AC Attendees:

Takashi Arano (TA)
Raimundo Beca (RB)
Eric Decker (ED)
Hans Petter Holen (HH)
Kenny Huang (KSH)
Kim Hubbard (KH)
Seung-Min Lee (SL)
Mark McFadden (CHAIR)

Listener/Observers:

n/a

ARIN:

Ray Plzak (RP)

LACNIC:

Raul Echeberria (RE)

RIPE NCC:

none

APNIC:

Anne Lord, ASO Secretariat (SEC-AL)
Gerard Ross, ASO Secretariat (SEC-GR)

ICANN:

Barbara Roseman (BR)

Agenda

  1. Welcome
  2. Apologies received
  3. Agenda bashing
  4. Minutes from 7 May 2003, AC Teleconference
  5. Status of open actions
  6. Results of the AC survey
  7. Report from RIPE meeting
  8. Any other business (AOB)

[Appendix: Summary of AC survey results]

    1. Welcome

The Chair opened the meeting at 22:05 UTC.

    1. Apologies received

Apologies were received from: Hartmut Glaser, Sabine Jaume, Wilfried Woeber, Julian Dunayevich.

Absent: n/a.

    1. Agenda bashing

The Chair reviewed the draft agenda and asked if there were any additions or amendments.

The Chair suggested that the proposed item 6, “Process for e-voting” should be deferred as Sabine Jaume is not present to discuss it. HH reminded the Chair that there are also several open source e-voting solutions available. There were no objections to postponing this discussion.

The Chair proposed substituting a discussion of the survey that had been circulated. This was agreed.

    1. Minutes from 7 May 2003, AC Teleconference

The Chair noted that the minutes had been circulated. The Chair moved to approve the minutes from 7 May 2003. There were no objections. The motion to publish the minutes passed.

Action #0306-01 SEC
Secretariat to publish final minutes from 7 May 2003.

    1. Status of open actions

      • n/a

The Chair provided a summary of open action items.

Open action item list

Action #0303-03 SJ
SJ to circulate full details of the discussed election software and voting procedure. This item is to be held open pending discussion at the RIPE meeting in Barcelona.
The Chair discussed this with SJ and WW in Barcelona. He will also discuss open source solutions with her prior to the next meeting. Open
Action #0305-01 SEC
Secretariat to publish final minutes from 2 April 2003. Done
Action #0305-02 CHAIR, SEC
The Chair will amend the AC Election process document and forward it to the Secretariat. The Secretariat will publish the document on the web site and issue a call for public comment. The AC will hold a final discussion of the document in the July AC meeting. Open
Action #0305-03 SEC
The Secretariat to issue a call for public comment on the ICANN BoD election process document. This call is to be made to the aso-announce list and also to RIRs’ announcement and policy lists. Open
Action #0305-04 CHAIR, SEC
The Chair to amend the Roadmap document to remove the second workshop for 2003. The Chair to then forward the Roadmap to the Secretariat, which will publish the document and call for public comments. Open
[Note, discussion of the results of Actions #0305-02, #0305-03, #0305-04 will take place in the July meeting.]
Action #0305-05 CHAIR, HG, SJ, HH
The Chair, HG, SJ, and HH to meet at the RIPE meeting in Barcelona and discuss the e-voting proposal. They will prepare an agenda item for discussion at the June AC teleconference.
RP noted that e-voting processes may require a change to the MoU. Closed
Action #0305-06 CHAIR
The Chair to distribute a questionnaire of open questions relating to the ASO’s role. This will be distributed on a mailing list restricted to AC only. The AC members will be asked to respond to this questionnaire to indicate where they stand on each issue.
RP noted that there had been some questions from ARIN Board members. The Chair clarified that eight of the 12 AC members had responded. Closed

Shelf list (items pending action outside the ASO AC)

New action item arising from this discussion

Action #0306-02 CHAIR
Chair to follow up with ICANN regarding legal aspects of e-voting. HH noted that it is important to sort out the legal aspects, but that the discussions of processes and systems can go ahead in the meantime.

