AC Attendees:

  • Hans Petter Holen (HPH), Chair
  • Ali Badiel (ALB)
  • Alan Barrett (AB)
  • Sanford H. George (SG)
  • Hartmut Glaser (HG)
  • Martin Hannigan (MH)
  • Toshiyuki Hosaka (TH)
  • Jean Robert Hountomey (JRH)
  • Kenny Huang (KH)
  • Hyun-joon Kwon (HJK)
  • Louis Lee (LL)
  • Francisco Obispo (FO)
  • Wilfried Woeber (WW)

Secretariat:

  • Samantha Dickinson (SD), Recording Secretary – APNIC

Observers:

  • Adiel Akplogan (AA) – AfriNIC
  • Ernest Byaruhanga (EB) – AfriNIC
  • Kiran Cunniah (KC) – AfriNIC
  • Vincent Ngundi (VN) – AfriNIC
  • Radha Ramphul (RR) – AfriNIC
  • Hisham Rojoa (HR) – AfriNIC
  • Sunny Chendi (SC) – APNIC
  • Donna McLaren (DM) – APNIC
  • Paul Wilson (PW) – APNIC
  • Megan Kruse (MK) – ARIN
  • Ray Plzak (RP) – ARIN
  • Jason Schiller (JS) – ARIN
  • Raul Echeberria (RE) – LACNIC
  • German Valdez (GV) – LACNIC
  • Raimundo Beca (RB) – ICANN
  • Olof Nordling (ON) – ICANN
  • Leo Vegoda (LV) – ICANN
  • Dmitri Berkov (DB) – RIPE NCC
  • Axel Pawlik (AP) – RIPE NCC
  • Paul Rendek (PR) – RIPE NCC
  • Ischa Ropert (IR) – RIPE NCC
  • Filiz Yilmaz (FY) – RIPE NCC

Apologies:

  • Sebastian Bellagamba (SB)
  • Dave Wilson (DW)

Absent:

  • N/A

Draft agenda

  1. Welcome
  2. Agenda review
  3. Approval of the minutes of 3 October 2007
  4. ASO workshop at LA ICANN meeting
  5. Final list of IGF speakers
  6. Timing of teleconference calls
  7. Global policy development process
  8. Establish task force to make draft work plan for 2008
  9. Awareness for 2008 chair election
  10. Cancellation of regularly scheduled telephone conference (7 Nov 2007)
  11. Any other business
  12. Adjournment
  1. Welcome

    The Chair called the meeting to order at 11:04 am, noting the presence of a quorum.

  2. Agenda review

    The Chair reviewed the agenda and called for any comments.

    The following items were added to AOB:

    • Recording of teleconferences
    • ARIN meeting update

    The Chair noted that the report on the recent RIPE meeting would be deferred until the following meeting.

  3. Approval of the minutes of 3 October 2007

    HG moved the following motion: “The ASO AC approves the Minutes of October 3, 2007 as written.” KH seconded the motion. There were no objections or comments.

    Action #0707-01:

    Secretariat to publish minutes of 3 October 2007.

  4. ASO workshop at LA ICANN meeting

    The Chair noted that he had sent a revised draft agenda for the ASO workshop to the mailing list:

    1. Status from the Address Council – 10 min – Chair
    2. Status from the NRO – 10 min
    3. Status of global policy proposals – Chair
    4. Global policy for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 address space – 20 min – Francisco Obispo
    5. End policy for IANA IPv4 allocations to RIRs – 20 min – Toshiyuki Hosaka
    Discussion of above – 30 min
    6. IANA policy for allocation of ASN blocks to RIRs – 10 min
    7. Open mike – 20 min

    The Chair noted that there was an item about the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 in the previous draft agenda for the ASO workshop.

    [VN joined the meeting at 18:11 UTC]

    The Chair noted that there had already been two workshops at the LA ICANN meeting on IPv6 transition. Therefore, he suggested changing the scope of the workshop to omit the transition issues and concentrate on global policy proposals instead.

    Chair stated that he had previously asked RP if he would be willing to present an NRO status update. RP had agreed to do this.

    The Chair asked for comments on the revised agenda.

    LL stated that he would support staying focussed on the functions the AC have been charged to do.

    RP asked if the “Discussion of the above” in the draft agenda meant that there would be discussion about the policy proposals to be discussed in agenda items 4 and 5.

    The Chair answered yes.

