AC Attendees:

Sanford George (SG) – ARIN
Lee Howard (LH) – ARIN
Louis Lee (LL) – ARIN
Kenny S. Huang (KH) – APNIC
Hyun-Joon Kwon (HJK) – APNIC
Hartmut Glaser (HG) – LACNIC
Sebastian Bellagamba (SB) – LACNIC
Hans Petter Holen (HPH) – RIPE NCC
Wilfried Woeber (WW) – RIPE NCC
Alan Barret (AB) – AFRINIC

Observers:

Ray Plzak (RP) – ARIN
Paul Wilson (PW) – APNIC
German Valdez (GV) – LACNIC
Raimundo Beca (RB) – ICANN Board of Directors
Olof Nordling (ON) – ICANN Staff
Adiel Akplogan (AA) – AFRINIC

Apolgies Received:

Takashi Arano
Julian Dunayevich
Sabine Jaume

Minutes taken by GV.

Draft Agenda:

  1. Welcome & roll call
  2. Agenda review
  3. Minutes from May 4 teleconference
  4. Status Open actions
  5. Endorsement of chair action taken on AC response to ICANN review procedure
  6. New gTLD Strategy Implementation – Draft staff paper on “New TLD Questions
  7. Report from WGIG Geneva – Lee Howard
  8. List of procedures -Sebastián Bellagamba
    – Presentation of list of procedures proposed
    – Need to review Procedures for the election of AC Chair and Co-Chairs </docs/ac-chair-selection.html> http://www.aso.icann.org/docs/ac-chair-selection.html ?
    – ASO-AC ICANN Board Selection Procedures </docs/bod-selection.html> http://www.aso.icann.org/docs/bod-selection.html ?
    – Procedure for posting of minutes http://www.aso.icann.org/meetings/minutes_procedure.html ?
  9. Procedure to call for meetings
    – need for further considerations ?
    – motion to adopt procedure
    – MOU 3.b.5 -> …. submitted to the Executive Council of the NRO for approval.
  10. Procedure for new ASO AC member – Robert HOUNTOMEY
  11. Motion to move Flowchart  http://www.aso.icann.org/ac/procedures.pdf to status historical or remove from the web site
  12. Global policy update
    – Status of IPv6 Global policy
  13. ICANN meetings
    – Planning for upcoming ICANN meeting in Luxembourg
    – Participation in GAC meeting
    – Participation in other meetings
    – Informal meeting for AC / dinner ?
  14. ICANN Strategic Plan
  15. Report from RIR meetings
  16. AOB

=================

The teleconference was opened at 21:05 UTC

1) Welcome & roll call

As per roll call 10 AC members and 6 observers were present. Quorum was established.

2) Agenda review

HPH proceeded to read the draft agenda. The draft agenda was approved.

3) Minutes from May 4 Teleconference

Hearing no objections the Minutes from the May 4 Teleconference were approved.

Action #050710-1. SEC To change status of the Minutes of the May 4 teleconference from draft to definitive.

4) Status Open Actions

Because of the length of the Agenda, HPH motioned that, instead of reading the list of open actions, as they had already been circulated to the AC list and no comments were received, the status of open actions could be accepted; this motion was accepted and the following action was decided:

Action #050710-2 SEC To accept the list of status of open actions that HPH sent to he AC list.

5) Endorsement of Chair action taken on AC response to ICANN review procedure

HPH observed that between the last meeting and this meeting the AC had to make some comments to the procedure drafted by ICANN, that we were not in a position to hold a proper meeting to take action, so what he did was to take the draft that was developed by AC members at the last AC meeting and send it to ICANN as the AC position, that he would like to see if there are any comments to this course of action and preferably have the endorsement of the AC.

ON. informed that the comment was received, that he made his personal comment, and that the Board is trying to put forward the definite text of the procedure.

RB. presented an observation for HPH that perhaps next time he could send copies to AC members earlier, because he received the information 2 or 3 weeks later; that it would be easier if members receive the information from the Chair and are in touch from the very beginning.