    1. Results of the AC survey

The Chair noted that he has received responses from many AC members and has sent personal reminders to the others. RP noted there is an upcoming RIR Boards conference call and that it would be good to have all responses by then.

The Chair noted that the results received so far have been distributed to the RIR CEOs. The was a discussion of whether the survey results should be summarised and published.

RB noted that on most issues there has been a clear consensus. He suggested that the only unclear issues related to RIR staff appointments to the AC. The Chair also noted that opinion on the status of listeners and observers is also evenly split.

It was agreed that the results of the survey should be made public. This will be done by incorporating the final results into the minutes of this meeting.

The Chair asked for discussion of the two issues on which there is divided opinion.

Appointment of RIR staff

KH explained that she was opposed to RIR staff members being able to vote on the AC. This objection is based on the principle of separating policy development and policy execution.

HH explained that he believed that RIR staff members should be able to vote, as this clarifies the issue of the extent to which the AC is able to actually represent the RIRs.

The Chair noted his philosophical objection to the RIR staff being on the AC, as the RIRs are signatories to the MoU. He believes it is important to keep a clear separation between the two bodies.

HH noted that he had now been convinced by the arguments to separate policy development and oversight and that he wished to change his vote.

KH noted that the RIR boards are not getting clear feedback from the AC on these issues. It was noted, however, that there are several RIR representatives on this call.

The Chair proposed including in the survey results that several AC members see a need to maintain a separation between policy development and policy execution. KH modified the proposal, suggesting that the results explain that those voting against RIR staff appointments to the AC do so on the basis explained above.

HH also asked why the AC should not simply make the votes of the AC members transparent to the RIR Boards. The Chair noted that he would not be able to prepare this in time for the next RIR Board meeting.

[Eric Decker had to leave the call at this point. The Chair noted that there was still a quorum.]

Following additional discussion on how to prepare the results, it was decided to provide absolute numbers rather than percentages and to indicate the reasons why people voted as they did on the issues that did not show clear consensus. It was also decided that in relation to the two split issues, the report should list how each member voted. These results are to be incorporated into the minutes of this meeting.

The Chair then turned to the other split issue regarding the subject of the status of listeners and observers. The Chair suggested that there should be a mechanism to add observers to the AC, who were not part of the RIRs or ICANN. KH and RP asked whether these should be permanent observers or appointed only on a temporary basis.

Status of listeners and observers

HH agreed with clarifying the wording regarding the level of participation available to observers and listeners. HH and KH agreed that the wording should not allow the interpretation that the AC would be allowed to limit which RIRs may participate.

KH noted that her vote for “no participation” referred to voting rights. She clarified that she has no objection to observers and listeners speaking in the meetings.

HH and KH also suggested clarifying the wording regarding permanent and temporary listeners and observers.

Action #0306-03 CHAIR, SEC
Chair to provide a summary of the results of the AC survey. This summary will note that on most questions, the AC has reached a clear consensus. In relation to the other questions: the summary will explain that those AC members objecting to RIR staff appointments to the AC do so in consideration of the need to separate policy development and policy execution; the summary will seek to clarify the wording regarding the role of participants and listeners. The Secretariat shall append this summary to the minutes of this meeting.

    1. Report from RIPE meeting

The Chair noted that the only AC members on this call who were present at the recent RIPE meeting are KSH and the Chair.

RP noted that it makes no sense for an RIR meeting to be reported by AC members who represent another region. The Chair agreed.

This discussion was deferred until next meeting.

    1. Any other business (AOB)

RE explained that the RIRs held a useful meeting in Montevideo to help AfriNIC take the next steps towards becoming operational. It was noted that AfriNIC has another meeting coming up in Uganda. RE explained that it is necessary to have further discussions between the RIR CEOs before fully reporting on the conclusions of the meeting.

Action #0306-04 RE
RE to prepare a full report of the recent meeting in Uruguay and discuss the current progress of AfriNIC.
The Chair noted that he will attend the Montreal ICANN meeting and will make a report to the AC.