    RP stated that the two proposals were still actively under discussion by the RIR community. He explained that if there was discussion on the proposals in the workshop, the ASO AC would then need to send an email to every RIR policy list reporting the policy discussion at the ASO workshop. He suggested that an alternative option was for the ASO to make it clear in the workshop that discussion about the policy proposals would be limited. He suggested directing workshop participants to the RIR policy forums.

    TH said that he was happy to present the “End policy for IANA IPv4 allocations to RIRs”. However, he noted that the principles of the JPNIC proposal were quite similar to the proposal FO would be presenting. Therefore, TH suggested that he would not need 20 minutes to discuss the JPNIC proposal.

    RP agreed with TH. He stated that in some regions, the two proposals were being merged. He suggested that instead of discussing the proposals separately, the principles behind both proposals be discussed. He also suggested reporting on the discussion that has been taking place in the RIR communities. He suggested that TH and FO present the RIR community discussion jointly.

    FO stated that he could give a short five minute presentation about the contents of the proposal. He suggested that TH could do the same, leaving the remaining time to discuss the current status of the proposal discussions in the RIR communities.

    The Chair asked for a volunteer to present workshop agenda item 6, “IANA policy for allocation of ASN blocks to RIRs”.

    RP reported that the global ASN proposal was simple and had not met with any opposition in any of the RIR communities.

    AB volunteered to present the ASN proposal item at the workshop.

    The Chair suggested that the rest of the workshop could be filled with an open mic session to allow the workshop participants to ask questions about the ASO or RIR activities.

    The Chair asked if there should be any other items on the workshop agenda.

    LL suggested including a statement directing workshop participants to use all resources available to them to participate in the RIR policy development process.

    The Chair suggested that he could refer to the NRO policy development web page during his introductory remarks in the workshop.

    AB suggested that item 3 of the agenda could incorporate a description of the global policy development process. Item 3 could also explain that the workshop was not the venue for discussion, and that interested people should go to the regional policy forums to give their input.

    The Chair suggested that after the open mic session he could present the calendar of upcoming RIR open policy meetings.

    The Chair asked AC members if there were any other items to include in the workshop agenda. There were none.

  5. Final list of IGF speakers

    The Chair noted that there had been no proposals for suitable IGF speakers sent to the AC-COORD list. He stated that he was interpreting this to mean that the AC felt that the proposed speakers from the NRO EC were fully meeting the needs to represent the addressing community.

    The Chair suggested closing the item. He asked HG, who had first raised the item, if this was acceptable to him. HG agreed.

  6. Timing of teleconference calls

    The Chair asked HR to summarise the background to AfriNIC’s proposal to change the time of the AC teleconference in 2008.

    HR explained that if the current teleconference time of 22:00 UTC was used in 2008, it would be 2:00 am, Mauritius time. He stated that this would mean that AfriNIC staff would need to travel into the office by 2:00 am to be able to support the teleconferences. Therefore, AfriNIC was proposing 13:00 UTC as AfriNIC’s preferred time for the 2008 teleconferences.

    The Chair asked for comments.

    WW stated that it would always be 2:00 am somewhere for participants in the teleconference and did not see it as a substantive reason to change the current teleconference time. He states that from a personal point of view, a 13:00 UTC teleconference would substantially interfere with his work schedule.

    RP explained that from a mechanical point of view, the people from the Secretariat facilitating the teleconference needed to be taking notes, working with the teleconference providers and other activities to support the teleconference. He suggested that the AC members take this into consideration.

    PW supported RH’s comment and stated that he supported AfriNIC’s request for a change in the teleconference time.

    The Chair asked LL, as a member from the Americas how he felt about the proposed time change.

    LL replied that he had experienced the luxury of having AC teleconferences during the middle of the day for many years and was willing to participate in teleconferences very early in the morning in 2008.

    The Chair noted that in Europe the proposed teleconference time would be a change from working in his spare time to working in business hours while for LL it would be the opposite.

    LL suggested that to accommodate WW, perhaps the day of the teleconference could be changed.

    AA stated that he was having trouble hearing all the discussions happening at the face-to-face meeting.

    AA stated that AfriNIC had also suggested that there be a procedure where the ASO Secretariat for each year could choose the time for the teleconference.

    The Chair stated that the AC needs to make a decision about the time of the teleconference before the January 2008 teleconference.

    [MH joined the teleconference at 18:31 UTC]

    The Chair summarised the discussion on the teleconference time proposal for MH.

    MH stated that he had no preference for a particular teleconference time.

