Joon Kwon (HJK) – APNIC
Anne Lord (AL) – APNIC
Raul Echeberria (RE) – LACNIC
Minutes were taken by AR and GV.
– Roll call to establish quorum
2) Agenda review
3) Minutes from March 2nd teleconference
4) Status Open Actions
5) WGIG – Input to ICANN and discussion of Zhao’s Proposal
6) AC Comments to ICANN – Procedure to handle ASO Policy proposal
7) Review of ASO Web site
8) ASO AC Internal Procedures
9) Report from RIR meetings
– Roll call to establish quorum
As per roll call, 11 members of the AC and 7 observers were present. A quorum was determined
HPH read the agenda and invited suggestions for its review.
LH: Proposed to formally recognize the new members of AfriNIC as full members of the AC instead of observers. He asked whether the meeting in Maputo was an AC meeting, if so we will need to consider the notes from that meeting, to which GV replied that the notes will be available not later than tomorrow.
HPH invited comments on these minutes and presented a motion to approve them. Hearing no objections, the minutes were approved.
AR proceeded to read all open action items and establish their current status. The following comments were received:
– In relation to Action #0503-03 (HG and SB will prepare a presentation for the GAC that will be presented at the Mar del Plata ICANN meeting; HPH will do some e-mail coordination with HG and SB before proposing this to the GAC), it was decided to change this action for a new action:
Action #0505-02. CHAIR: To make an appointment with the GAC in order to make this presentation about ASO AC at the Luxemburg ICANN meeting.
– In relation to Action #0503-11 (Chair: To add this process for fulfilling Article 6 of the global policy process to the concrete list of procedures that need to be reviewed and developed), the following new action was decided:
Action #0505-03. CHAIR To find out what happened with ICANN about the ratification of the global Policy, until we get notified none of the RIRs can implement the policy.
In relation to Action Action #0501-07 CHAIR To thank the secretariat we had in 2004 (RIPE), it was decide that HPH will do that during ASO AC presentation in RIPE meeting in Stockholm
Action #0505-04. CHAIR. Thanks 2004 Secretariat (RIPE) During ASO AC report in RIPE meeting in Stockholm
– In relation to Action #0307-03 (Secretariat to investigate technical solutions for conducting e-voting), it was decided to close this action because there is no provision for e-voting under the new MoU.
5) – WGIG – Input to ICANN and discussion of Zhao’s Proposal
LH made a brief introduction on the matter, and explained why it’s more in line with our charter to send something to the ICANN Board and not directly to the WGIG. He stated that after the Maputo meeting he expanded his draft to address to Zhao’s Proposal, though he did not prepare a direct reply, as he believes there is not much momentum for the proposal of making one IPv6 allocation to each country and then letting them allocate it according to their own desires or similar proposals. He added that he did not address any specific proposal as he does not wish to give support to proposals that do not really have support.
PW mentioned that there’s a recent document by the ITU Council Working Group on WSIS that summarizes all their ambitions and the options expected in relation to Internet Governance, and that he will send it to the list.
LH observed that it is incumbent on each of the members of the WGIG to seek out the comments posted on their website, and therefore posting comments on their list would not necessarily receive a lot of attention; that he believes the only way that we might communicate our position to the WGIG is to send someone to their open consultation on June 14. LH asked the group two questions: 1) should we send this draft document to the ICANN Board, and 2) should we send someone or make a recommendation to ICANN to send someone to that open consultation to explain where the RIRs stand in terms of allocation policy and make sure that our points are clear.
RP observed that perhaps it’s too late to send documents, that probably it would be better to have someone from the AC present to be our speaker on this point. The best way would be to have, for example, RE and probably another member of the AC. He proposed that the other speaker could be LH.
LL moved to go ahead and send the suggestions to ICANN so that there is a record that the AC is involved at that level.
LH mentioned that perhaps it would make more sense that ICANN send a Board Member, to which RP replied that ICANN already has a member there, and that if we use the same channel we would not be providing new input.
LH noted we should be careful not to upset ICANN if they perceive we are stepping out of bounds; that if ICANN agreed that someone from the AC should go to the open consultation then it would be an excellent idea.
RB observed there are two different floors: 1) we have Alejandro and Raul there, 2) the public forum the day before where anybody may take the floor. It would be a good idea for the AC to go there and give this statement on the particular issue of addressing. If ICANN decides to go as well, there will be two voices: one focused on addressing the other more general.