HPH clarified that he sent an email to the list, that he believes that he informed the Council, apologized if there was any misunderstanding and stated he would fix it next time. He added that he believes that after the informal discussions he had with ON and RP there was not much substantial information to share with the AC. He agreed that it’s a good idea to have a call for public comments.

Hearing no further comments, a motion was presented to endorse the action proposed by the Chair. Hearing no opposition, this motion was approved.

6) New gTLD Strategy Implementation – Draft staff paper on “New TLD Questions

HPH requested questions or comments on this paper and asked what should the AC do in relation to it.

RP mentioned that what could be done is to read the paper carefully to determine whether it contains any addressing issues; he proceeded to suggest that, if the paper does not contain any addressing issues, a statement could be sent to ICANN saying that as there are no addressing issues included in the paper, it is outside the scope of the AC to present any comments.

ON presented a brief introduction to the paper: What we put forward is a list of questions. What ICANN is asking is whether the list of questions is complete, what we’d like to see is whether we need to add, delete or change questions; in addition, there is a matrix with questions identified so far in relation to which we consider it essential to have input from the supporting organizations, the advisory committee as well as outside bodies. The idea is to make this list complete in the first step, then put out the final list of questions and the corresponding responses. To be clear, what we are asking you during this fist step is whether you consider that this list of questions is complete or would you like to add any more questions?

HP requested volunteers to go through this paper, see if it contains any addressing issues that must be dealt with, and present a proposal to the AC. RP and SG volunteered.

Action #050710-3 (RP, SG): To go through the Draft staff paper on “New TLD Questions”, see if it contains any addressing issues and make a proposal to the AC.

HPH inquired how will the AC be able to act on this before the august 1st deadline.

SG said he and RP can put something together by the 22nd and e-mail it to everybody. Then if any action is needed on the part of the AC a teleconference would be required to approve it.

RP observed that the AC would need to identify whether we will need a teleconference to approve this 2 weeks before August 1st; he added that because there are also other items that need to be discussed, this teleconference will probably be necessary. In view of this he proposed adding the item “Deciding on a date for a new meeting” under agenda item 18 (AOB). This was agreed.

7) Report from WGIG Geneva – Lee Howard

LH reported that it was his distinct impression that of all the people who made statements, those representing national governments were in favor of some new organization having additional responsibilities for doing things like DNS and IP address allocations (though nobody had a specific proposal on how the addresses should be allocated), and that those who were not representing governments were opposed to making significant changes to the current system. We don’t know yet whether our input had any effect, but I did notice that Paul Twomey was there, so our suggestion to the ICANN Board to take note and make a statement may have had some effect.

8) List of procedures – Sebastián Bellagamba

Presentation of list of procedures proposed

Need to review Procedures for the election of AC Chair and Co-Chairs </docs/ac-chair-selection.html> http://www.aso.icann.org/docs/ac-chair-selection.html ?
ASO-AC ICANN Board Selection Procedures </docs/bod-selection.html> http://www.aso.icann.org/docs/bod-selection.html ?
Procedure for posting of minutes http://www.aso.icann.org/meetings/minutes_procedure.html ?

SB: There was an open action on the procedures, to develop a checklist of procedures we need to develop. With the help of RP, I put out this list for you. Some of the procedures I pointed out have already been developed, I was wondering if it is necessary to change or update them. Would you like to discuss every point right now? Or should we have a group working on this? There is a lot of work to do on these procedures.

HPH asked whether we should we go through them right now or establish a timeline for the working group to prepare procedures and discuss them at the next meeting.

AB observed that it is not possible to discuss all the procedures we need at this meeting, and suggested that perhaps the working group could chose some small set of priority procedures to vote on during the next meeting, that is decide how many and which procedures need to be considered at the next meeting and send them to the list for their discussion.

HPH asked for the list of members of the working group on procedures, to which GV replied the following: SB, SJ, RP, Chair and Co-Chairs.

