Alan Barrett (AB) – AFRINIC
Jean Robert Hountomey (JRH) – AFRINIC
Takashi Arano (TA) – APNIC
Kenny Huang (KH) – APNIC – By Phone
Lee Howard (LH) – ARIN
Louis Lee (LL) – ARIN
Sanford George (SG) – ARIN
Sebastian Bellagamba (SB) – LACNIC
Hartmut Glaser (HG) – LACNIC
Hans Petter Holen (HPH) – RIPE – By Phone
Adiel Akplogan (AA) – AFRINIC
Paul Wilson (PW) – APNIC
Ray Plzak (RP) – ARIN
Richard Jimmerson (RJ) – ARIN
Raul Echeberria (RE) – LACNIC
German Valdez (GV) – LACNIC – ASO Secretariat
Adriana Rivero (AR) – LACNIC – ASO Secretariat – By Phone
Raimundo Beca (RB) – ICANN
John Crain (JC) – ICANN
Olof Nordling (ON) – ICANN – By Phone
Julian Dunayevich (JD) – LACNIC
Sabine Jaume (SJ) – RIPE
Wilfred Woeber (WW) – RIPE
Hyun-Joon Kwon (HJK) – APNIC
Notes were taken by GV
1. Welcome and roll call for the Address Council
2. NRO – ICANN MoU
3. ICANN Procedure to handle ASO Policy proposal
4. AC Internal Procedures overview
5. Status of IPv4 global policy
6. Status of IPv6 global policy
7. WGIG and Zhao Proposal
1. Welcome and roll call for the Address Council
Workshop was open and chaired by HG.
Due to the lack of an appropriate teleconference equipment people not present in Maputo had to leave the workshop (HPH, KH, AR, ON)
HG. Presentation of the MoU.
HPH To have a round in the table if everybody understood and discussed. To draw attention about 3b specific task the AC should do.
RP The current status of the NRO ICANN MoU was signed in October. No change since then
SB Important to read section 3b of the document.
SB ICANN just produces a document to review the procedures to handle these proposals so the ICANN board can make a final decision we must make comments about it. (PROPOSED REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR ASO POLICY PROPOSALS). The document is posted in ICANN website
LL everybody read the 9 steps?, I sent a document comments to the AC list. I made comments about half of the points. Read the points of the disagreement.
RB for the very title of the document there is a problem, there is nothing about ASO policy procedures.
SB The procedures includes public comments, but this is not necessary because the global policy was already discussed in the different RIR.
RP Agree. By the moment the AC receive a proposals and send it to ICANN already has a consensus globally. The evaluation of the global policy proposal is a task of the ICANN board no the staff
At this moment and due to the lack of an appropriate teleconference equipment people not present in Maputo had to leave the workshop (HPH, KH, AR, ON)
SB Mentioned he sent an email regarding this point to the AC list. There are so many public comments that we don need no more.
HG All we agree that this consultation time is wrong. Propose then that SB and LL to prepare a draft document about comments to the PROPOSED REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR ASO POLICY PROPOSALS document share it with the AC before the next teleconference so can be voted and sent it to ICANN
RP NRO position is preparing also a document. Comments should be sent separately
LH comments only to comments page in ICANN website?
RP send comments there and Paul Twomey and ICANN staff
RE. There is a risk of deadlock where say the ICANN staff can make consult as necessary. It is the regarding of external bodies involvement. It is not ok that the proposal be evaluated by external advisory bodies, this should be remove from the text.
RP Agree with RE. Totally disagreement in the involvement of the CEO, this is board responsibility. Staff is no part of the policy process. I like proposals to have editing teams.
HG All we agree that this consultation is wrong. Propose then that SB and LL to prepare a draft document about comments to the PROPOSED REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR ASO POLICY PROPOSALS document share it with the AC before the next teleconference so can be voted and sent it to ICANN
LL What about point 2?
SB ASO AC rol should be of a checkpoint reviewer not about the content but about the accomplish of the discussion rules. (Openness, transparency, etc)
RP All internal procedures were taken out of the ASO MoU because the ASO AC should work separately about this.
SB There is an action related this issue. I sent an email about it. Identify the procedures we have to have, for example quorum definition, voting procedures, etc. What we have today is from the old MoU.
RP I would suggest write the list of procedures and sharing to the EC for possible comments.
RP when is going to be officially implemented? We need to receive an official announcement from ICANN/IANA, this policy is in the practice but not formally notified
RE It has been discussing in the RIR forums. RIPE, LACNIC and AFRINIC the next ones.
LH In ARIN there was a proposal to change the allocation unit from /12 to /16. Consensus reached in /12
AA AFRINIC will be the last RIR to discussed the global policy
LH WGIG prepared a number of documents about internet governance. AC should review IP address documents. ASO AC could send a message to ICANN board regarding WGIG products. Ask for people about comments of WGIG comments and prepare and advise to ICANN board.
RB ICANN board will welcome AC ASO comments.
RE At this time is not the time for making comments to ICANN board, actually I cannot assure to be useful for the WGIG, We are now in the last phase of the process, no education is needed at this point. It looks like the consensus is the creation of a new body. Time to send strong and clear comment directly to the WGIG.
LH for the record is important to make this comments and include ICANN Board.
RE May be useful to hear the voice of the ASO AC in public a session n WGIG
PW Explained how through Zhao proposal every country are granted IPv6 space to be managed internally.
HG Proposed that LH draft a document directed to the ICANN Board regarding the issues of IP address management held in the WGIG and bring this topic to the next teleconference.
HG Adjourn the session.