After further discussion, HPH proposed sending a note to the ICANN Board with what we intend to say and at the same time appoint a representative to go to the open consultation; also to suggest to ICANN that they should also be present.
LH suggested the following phrasing: “without objections, we will send a delegate to speak on addressing issues.” If ICANN already intends to send someone and feels this would be redundant then they can object. AB supported this suggestion.
Finally, the following actions were decided:
Action #0505-05. CHAIR To send a letter to the ICANN Board with what we intend to say in the WSIS open consultation meeting in Geneva in June 14th and at the same time appoint a representative to go there; in addition, to suggest to ICANN that they should also be present.
Action #0505-06. LH: To assist the chair in finalizing the letter to ICANN containing the ASO AC comments to WGIG documents, LH to send the letter to HPH.
LH will be the representative to attend the meeting.
LL began the discussion saying that he hoped that the document adequately captured the additional viewpoints that were put forward in Maputo and by e-mail, that he hoped that everybody had a chance to see the document which was sent to the AC-Coord list.
AB mentioned that he had not received the document.
LH offered to forward the document to the list again, confirming that it is version 1.4.
It was established that comments are due by Monday.
HPH mentioned that he has heard suggestions in the sense that everybody should confirm by e-mail that they’ve received a posting. He added that there are two options: 1) to approve the document today although some members have not read it, or 2) to discuss it by e-mail and make a final decision by Monday at the latest.
LH In relation to the document, commented that, based on what we’ve seen this week, he’s not sure the ASO AC can respond to the ICANN Board within 10 business days.
HPH noted that he is drafting a procedure for the AC to handle policy proposals in the first place, it’s rather elaborate and forcing every AC member to take part, that he’s added a procedure for AC members to state their availability over the next 60-day period so we know who is available for short term comments and that this would be one of the obligations of being on the AC. Once there is a policy proposal we need to be available or advise if we are not available for comments. He added that the proposal has not been circulated yet.
LH asked whether the 10 day deadline for AC responses would be consistent with the set of procedures HPH is drafting, to which HPH replied yes, that one way to achieve this could be to appoint one or several AC members to draft responses to actual proposals from ICANN and if there are no objections from the list those would be the response from the AC.
RP mentioned that, if voting was conducted by e-mail, then we would need to have the vote of every member, otherwise a meeting would have to be called in order to make a decision.
HPH observed that in general, not only for this particular case, it would be reasonable to have a timeline, and that if there is a deadline it is hard to extend it past 10 business days.
After further discussion, in relation to the Agenda Item 06, RP suggested voting on the document and moving on to the next agenda point, and added that if we don’t vote now RP’s comment would apply.
LH moved to accept this document as a product of the AC and submit it to the Board of ICANN.
LL observed that anyone who has not seen the document is free to vote or abstain
(LH) said that more specifically, they could vote “No” or abstain
AR proceeded to receive the votes through roll call. With 9 votes for the affirmative and 2 abstentions the document was approved by the majority of votes.
The following actions were decided:
Action #0505-07. SEC To post in the ASO website the document prepared by LL and SB with comments to the “Proposed Review Procedure for ASO Policy Proposals”.
LL mentioned that he had sent an e-mail I sent with 3 comments for updating the website, and asked whether this agenda item was related to translations.
HPH replied that he wanted to ask the AC if anyone wants to join LL in reviewing the website, and added that this agenda item is also appropriate to discuss the multilingual issue, as it is also related to the website.
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.
LL observed that there have been responses on the mailing list in the sense that there’s already a movement within the NRO to do translations and that we should request their comments and advice as to how they’re working and have our translation criteria in line with the NRO’s. He added that the basic idea is first to determine the scope of the translation (whole website, documents only, what languages), and then decide how the initial translation will go and how we will maintain the translations (ongoing work). The website itself is not that big, but I’m leaning towards documents only because for the whole website we would need permanent help with major and minor updates. If the NRO is in full support of this and can provide resources to do the translations, they may agree to do the upkeep for the whole website.
WW stated that before going any further he’d like to hear the NRO’s plans for the translations, that personally he thinks that most of the people supporting this proposal underestimate the amount of effort not only for the initial translation but also for the updates and maintenance; that he’s seen many bad websites, and that we should be careful not to generate false expectations that are too high.
PW observed that they’ve discussed the translation issue a number of times, and decided that which translations are required should be determined by each RIR, that they will not commit to a global set of languages, that it is a regional decision. He proceeded to inquire whether any of the RIR’s are doing translations.