WW suggested that we should try, if possible, to have the whole set of procedures that were covered by the old MoU by next meeting.

SB also raised the question of whether we should revisit the procedures we already have in place, specially those we developed as under the old MoU as they now must go to the NRO Executive Board for approval.

RP mentioned it would not be wise to try to accomplish too much, that it is important to identify a few procedures, and not necessarily replace those in the old MoU; he stated that in his opinion it would be better to first put into place the things that are needed.

HPH said he believes it is better to have the working group decide on this.

After further discussion the following action was decided:

Action #050710-4 (SB, SJ, RP, Chair and Co-Chairs): To come up with procedures for AC approval before the next conference call

9) Procedure to call for meetings

– need for further considerations ?
– motion to adopt procedure
– MOU 3.b.5 -> …. submitted to the Executive Council of the NRO for approval.

HPH observed that in his opinion the proposal is not ready for voting yet.

AB suggested that probably the procedure should say something about quorum requirements and what to do if there is no quorum, to which SB replied that there is a quorum requirement in the procedure: simple majority and two-thirds of the RIRs.

Comments were made about that 4 regions must be present for quorum, and that the only difference is the wording; in his opinion the procedure should read “four out of five regions present for quorum.”

It was decided to use the wording “four out of five.”

HPH made the following comment: In my opinion the advanced notices (currently 7 days for teleconferences) is rather short, in the old MOU it was 15 days. We are seeing that this notice period is too short and we need to establish how to call for another meeting if there is no quorum at a scheduled meeting. Any comments on that timeline?

SB: The teleconference and physical meeting advance notice exceeds 7 or 15 days. This would not be a problem: we would need to send a reminder about 10 days before, but for example last Wednesday’s meeting was called 6 months ago. I differentiate between regular and special (or extra) meetings because in my opinion we need two different procedures because we have to cover both scenarios.

LH: If members don’t waive their notice we would assume that they voted against any action that was taken? This could make the difference in establishing that any action taken at a meeting called with short notice, with few participants, would not carry so much weight.

RP: The biggest problem is that everyone on the council has a day joy, therefore there can be no assumption in relation to a person’s vote because of their absence.

HG: Although now we have a calendar for 6 meetings, we could go back to having meetings once a month. In that case, if we don’t need the meeting we could just establish that as there is no agenda there is not need for discussion.

HPH: Are there any statistics? How many AC members actually sent their confirmation or gave apology for this and past meetings? Are there people who are silent? This information is important to see if it is possible to have this short time line in the procedures. I have the feeling that we have silence from some of the members of the AC, and that we might create a deadlock situation.

After further discussion it was decided that in fact the procedure was not ready for voting, and the following action was decided:

Action #050710-5 SB, SJ, RP, Chair, Co-ChairsTo review and finalize the procedure to call for AC meetings before the next meeting

10) Procedure for new ASO AC member – Robert HOUNTOMEY

HPH asked whether the AC should vote on this procedure or send it back to the group? Should we vote this now or should we wait?

LL observed that, although it could use a little fine tuning, the basics are there. The following action was decided:
Action #050710-6 (LL, RH): Fine tune the procedure and present it at the next AC meeting for its aproval.

11) Motion to move Flowchart  http://www.aso.icann.org/ac/procedures.pdf to status historical or remove from the web site

HPH motioned to remove the flowchart from the website, motion seconded by WW.

AB observed that historical documents, in his opinion, should be moved to a different section but not deleted entirely.

A motion to move the flowchart to the historical section was presented, and hearing no objections the following action was decided:

Action #050710-7 SEC. To move the flowchart of procedures to “historical”.

12) Global policy update

– Status of IPv6 Global policy

HPH asked whether there were any updates on this matter.

WW (RIPE NCC): I believe that members know the status in their own regions. The policy had not been formally proposed, there needed to be some improvement of the language in the process before it could be presented, and also to know the outcome of the LACNIC region.

