Axel Pawlik (AP)
Ant Brooks (AB)
Hyunje Park (HP)
Hans Petter Holen (HH)
Sabine Jaume (SJ)
Raimundo Beca (RB)
German Valdez (GV)
Louis Touton (LT)
Takashi Arano (TA)
Paul Wilson (PW)
Richard Jimmerson (RJ)
Wilfried Woeber (WW)
Jianping Wu (JW)
Gerard Ross (minutes)

Cathy Wittbrodt (CW)

1. Welcome
2. Agenda bashing
3. Minutes from last meeting
4. Status of open actions
5. Status of listeners from the emerging RIRs.
6. MoU amendment
7. IAB/IESG recommendation on IPv6 address delegation
8. Brisbane agenda
9. Next meeting
10. AOB

1. Welcome.

HH opened the meeting at 22.20, noting that was a quorum of AC members

2. Agenda Bashing

LT raised the issue of a recent request for a public listening facility for
AC meetings.

Final agenda agreed as follows:

1. Welcome
2. Agenda bashing
3. Minutes from last meeting
4. Status of open actions
5. Status of listeners from the emerging RIRs.
6. Request for public listening facility
7. MoU amendment
8. IAB/IESG recommendation on IPv6 address delegation
9. Brisbane agenda
10. Ad hoc group
11. Next meeting
12. AOB

PW suggested a finishing time for meeting. Agreed on 1.5 hrs (finishing at
23.50 UTC).

3. Minutes from last meeting

No further changes were proposed.

The ASO secretariat was therefore asked to publish the minutes on ASO web

4. Status of open actions

4a. PW to publish last meetings minutes on ASO website. This has been done.

4b. LT to finalise initial draft on 24/8 and send to ARIN.
LT: not yet done, but will be done in time to be presented by IANA and the
RIRs in Brisbane (as agreed at the last meeting).

4c. RIRs to finalise Emerging RIR draft and re-circulate.
PW said it will be done in time for Brisbane.

WW asked whether pending changes were major or just editorial? PW explained
they are basically editorial and will be circulated before the next AC

4d. RIRs to finalise resource request procedures draft and circulate.
RJ explained the draft was complete and had been circulated to current RIRs,
who are reviewing it. The second draft should be available soon, and can be
circulated more widely.

RB asked for it to also be circulated to emerging registries.

WW asked if there was any reason not to copy the document to the AC-COORD
list. RJ said this had been discussed previously and it was decided to send
the second draft to the ASO. LT clarified that it was a procedural document
not intended to raise policy issues. The AC can look at it and decide
whether there are any policy issues to be dealt with.

4e. LT to finalise proposal for amendment to MoU regarding alignment of AC
member terms. This has been done and will be discussed later.

4f. PW to request Dr Kyong to confirm eligibility to serve as ICANN
director, and inform ICANN of his selection. This has been done.

4g. PW to announce extension of IRP NomCom proposal deadline. This has been

4h. All to develop agenda for Brisbane workshop/meeting
HH said this has been started and is on the agenda for this meeting.

RB asked about the letter to Mike Roberts. HH explained that he has not yet
sent this as he is still trying to recover lost email.

5. Status of listeners from the emerging RIRs.

HH noted that there was an email vote on the issue of listener participation
in AC meetings before the last meeting, and a great majority was in favour.
But many comments were made, so it seems that further discussion may be

GV suggested that emerging RIRs be allowed some way to participate during
Brisbane meeting to reflect their effort.

HH said that the basic principle is openness and transparency so agrees with
their participation in the AC process.

WW said the vote itself was clear with no need for further clarification.
But he did ask what is the intended difference between a listener and an
observer, and between a listener and anyone else who may join an open

LT explained that MoU says observers can participate in AC activities in
every way except voting, but listeners were initially intended to simply

HH suggested that listeners are different as they have specific status given
by the Emerging RIRs, and restated that the meeting should be open to them.
Also asked if and when the meeting should be opened up further.

PW noted that there may be logistical problems with an open meeting using
the current conference facility, including limited maximum numbers of
participation, and high costs even for people who dial in.