    The Chair asked WW if it would make it easier for him if the teleconference was moved to another day of the week.

    WW replied that this would partly help, as his faculty held a staff meeting every Wednesday that would collide with the teleconference call. He stated that moving the teleconference to another day of the week would still interfere with his teaching schedule.

    The Chair explained that if the AC could make a decision on the time of the 2008 meetings in the current meeting, it would make it easier for him to work around any changed time for his own 2008 activities. He stated that if the decision was not made until December, however, it would make it very difficult to plan for any changes.

    AB moved the following motion: “The ASO AC will hold its meetings in 2008 at 13:00 UTC every first Thursday of the month”. LL seconded the motion. There were no objections or comments. HPH, AB, HG, TH, JRH, KH, HJK, LL and FO voted yes; MH and WW abstained. ALB was not present on the teleconference when the roll was called.

    The Chair explained that the January 2008 teleconference was scheduled for 3 January. He asked if this would be a problem for AC members going on vacation. He noted that, in the past, the AC had experienced problems with AC members not joining the January call.

    RP explained that the purpose of the January AC meeting is to elect the Chair for the coming year. He suggested that if the AC used an electronic voting method, and there were no other items to discuss in January, the AC might not need to hold the January meeting.

    [RE joined at 18:40 UTC]

    The Chair asked RP if the AC would need to change its procedures change to electronic voting.

    RP explained that it was just a matter of changing the manner in which the Chair was being elected. He suggested that the AC could tell the NRO EC that the ASO AC would prefer to use electronic voting and to make Chair and Co-Chair nominations via email. He noted that there may be a higher proportion of AC members voting on the election if it was conducted electronically as not all AC members may be present on the teleconference.

    AB asked if the incoming Secretariat would be able to conduct electronic voting by January 2008.

    WW suggested that the AC leave it to the RIRs to decide which RIR could provide electronic voting for the Chair election.

    RP agreed that the RIRs could take care of the electronic voting.

    The Chair stated that he assumed that the voting system was already functional as it was used to elect its representative to the ICANN Board.

    RP stated that this was correct. He stated that the ASO servers do not move with the Secretariat and would be functional for the January election.

    LL moved the following motion: “The election for the Chair for the ASO AC will be conducted via electronic voting.” AB seconded the motion.

    WW asked if the AC had a list of the names of all the new AC members that would begin their terms in 2008.

    SD stated that there was an Asia Pacific representative that would be elected in February 2008.

    WW stated that he would like to reserve the opportunity to discuss Chair elections informally at the January 2008 meeting and then vote electronically a few days later.

    TH stated that he was appointed by the APNIC EC and that, depending on whether the EC reappointed him in 2008, his term would expire at the end of 2007. He asked if he would have voting rights in the Chair election.

    The Chair stated that if he was reappointed by the APNIC EC, he could vote in the Chair election.

    RP stated that even if the APNIC EC did not appoint a replacement for TH until after the Chair election, until TH was replaced, he would be considered to be a valid member of the AC.

    [SG joined at 18:46 UTC]

    The Chair asked the Secretariat to conduct a roll call on the proposed motion to move to electronic voting. The motion was unanimously carried by all present.

    Action: #0711-01

    Chair to send a request to the NRO EC regarding moving to electronic voting for the 2008 AC Chair by the end of 2 November 2007.

    The Chair noted that with the change in procedure for electing a Chair, the January teleconference would be less important that it had been in previous years. He noted that it was possible to start informal discussions about Chair nominations in the current meeting. He stated that formal Chair nominations would begin after the December teleconference. He suggested it would be easier to discuss possible nominations face-to-face rather than via email. He asked if AC members had any comments. There were none.

    AA stated that he had to leave the teleconference to catch a plane.

    [AA left the teleconference at 18:50 UTC]

    The Chair noted that, in his experience, January teleconferences were not as well attended as teleconferences during the year.

    AB asked for details on the procedures for electing an ASO AC Chair.

    RP explained that the current procedure stated that that the nominations and election for Chair and Co-chair positions both occur at the January meeting. However, now that the voting will be electronic, he suggested that the AC could send nominations in any way they chose. He suggested that AC members could post nominations to the AC-COORD list or send nominations to the Secretariat so the Secretariat could post a single list of all nominees to the AC-COORD list.