GV (LACNIC): The policy was approved by the open policy forum, the next step is to send it back to the list 45 days for receiving public comments, and then sent it for its ratification by the Board. This is the same policy was discussed in ARIN.

LH (ARIN): As far as I know the public has approved it, as has the Advisory Council, but I believe the Board has not approved it yet.

PW (APNIC): It is in draft status.

AB As far as I know it hasn’t been formally proposed.

AA: In Maputo we proposed that it be sent back to the list.

HPH: Who is actually proposing this in the other regions? In RIPE NCC I as chair of the address policy working group I have the task to determine consensus. With this role I am comfortable with making policy proposals. This is why I was wondering who is making the proposals in other regions.

GV: In our region it was sent to the list through the same process as the global one, there is no champion for the policy

RP: In our region it was the Advisory Council

13) ICANN meetings

– Participation in GAC meeting
– Participation in other meetings- Informal meeting for AC / dinner ?

HPH said he was invited to co-chair with someone from the GAC a roundtable about IP addressing. An interesting presentation by Geoff Huston on the order of magnitude and importance of IPv6; that it was eye-opening. He continued by mentioning that the most controversial presentation was by an American he hadn’t met before who basically thought that competition was the solution to all addressing problems.

RP commented that it was interesting that the invitation was extended to this gentlemen as we were not going to discuss internet governance at the GAC meeting this morning; that it actually detracted from informing the GAC about addressing issues.

It was commented do not give too much credibility to this gentleman, that personally he thinks he is pointing out a couple of weak points that he has seen in the current IPv6 address distribution policy; that we should not limit ourselves to coming up with a good answer to this paper but that we should go back to the drawing board in our regions and go over certain issues, among them the fact that right now we don’t have any provision for distributing addresses to an entity which wants to deploy IPv6 but who does not intend on short notice to become an ISP Comparing this with the early IPv4 distribution we have something that limits the adoption of this technology, and even if we come up with a good answer to counter this paper the criticism will come up again and again.

It was suggested to take the paper to each of the regions for its discussion.

AA stated that he believes that the idea of responding to this paper is still a good idea, even if we have to go back to our regions and discuss before responding, which we must do.

HPH proceeded to ask if there were any volunteers to form a group to review the gentleman’s paper and draft recommendations. LH, SB, WW, AA and RB volunteered.

HG proposed that Paul Wilson and/or Geoff Huston should be invited to join the working group, as in his opinion the participation of one or both can be very positive for the working group.

It was established the next possibilities:
1) to send a letter to the Board with recommendations
2) to respond directly

After further discussion the following action was decided:

Action #050710-8 (LH, SB, WW, AA, RB): As a group, to review the paper and draft recommendations; to invite Paul Wilson and Geoff Huston to join this working group

14) ICANN Strategic Plan

HPH commented that he received an invitation from Paul Twomey to submit comments on some questions for the next ICANN strategic plan, that he sent a message to the list in this regard; that he responded that this would not be possible because not all members are present, but that he needs to give him an idea as to when we could give him our comments. That the message he received was whether we could organize a meeting of the AC to prepare comments on the questions they are using for this process. At this point HPH proceeded to read the note he had received.

ON suggested the possibility of organizing something for the AC, perhaps through the website.

LH said that he supports the idea of considering the questions in a workshop, but that half an hour is not enough to discuss the scope of these questions.

HPH suggested that perhaps it would be possible to start discussing this matter among the members who are now in Luxemburg, perhaps in a workshop.

To the question of when ICANN expects these comments, HPH replied that it should be on short notice, in the near term.

After further discussion the following action was decided:

Action #050710-9 ON. To send the questions about next ICANN Strategic Plan to the list for further discussion.

15) Report from RIR meetings

HG proceeded to make a brief summary of the LACNIC meeting held in Lima, Peru, explaining the activities that took place each day. He mentioned that LACNIC elected a new member to replace JD, that this new member is Francisco Obispo from Venezuela; that there were over 120 participants in the assembly; that LACNIC has decided to have outreach in other parts of our continent; that GV and RE are traveling to 6-7 places on what is being called “the ipv6 tour.”