To this RP replied that ARIN only translates documents that are specific to ARIN’s operations, such as translations relating to registration services. It was established that other RIRs do the same.
WW noted that some explanation is needed as to why in the proposal the six languages included are considered the “big languages” and why not the others, that he doesn’t see any rational explanation why only those should be included. He added that there’s the possibility of disappointing part of the constituency, that we should be careful and very open in communicating why we are starting with a one or maybe two additional languages instead of a large number of languages.
PW replied that this is precisely why a regional decision is more appropriately – the decision as to which are the most important languages in each region. He added that this would relieve the AC of making this decision, and that in that case any complaints could be managed at RIR level.
GV mentioned that LACNIC manages a trilingual site, that translation costs in South America are not so high as in other parts of the world and that in LACNIC’s experience it is feasible to handle two additional languages. Perhaps the AC or the NRO could have one official language (English) and within one or two days people could expect the translation of the documents to other non-official languages for the sake of time response.
RP suggested the regional approach, that if a particular region feels that a document that is a global document such as the ASO MoU needs to be available in multiple languages in their region, they should take measures to have it translated.
HPH noted that he strongly supports the notion that the AC should not be in the forefront but rather follow the RIRs on every aspect of this, that his proposal is to wait and see what the RIRs are doing with their websites and other documents, and then when we have some experience as to how that works we can make better decisions for what is appropriate for the ASO website. He added that the NRO has the resources, that we can evaluate the RIR’s results and then request similar services for the ASO website.
HG said that, for example, LACNIC already includes two other languages, but they might include two more, perhaps French and Dutch; that if the other RIRs included two or three other languages and everyone used them worldwide we could easily have ten or twelve languages.
LH observed that, since the NRO would be funding the work anyway, we can either ask the NRO now to include ASO documents in whatever translations the RIRs make of NRO documents or we can put this issue on the table and until we’ve seen what the RIRs do with the NRO documents and see if we like it. He added that it would be fine with him to wait two months to see what happens.
the following action was decided:
HPH: there were several actions on the Chair regarding procedures, and added that he made a list which HG sent a list of procedures to the AC list.
SB mentioned that he’s compiling a list of his own with HPH’s list in mind.
HPH suggested forming a small group with SB and the Chairs, perhaps some other members to work on a concrete draft for the next meeting.
HG said that in Maputo it was discussed that probably we need a very educational flowchart of all the activities related to the NRO or the ASO or the Number Council, so as to avoid miscommunications or wrong decisions, that RP had volunteered to prepare this flowchart
the following action was decided:
Action #0505-11. SB, SJ, RP, Chair, Co-Chairs: To come up with a list of procedures, in order of priority, before the next meeting and preferably also to start working on that list.
Although it was mentioned that no report would be necessary as most of the AC members were present at said meeting, AB stated that he would like to mention the following highlights of the AfriNIC meeting: the signing of the MoU between AfriNIC and the NRO admitting AfriNIC as a formal member; that it was the first public policy meeting after AfriNIC’s recognition (although some proposed policies were discussed, no decisions were made at this meeting), that the membership elected our representatives to the NRO Number Council. He added that the minutes of this meeting will be published shortly.
PW inquired whether AB could explain why despite the fact that, although there were several policy proposal discussions, no decisions were actually taken or put to the group, to which AB replied that there hadn’t been sufficient time for discussion on the public mailing list, that the AfriNIC policy making procedures require a thirty day discussion period, and that the policy had been proposed at a date that hadn’t allowed the 30 day discussion period.
SG presented a brief summary of the highlights of the ARIN meeting that took place in Orlando, Florida. He said that ARIN had meetings with the North American v6 Taskforce ARIN which were very successful; that several policy proposals were discussed, among them Policy Proposal 2004-08: Allocation of IPv6 Address Space by the IANA to RIRs, that the Advisory Council supported it in the members meeting and that he believes they are going to pass it to the Board for its approval.
LH mentioned that there was a proposal to reevaluate how we do directory services, specifically regarding WHOIS, part of the proposal was to not require organizations to present WHOIS information for their sub-assignments or sub-allocations. He added that an interesting fact is that representatives from three different agencies of the US Government as well as other organizations (e.g. the Royal Canadian Mounted Police) opposed that part of the policy on the grounds that it would make it harder for them to find people, that there was consensus that this part of the proposal should not move forward. He highlighted the fact that this was a very clear example of government participation actually influencing the policy making process.