[Meeting closed 23:00]


Open action item list

Action #0303-03 SJ
SJ to circulate full details of the discussed election software and voting procedure. This item is to be held open pending discussion at the RIPE meeting in Barcelona. Open
Action #0305-02 CHAIR, SEC
The Chair will amend the AC Election process document and forward it to the Secretariat. The Secretariat will publish the document on the web site and issue a call for public comment. The AC will hold a final discussion of the document in the July AC meeting. Open
Action #0305-03 SEC
The Secretariat to issue a call for public comment on the ICANN BoD election process document. This call is to be made to the aso-announce list and also to RIRs’ announcement and policy lists. Open
Action #0305-04 CHAIR, SEC
The Chair to amend the Roadmap document to remove the second workshop for 2003. The Chair to then forward the Roadmap to the Secretariat, which will publish the document and call for public comments. Open
Action #0306-01 SEC
Secretariat to publish final minutes from 7 May 2003.
Action #0306-02 CHAIR
Chair to follow up with ICANN regarding legal aspects of e-voting. HH noted that it is important to sort out the legal aspects, but that the discussions of processes and systems can go ahead in the meantime.
Action #0306-03 CHAIR, SEC
Chair to provide a summary of the results of the AC survey. This summary will note that on most questions, the AC has reached a clear consensus. In relation to the other questions: the summary will explain that those AC members objecting to RIR staff appointments to the AC do so in consideration of the need to separate policy development and policy execution; the summary will seek to clarify the wording regarding the role of participants and listeners. The Secretariat shall append this summary to the minutes of this meeting.
Action #0306-04 RE
RE to prepare a full report of the recent meeting in Uruguay and discuss the current progress of AfriNIC.

Shelf list (items pending action outside the ASO AC)

  • n/a

Appendix: Summary of AC survey results

Questionnaire on ASO Evolution

ASO Address Council

Compilation of results from Address Council Survey Results updated 5 June 2003 – comments/questions to aso [dot] ac [at] mcfaddencentral [dot] com

A note to the reader

This version of the results of the survey is based on discussions that took place during the regular teleconference of the ASO Address Council. The Address Council noted the near consensus on most of the items in the survey and hopes that near-consensus will prove useful to the RIRs and the ICANN ERC as they consider a new MoU. In particular this version of the results has changed in three ways:

  • It changes the way the voting is reported;
  • It provides a short commentary on items 7 and 10 where consensus did not exist for the Address Council;
  • Repairs one error in the reporting of voting from the previous version.

As of 0030 GMT on Thursday, 5 June this is the current version of this report.

This report reflects the voting of eight members of the Address Council (3 from the ARIN region, 2 from the LACNIC region, 1 from the ARIN region and 2 from the APnic region). If any of the other four Address Council members are able to participate in the survey, a new version of the results will be published.

Results from the survey

    1. Should ICANN continue to have an Address Supporting Organization?

      (Check only one.)

      • 8 participating AC members answered yes. 0 AC members answered no
    2. What role(s) should an ICANN ASO Address Council have?

      (Check all that you believe apply.)

      • 8 of 8 participating AC members said: Elect ICANN Board of Director Members
      • 8 of 8 participating AC members said: Elect ICANN Nominations Committee Members
      • 8 of 8 participating AC members said: Advise ICANN Board of Directors on Global Addressing issues
      • 7 of 8 participating AC members said: Advise ICANN Board of Directors on other matters at ICANN request
      • 8 of 8 participating AC members said: Coordination of Global Addressing Policy Development
      • 1 of 8 participating AC members said: Represent RIRs in issues related to ICANN
      • 8 of 8 participating AC members said: Act as a bottom-up facilitator for policies from ICANN to RIR Community
    3. How big should a evolved ASO Address Council be?

      (Check only one.)

      • No participating AC members selected: There should be no ASO Address Council
      • No participating AC members selected: Between 1 and 5 Address Council members
      • 1 of 8 participating AC members selected: Between 6 and 10 Address Council members
      • 3 of 8 participating AC members selected: Between 11 and 15 Address Council members
      • No participating AC members selected: Between 16 and 20 Address Council members
      • 4 of 8 participating AC members selected: The size of the Address Council is an insignificant issue
    4. How many members of the Address Council should be elected by each RIR community?