    RP suggested that if all the anticipated new members of the AC were present on the call on onsite at ICANN, then discussion could begin during the current meeting. He suggested, however, that the decision about whether to hold a January meeting did not need to take place immediately. He suggested that the decision could be made in the December teleconference.

    AB suggested that he did not think it was necessary to hold a meeting in January unless there was business to conduct.

    The Chair noted that there would not be any global policy proposals to discuss in January.

    AB suggested that the AC could move a motion in December if it was decided that a January meeting did not need to take place.

    The Chair agreed to defer the decision until the December meeting.

    Action: #0711-02

    ASO AC to decide whether to defer the January 2008 teleconference during the December 2007 teleconference.

  7. Global policy development process

    The Chair noted that MH had raised this agenda item.

    MH stated that he had raised it to request that all ASO AC procedure documents in use be placed on the ASO website.

    The Chair noted that the procedure documents included:

    • AC internal procedures
    • ICANN board election procedure
    • Nomcom election procedure
    • AC Chair election procedure
    • Global policy development procedure

    The Chair asked if any other documents should be included in this list.

    RP stated that at the previous AC teleconference he had agreed to send all documents except the global policy development process to the Secretariat. However, the Secretariat had not yet emailed to request the documents.

    RP stated the the Nomcom election procedure was not among the documents he planned to send to the Secretariat.

    Action: #0711-03

    ASO Secretariat to send email to RP requesting most recent versions of ASO AC procedural documents.

    RG suggested that the AC may want to consider a new procedure for the Chair election that incorporated voting online. He suggested that the election procedure could then be incorporated into the AC’s standing procedures.

    The Chair asked how this could be done.

    RP suggested creating a small committee to discuss potential changes to the election procedure. The results of the committee’s work could be returned to the AC before the December meeting.

    The Chair asked for volunteers to serve on the election procedure committee. RP, HPH and AB volunteered.

    Action: #0711-04

    The election procedures committee (RP, HPH and AB) to send suggested changes to the Chair election procedures document to the AC-COORD list before the December teleconference.

    The Chair noted that there was another global policy issue to discuss. He reported that it had been pointed out to him at the RIPE 55 meeting that proposing a global policy was very difficult. Proposing a global policy meant that the author needed to understand five RIR policy development processes and complete five different policy templates. The Chair asked if making this less arduous was an issue that the AC could be involved in.

    RP noted that discussion on this issue had taken place in the ARIN XX meeting during the Open Policy Hour. He explained that the ARIN AC was looking into this matter for true global policy as well as individual RIR policies that are harmonized globally.

    RP stated that he had also been talking to RE about harmonizing a policy proposal template that all RIRs could use. He noted that all RIRs would have to give and take to develop this template.

    AB suggested that there be a section on the ASO website where the ASO AC provide advice to potential proposers of global policies about how they should create global proposals. He asked who could write this information.

    The Chair drew attention to NRO web page:

    http://www.nro.net/policy

    He suggested that perhaps this page could be enhanced or linked to more detailed information.

    [RE joined at 19:02 UTC]

    RE noted that according to the ASO MoU proposers do not have to propose policy in every region. Instead, a proposer can present that proposal in one region. Then an AC member from that region can be responsible for presenting that proposal in the other regions.

    RE explained that both he and RP agreed that the AC could take a more active role in shepherding global policy proposals.

    RP explained that AC has two main responsibilities in the global policy proposal process:

    1. At the beginning of the global policy proposal’s life cycle

    It is a requirement that if proposer cannot be present at an RIR meeting, then one of the AC members for that region will neutrally present that proposal.

    2. Near the end of the proposal’s life cycle

    RP noted that this is the area that the AC have traditionally concentrated on. This is the area where the AC determines if a global policy proposal meets the criteria to become global policy.

    The Chair suggested that the AC create a form on the ASO website to allow people to make a global policy proposal.

    RP said that the form should be on both the ASO and NRO websites.

    RP requested that the AC wait until the NRO EC returns the global policy development procedure back to the AC before work on a policy template was begun. He suggested that the AC create a task force to develop the template.

    The Chair asked for volunteers.

    HG asked how many volunteers the Chair would like.

    The Chair asked for one volunteer from each region. He suggested that each regional representative could take the proposal template from their RIR and then use these as a basis for producing a merged policy proposal template.

    RP stated that the policy proposal template would definitely be changing in the ARIN region.

    WW asked why there would need to be two working parties running in parallel. He expressed concern that there was a chance that the working party from ARIN could result in a template that was totally different from the one designed by the ASO AC.