RIPE Meeting (This meeting is taking place at the time of this teleconference)
HPH pointed out the following highlights: 1) that this is the first meeting held with a last call process; 2) that there is no formal policy development process in last call at the RIPE region, that there were 2 previous versions of the policy development process, very little formality, 3) the policy proposals under consideration (TLD Anycast allocation policy, HD ratio for IPv4 allocation policy, IPv6 allocation policy).
To change the status of the March 2nd teleconference minutes from Draft to Final.
Action #0505-02. CHAIR:
To make an appointment with the GAC in order to make this presentation about ASO AC at the Luxemburg ICANN meeting.
Action #0505-03. CHAIR
To find out what happened with ICANN about the ratification of the IPv4 global Policy, until we get notified none of the RIRs can implement the policy.
Action #0505-04. CHAIR.
Thanks 2004 Secretariat (RIPE) During ASO AC report in RIPE meeting in Stockholm
Action #0505-05. CHAIR
To send a letter to the ICANN Board with what we intend to say in the WSIS open consultation meeting in Geneva in June 14th and at the same time appoint a representative to go there; in addition, to suggest to ICANN that they should also be present.
Action #0505-06. LH:
To assist the chair in finalizing the letter to ICANN containing the ASO AC comments to WGIG documents, LH to send the letter to HPH.
Action #0505-07. SEC:
To post in the ASO website the document prepared by LL and SB with comments to the “Proposed Review Procedure for ASO Policy Proposals”.
Action #0505-08. CHAIR
To send to ICANN this document with ASO AC comments to “Proposed Review Procedure for ASO Policy Proposals.”
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.
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.
Action #0503-09 BR
To post minutes taken during the teleconference held in January 26th 2005 between members of AC – ASO and ICANN staff regarding Strategic Plan.
Action #0501-04 CHAIR:
To look into proposing a procedure for the calling for meetings.
Action #0501-08 Chair and Co-Chairs:
To identify a list of the procedures that need to be established regarding the transition from the old MoU to the new MoU, take that to the list, and then start to work on the most important ones and call for volunteers for the work.
Action #0503-01. SEC.
To change the status of the January 5 meeting from “draft” to “approved” and proceed to publish them as such.
Action #0503-02. SEC.
To start planning these physical meetings. Maputo Mozambique 26-27 April and Vancouver Canada Nov 30 – Dec 4.
Action #0503-03: HG and SB
will prepare a presentation for the GAC that will be presented at the Mar del Plata ICANN meeting; HPH will do some e-mail coordination with HG and SB before proposing this to the GAC.
Action #0503-04. CHAIR
To invite the GAC to attend the Maputo meeting.
Action #0503-05. SEC:
To format the Work Plan 2005 nicely and publish it on the website.
Action #0503-06. ALL.
To send comments regarding Sebastian comments or ICANN document to the AC-COORD maling list by the end of the week. Friday 4th March.
Action #0503-07. CHAIR.
To study the comments and review SB’s document, to prepare an AC proposal over the weekend and then post it to the AC-COORD mailing list before submitting it to ICANN.
Action #0503-08. SEC.
To publish AC final comments for ICANN Strategic Plans on ASO website.
Action #0503-10. CHAIR:
To seek official reassurance from ICANN on the statement given by RB to the AC (that Mar del Plata will be the end of the 60 day window period).
Action #0503-11. CHAIR:
To add this process for fulfilling Article 6 of the global policy process to the concrete list of procedures that need to be reviewed and developed.
Action #0411-03 Chair/Co-Chair
To work on a roadmap to be formally approved at the next AC meeting in January 2005
Action #0501-05 CHAIR:
To put together a table of the availability of the AC members for the coming RIR meetings so it will be easier to determine when the next physical meeting can be scheduled.
Action #0501-06 SB, SJ, TA, RP, HPH: SB, SJ TA
will start a discussion on the list concerning the ICANN strategic plan and then RP will take it to the EC. The chair will then consult with the EC and see if it is feasible and practical to come up with a joint statement based on the list and based on the EC.
Action #0501-07 CHAIR
To thank the secretariat we had in 2004 (RIPE)
Action #0501-09 Chair:
To inquire ICANN about the deadline for reply to the global policy proposal document submitted to the ICANN board by the AC last September.
Action #0307-03 SEC
Secretariat to investigate technical solutions for conducting e-voting. A decision about the necessity of this action will be made after the review of procedures in the AC ASO.(Action #0501-08)