Present: 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) Apologies: Cathy Wittbrodt (CW) Agenda 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 present. 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 site. 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 meeting. 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 done. 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 needed. 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 meeting. LT explained that MoU says observers can participate in AC activities in every way except voting, but listeners were initially intended to simply listen. 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 meetings. 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 case. 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 raised. 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 meeting. 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 itself. 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.