SJ said with more people it will be harder to follow the discussion. Also,
it's problematic to say yes to some people but no to others.

WW proposed to go ahead with the result of the previous vote, to invite
listeners to join the next meeting, and to provide equal opportunity to
participate. He suggested further that at the same time, efforts should be
made by the AC to integrate the listeners more fully into the policy work of
the AC. He finally suggested that allowing public listeners would need more
thought and discussion, and should be discussed further at Brisbane.

HH suggested putting forward WW's first point for a vote by the AC.

WW moved that listeners be invited to participate at next meeting. Seconded
by SJ. Passed by consensus.

6. Request for public listening facility

HH noted that MoU provides that AC may meet privately, but with minutes
posted publicly on the ASO website.

WW commented that public meetings are very appropriate when formal decisions
are to be made, but he is not in favour of opening up all AC coordination
efforts and technical discussions to the public.

WW mentioned that DNSO has public observing facility on their phone

LT confirmed that the names council has a listening facility available, with
a few ports available (up to 20 possibly). He also explained that the Names
Council operates in a more formal manner.

HH suggested that an AC member might call into a NC meeting and report back
on how it works.

It was agreed that this issue be discussed further at the Brisbane meeting.
PW to reply to person who made enquiry.

7. MoU amendment

LT explained proposal for all AC terms to end on first day of the year, and
that if no successor is selected in time then the outgoing member could sit
for a further six months. Amendment is provisional for 6 months, allowing
RIR Boards and/or Members to review, preferably before end of October (when
first round of terms expire).

LT asked for feedback on whether a six month limitation is appropriate. The
proposal is designed to avoid a perpetual AC member in case the appointment
process fails, but after 6 months would diminish RIR representation in this

LT also noted that the under the MoU, contractual matters are for
negotiation between the RIRs and ICANN, however the RIRs and ICANN felt that
this proposal was appropriate to bring to the AC for comment, because AC
terms are affected.

PW, AP, and RJ reported no problems from registry boards.

HH said the amendments presented solve the problem, so no further action
required by AC.

LT asked specifically for any negative comment from AC, and no comments were

8. IAB/IESG recommendation on IPv6 address delegation

WW said this arises from common feeling among the community that there is
insufficient information to decide about appropriateness of the standard /48
assignment for all customers. This was discussed in Budapest at the last
RIPE NCC meeting), and many people felt ill-at-ease to advocate generous
assignments. Also discussions took place at Adelaide and Pittsburgh IETF
meetings, looking at community expectations of IETF/IAB. The current
document from IAB/IESG accomplishes 2 things: addresses reservations held by
those with conservative approach, and also gives insight into architectural
view of IPv6 designers. Document should put most people at ease, and give
good guidance on how to proceed with IPv6 address distribution.

HH reported that Steve Deering and Bob Hinden will attend a joint IPv6 and
Local IR WG meeting during RIPE-37, with formal presentations and
discussions.  RJ reported that Brian Carpenter make a presentation at the
ARIN meeting, where there will also be an IPv6 tutorial. It was noted that a
member of IPv6 Directorate would also attend the APNIC meeting (where there
will be IPv6 SIG and Tutorial sessions).

WW recommended that the document be distributed widely prior to each of the
coming RIR meetings.

HH suggested that AC should review outcomes of meetings later.

PW confirmed that it has been circulated widely already, and has just been
posted to aso-policy.

LT noted that the intention is to publish as an information RFC. PW
suggested that since it is up for discussion, it would be appropriate to ask
that this be deferred until after it is discussed at RIR meetings.

9. Brisbane agenda

HH noted that he has proposed a format, namely concentrating on three or
four items, having someone prepare a presentation, then splitting into
working groups to develop positions, before the AC comes to conclusions on
each item.

HH noted that he circulated suggested list of issues. He asked for input on
the amount of material to be covered.

RB suggested checking the issues mentioned in the Mike Roberts letter, as
these will need to be included on the agenda.

LT mentioned that 2 or 3 ICANN people would be there, and if there are too
many separate groups, then ICANN staff could not attend all of them.