    RP clarified that the ARIN AC was not working on a template but on elements that could be useful in a proposal.

    WW, FO, TH, AB and LL volunteered to be on the task force.

    WW suggested using the December teleconference as a deadline.

    FO stated that harmonizing global policy proposal procedures was important in the LACNIC region as the original language of proposals in LACNIC was Spanish and that this had to be translated into English for the other regions.

    JS asked if the task force was looking at just harmonizing the template or harmonizing policy.

    The Chair answered that it was about harmonizing the template.

    The Chair asked for a volunteer to coordinate the task force.

    WW volunteered to be the coordinator.

    Action: #0711-05

    The policy template task force (WW, FO, TH, AB and LL) to send suggestions for a single policy proposal template to the AC-COORD list before the December teleconference.

    FO asked if a separate mailing list should be created for the task force.

    The Chair suggested that if the task force required a separate list, the task force should contact the Secretariat.

    Action: #0711-06

    If the policy template task force decides it needs a separate mailing list, the task force to request the Secretariat to create the mailing list.

    WW stated that he had received a message from AA stating that it was difficult to hear people using the distributed microphone system in the room in LA. He encouraged people to speak closer to the microphones when talking.

  8. Establish task force to make draft work plan for 2008

    The Chair stated that he had recently visited the ASO website and noticed that there had been no work plan for 2007, but that there had been a work plan for 2006. He suggested that there should be a work plan for 2008.

    He suggested that the AC should make a decision no later than the December teleconference when the AC face-to-face meeting should be held in 2008.

    He noted that SB had sent an email to the AC-COORD list to report that the NRO had decided to fund one AC face-to-face meeting in 2008.

    The Chair asked the AC members to consider the ASO’s goals and presence at ICANN meetings. The Chair noted that IANA was working on topics of interest to the ASO and that the ASO should be coordinating with IANA on these topics.

    RP noted that IANA should be coordinating with ASO too.

    The Chair asked AC members to volunteer to work on a draft work plan to send to the AC-COORD list during the ICANN meeting in LA.

    LL, WW, JR, KH, and FO volunteered to work on the draft work plan.

    The Chair asked for a volunteer to Chair the work plan task force. There were no volunteers, so the Chair of the meeting volunteered to Chair the committee.

    Action: #0711-07

    The 2008 work plan task force (LL, WW, JR, KH, and FO) to send a draft work plan to the AC-COORD mailing list before the end of 2 November 2007.

  9. Awareness for 2008 chair election

    The Chair stated that he had emailed SB who had stated that he was open to being Chair again in 2008.

    The Chair stated that MH had suggested that LL might be interested in being the Chair.

    The Chair stated that it would be easier if the AC members could think about Chair nominations earlier rather than later in December.

    He suggested that potential chairs talk to the Secretariat to find out what the Secretariat expects from the Chair and what the Chair expects from the Secretariat. He also suggested talking to past AC Chairs to find out more about the role.

    He asked if there were any comments or questions. There were none.

  10. Cancellation of regularly scheduled telephone conference (7 Nov 2007)

    The Chair noted that as the current AC meeting had reached quorum, the AC did not need the November teleconference.

    LL moved that the regularly scheduled teleconference for 7 November be cancelled. AB seconded the motion. There were no objections or comments. The motion was carried unanimously.

    Action: #0711-08

    Secretariat to cancel teleconference scheduled for 7 November 2007.

  11. Any other business

    11.a. Recording of the teleconferences.

    The Chair noted that the incoming Secretariat has discussed informally if it would be acceptable to record the teleconferences to ease the process of taking teleconference minutes.

    The Chair invited HR to elaborate on the issue.

    HR stated that over the AC dinner the previous night it had been explained that in the past the teleconferences had been recorded, but this practice had been stopped.

    WW stated that he was in favour of recording the minutes as they had been recorded in the past. He stated that his boundary condition was that the recordings would only be made explicitly for minutes and not be published on the web.

    RP explained that if the AC record a meeting, it will be challenged to make the recording public.

    WW stated that he would not be in favour of recording the meetings if the recordings had to be made public.

    MH stated that if the meetings were recorded, the recording should be made available on the website. RP stated that this issue was last raised in 2001, and that the decision had been to stop recording because of the need to make any recordings publicly available.

    WW asked why the recordings had to be made public.

    RP stated that it was due to open process.

    AB agreed with WW. He stated that he would prefer that the meetings not be recorded if the recordings had to be made public.