      (Check only one.)

      • No participating AC members selected: None.
      • 1 of 8 participating AC members selected: One.
      • 4 of 8 participating AC members selected: Two.
      • 3 of 8 participating AC members selected: Three.
      • No participating AC members selected: More than three.
    5. How many members of the Address Council should be elected by each RIR Boards?

      (Check only one.)

      • 2 of 8 participating AC members selected: None.
      • 5 of 8 participating AC members selected: One.
      • 1 of 8 participating AC members selected: Two.
      • No participating AC members selected: Three.
      • No participating AC members selected: More than three.
    6. How many members of the Address Council should be elected by ICANN’s NomCom?

      Check only one.

      • 7 of 8 participating AC members selected: None.
      • 1 of 8 participating AC members selected: One.
      • No participating AC members selected: Two.
      • No participating AC members selected: Three.
      • No participating AC members selected: More than three.
    7. If the RIR Boards nominate some members of the AC, could they be members of those Boards, the CEO’s or other staff?

      Check only one.

      • 3 of 8 participating AC members answered yes. 5 of 8 participating AC members answered no.

A note to the reader

Item 7 was the source of discussion during the Address Council’s June teleconference. One member of the Address Council changed a vote during this discussion. Those people who voted “NO” emphasized the importance of the role of the RIRs, but indicated that there needs to be a strong separation between the roles of policy formation and development versions the role of policy implementation. The people voting “NO” on this item want a clear and formal separation of those two roles and felt that having RIR staff, Board members or CEOs on the Address Council failed to keep the distinction clear.

    1. Which, among ICANN bodies, should nominate a liaison member to the AC?

      Check all that apply.

      • 4 of 8 participating AC members said: Governmental Advisory Committee
      • 3 of 8 participating AC members said: Root Server Advisory Committee
      • No participating AC members said: At Large Advisory Committee
      • No participating AC members said: Country Code Name Supporting Organization
      • No participating AC members said: generic Name Supporting Organization
      • 3 of 8 participating AC members said: Security and Stability Advisory Committee
      • 4 of 8 participating AC members said: ICANN Staff
      • 2 of 8 participating AC members said: None
    2. How many liaison members should be elected or nominated by Afrinic?

      Check only one.

      • No participating AC members selected: None.
      • 3 of 8 participating AC members selected: One.
      • 5 of 8 participating AC members selected: Two or more.
    3. Number and status of observers?

      (Check only one.)

      • No participating AC members selected: There should be no observers.
      • No participating AC members selected: Observers should be limited to representatives of RIRs (non-participating)
      • No participating AC members selected: Observers should be limited to
      • representatives of RIRs (participating)
      • 3 of 8 participating AC members selected: Observers could be from RIRs and ICANN, but non-participating
      • 1 of 8 participating AC members selected: Observers could be from RIRs and ICANN and should be allowed to participate
      • 4 of 8 participating AC members selected: Observers should be chosen by common consent of the Address Council
      • No participating AC members selected: Anyone should be free to be an observer of the Address Council

A note to the reader

Item 10 was also the source of discussion during the Address Council’s June teleconference. Item 10 also has a corrected vote report for one of the Address Council members.

In particular, this question was criticized for not being unambiguous. After some discussion, the Address Council generally agreed that the RIRs and ICANN staff should be permanent observers of the Address Council and have the ability to participate routinely (but not the ability to vote). In addition, the Address Council described the concept of temporary observers, an idea where experts or other interested parties could be added as observers as needed on a temporary basis by common consent (or some other formal mechanism). The distinction between permanent observers and temporary, special-case observers for the Address Council was generally agreed to by the Address Council at its June teleconference.

  1. Electronic voting in the Address Council?

    Check only one.

    • 100% of AC members selected: The Address Council should use electronic voting on motions
    • 0% of AC members selected: The Address Council should not use electronic voting