HG continued that although one meeting a year is OK, next year LACNIC will have only one meeting, but will be ready to change the number of meetings if we believe it would be better to have two.

LH proposed inviting Francisco Obispo to participate in the AC conference starting in December, and invite him to join us as an observer in Vancouver meeting.

This motion was approved.

HPH stated that he believes new members can join us as soon as we know they have been elected, that it is not necessary to wait until December.

LH agreed, although he believes 6 months seems to be a bit too long he sees no reason not to do it.

HPH proposed to invite Francisco Obispo to join the teleconferences at least from October. He added that it’s important to see the interest of the new members and who is going to pay for the cost, particularly for sending him to the Vancouver meeting, as this would be the greatest cost.

HPH proposed to put this idea in the draft procedures that will go to the NRO, this will allow us to know if they are willing to pay for this.

At this moment HG asked how ARIN is working to have more presence at meetings, to which RP replied that ARIN is now providing travel for one ASO EC member from the ARIN region to attend the meetings and discussing travel to other venues as well; that ARIN is covering these costs; that the intention of ARIN is to send not only members of the AC but also members of the advisory council and staff.

HG replied that LACNIC is discussing having this same mechanism, that it will be discussed at the next meeting.

Nothing further was reported from other RIR meetings.

16) AOB

HPH: There was a proposal by the NRO to the GAC, but they considered this represented too many obligations for GAC members.

RP: The proposal to the GAC was to pay attention to addressing policies for the region. We suggested we could set up a website for them to see the policy discussions, a private policy list for them, those kind of things.

HPH: The requirement to attend RIR meetings was too hard for GAC members.

RP: What they really objected to was that they did not want to have any kind of signed agreement between GAC and the NRO. They were insisting upon discussing a liaison with the GAC.

HG: In Mar del Plata the GAC requested one from each RIR, but nothing ever came out of this.

It was commented about make a decision which way we want to go forward with this, we want something a little bit more concrete. One of the purposes of the liaison is to bring information in.

HPH: No action is needed from the AC,

This was agreed by everybody

RP: I agree with the suggestion that no action from the AC is needed. Finally it was decided that the AC should do nothing.

Schedule the next AC meeting

The following dates were proposed: July 27, August 3.

After some discussion, it was decided to have the next AC teleconference on July 27 at 22.00 UTC hours.

There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 23:30 UTC.

LIST OF ACTIONS

NEW

Action #050710-1. SEC
To change status of the Minutes of the May 4 teleconference from draft to definitive.

Action #050710-2 SEC
To accept the list of status of open actions that HPH sent to he AC list.

Action #050710-3 (RP, SG):
To go through the Draft staff paper on “New TLD Questions”, see if it contains any addressing issues and make a proposal to the AC.

Action #050710-4 (SB, SJ, RP, Chair and Co-Chairs):
To come up with procedures for AC approval before the next conference call.

Action #050710-5 SB, SJ, RP, Chair, Co-Chairs
To review and finalize the procedure to call for AC meetings before the next meeting

Action #050710-6 (LL, RH):
Fine tune the procedure and present it at the next AC meeting for its aproval.

Action #050710-7 SEC.
To move the flowchart of procedures to “historical”.

Action #050710-8 (LH, SB, WW, AA, RB):
As a group, to review the paper and draft recommendations; to invite Paul Wilson and Geoff Huston to join this working group

Action #050710-9 ON.
To send the questions about next ICANN Strategic Plan to the list for further discussion.

OPEN

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.
Work in progress – group asked for exteded deadline by 1 month

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.

CLOSED AFTER MEETING 20050710

Action #0505-01.SEC:
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.
Chair invited to co-chair sesstion

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
Done in plenary at the RIPE meeting

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 #0505-11. 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.

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.
overtaken by Action #0505-11

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.