    The Chair asked if the previous Secretariats had any advice for the incoming Secretariat regarding minute taking.

    RP stated that moving the time of the teleconference was helpful. He suggested that perhaps the RIRs could coordinate to help with production of minutes.

    At 19:27, LL noted that he teleconference phone was muted.

    MH stated that the conversation had been muted after RP first started to say that recordings would have to be made public.

    RP repeated his explanation for the benefit of those on the teleconference.

    The Chair asked how much detail was required in the minutes. He asked if full transcripts or clear actions and motions were the target.

    JS suggested that summaries of discussions were more useful than transcripts.

    MH agreed with JS.

    RB stated that the current meeting was the first time the AC had held a face-to-face meeting on the Tuesday of an ICANN meeting. He stated that holding the meeting on the Tuesday had been his suggestion. He asked AC member if the Tuesday meeting worked well.

    The Chair asked if the best day for a public meeting was on a Tuesday or on a Wednesday.

    RB stated that a Monday or a Thursday would be the best days for a public meeting.

    RB stated that he had suggested in the last teleconference that the ASO AC acknowledge Barbara’s Roseman’s appointment within IANA.

    The Chair asked RB if he thought that the acting Chair or the Chair of the AC should congratulate her.

    WW suggested that the Chair and Co-chairs decide on this between them.

    RE suggested that it would be useful for LACNIC to know at which meeting the ASO AC planned to hold their 2008 face-to-face meeting by the end of November to help with budget planning.

    The Chair stated that he felt that the activity plan not be concluded until January so the new AC member input could be included.

    RE stated that activities further away from LACNIC needed more budget and therefore more notice would be welcomed.

    The Chair asked if the NRO had any advice on where to hold the physical AC meeting.

    RP answered that the NRO had no advice on this.

    The Chair agreed to start work on the work plan as soon as possible and hoped that it could be available before the end of December.

    LL suggested that the incoming AC members could also participate in the work plan development even though they cannot vote yet.

    11.b. ARIN XX meeting update

    LL stated that he had emailed a report on the meeting to the AC-COORD list. He summarised the policy proposals discussed at the meeting.

    15 policy proposals were active before the meeting. Two of those were withdrawn before the meeting. Of the 13 proposals discussed at the meeting, two were withdrawn. Of the remaining 11 proposals, four were moved to last call, five were sent back to the authors for revision and two were abandoned.

    LL explained that while the “Global policy for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 address space” was officially abandoned, in reality it is being merged with the “End policy for IANA IPv4 allocations to RIRs”.

    LL noted that in the ARIN region, the community prefers the N value in these proposals to be low: 1 or 2, or even possibly 0.

    LL reported that the global policy proposal, “IANA ASN policy” had been moved to last call.

    LL asked if SG or MH had anything else to add. They did not.

    JS noted that one of the withdrawn policies had been discussed at the previous ARIN meeting and had been sent back to the author for revision. However it had not been revised. The proposal was about lowering the bar to receive a /32 PA assignment.

    The Chair thanked LL for the update and noted the RIPE meeting report would be presented at the next teleconference.

    The Chair asked if there was any other business.

    There was none.

    The Chair thanked everyone for taking the time to come to the face-to-face meeting.

  12. Adjournment

    The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 19:42 UTC. AB moved the motion. LL seconded the motion. The motion was carried unanimously.

Open action items

Action: #0711-01

Chair to send a request to the NRO EC regarding moving to electronic voting for the 2008 AC Chair by the end of 2 November 2007.

Action: #0711-02

ASO AC to decide whether to defer the January 2008 teleconference during the December 2007 teleconference.

Action: #0711-03

ASO Secretariat to send email to RP requesting most recent versions of ASO AC procedural documents.

Action: #0711-04

The election procedures committee (RP, HPH and AB) to send suggested changes to the Chair election procedures document to the AC-COORD list before the December teleconference.

Action: #0711-05

The policy template task force (WW, FO, TH, AB and LL) to send suggestions for a single policy proposal template to the AC-COORD list before the December teleconference.

Action: #0711-06

If the policy template task force decides it needs a separate mailing list, the task force to request the Secretariat to create the mailing list.

Action: #0711-07

The 2008 work plan task force (LL, WW, JR, KH, and FO) to send a draft workplan to the AC-COORD mailing list before the end of 2 November 2007.

Action: #0711-08

Secretariat to cancel teleconference scheduled for 7 November 2007.