WW suggested holding two parallel streams, each with two topics.

HH repeated the topics he previously proposed:

1. what is global policy?
2. revising the MoU
3. addressing the essence of the ad hoc committee
4. how to promote ipv6
5. tutorial on regional policies
6. emerging rirs

Suggested that topic 6 may be best addressed by having AC members visit the
emerging RIRs.

WW asked about process of recognising emerging RIRs, and LT explained that
ICANN is awaiting AC input, followed by likely process of public comment.
Likely to be finalised next year, by the time of the March 2001 meeting.

LT suggested combining 1 and 5.

HH suggested that we would need presentation from each region of major
policy features/differences. Regarding item 4, this is something which could
be discussed informally during breaks.

Regarding item 6, HH asked whether AC should send a delegation to emerging
RIR meetings and participate actively in their processes.

GV said AC should bear in mind that LACNIC meetings are in Spanish. He
suggested Joao Damas could be used as a connection between ASO and LACNIC.

TA asked whether Brisbane meeting would be open or closed to public?

Agreed that it will be useful to have private meeting in workshop format, to
allow more open discussion within a smaller group.

Discussion ensued about whether time is available within the APNIC Open
Policy Meeting for an open AC meeting of some kind, for instance within the
Address Policy session, or after that session (as parallel BOF session).

PW and TA (as chair of the APNIC Address Policy meeting) agree to discuss
how to rearrange schedule to allow for a public component.

10. Next meeting

RB mentioned that October 4 is a problem because it is during the ARIN

So, agreed that the next meeting will be October 11, 22:00 UTC.

HH offered to summarise the draft agenda for Brisbane meeting and will check
letter to Mike Roberts for other agenda items. Other items may be added at
the next meeting.

11. AOB

11A. Ad Hoc group

LT reported very little activity on the ad hoc group comment forum for over
a month. Since the GPRS/RIPE agreement, much of the immediate motivation has
probably disappeared.

HH mentioned the need for ensuring technical discussion on other issues, new
technologies etc.  The AC could set up some working groups on such issues by

LT suggested that this should be discussed in Brisbane if possible. In the
meantime, he will check up on status of Ad Hoc group reporting, and report
at the next AC meeting.  Interim report due in May was not produced on time.
SJ noted the document from Mark McFadden (May), which was posted to the ad
hoc forum.

HH suggested that this type of work should occur within the ASO, rather than
outside of the ASO.

RB suggested that AC should form an opinion on Tony Holmes' paper, and
agreed to make introductory presentation on topic of Ad Hoc group for
Brisbane meeting.

11B. Address Council Procedures document

LT asked if this document is to be made public - he wants to pass it on to
the Names Council for their use in the current self-evaluation process.

Agreed that it can now be made public.

PW agreed to publish it on web site.

11C. Independent Review Nominating Committee

LT asked about status of independent review nominating committee.

PW explained the deadline had been extended - this should be decided in time
for Brisbane meeting.

Agreed to add this item to the agenda for Brisbane.

11D. Apologies

Reiterated request for apologies to be sent in advance by those AC members
not attending an AC meeting.

Noted that CW sent apologies for this meeting.

HH closed the meeting at 23:50 UTC.


Future actions from this meeting:

- PW to publish August minutes on ASO web site.
- LT to finalise initial draft on 24/8 and send to ARIN.
- RIRs to finalise Emerging RIR draft and re-circulate.
- RIRs to produce second draft of resource request procedures and circulate.
- HH to finalise and send reply to Mike Roberts.
- PW to post IAB/IESG recommendation on IPv6 address delegation to ASO
policy list.
- PW and TA to revise schedule to allow for public AC meeting session.
- HH to summarise draft agenda for Brisbane meeting and check the Mike
Roberts letter for other items.
- RB to prepare presentation on Ad Hoc group for Brisbane.
- PW to publish AC procedures document on web site.

Items for next meeting agenda
- Continue development of Brisbane agenda.

Items for Brisbane agenda
- Request for public listening facility.
- Ad Hoc group.