AC Attendees:

  • Sebastian Bellagamba (SB), Chair
  • Alan Barrett (AB)
  • Sanford H. George (SG)
  • Hartmut Glaser (HG)
  • Martin Hannigan (MH)
  • Hans Petter Holen (HPH)
  • Toshiyuki Hosaka (TH)
  • Jean Robert Hountomey (JRH)
  • Kenny Huang (KH)
  • Hyun-joon Kwon (HJK)
  • Louis Lee (LL)
  • Dave Wilson (DW)
  • Wilfried Woeber (WW)

Secretariat:

  • Samantha Dickinson (SD), Recording Secretary – APNIC

Observers:

  • Adiel Akplogan (AA)- AfriNIC
  • Kiran Cunniah (KC) – AfriNIC
  • Hisham Rojoa (HR) – AfriNIC
  • Sunny Chendi (SC) – APNIC
  • Donna McLaren (DM) – APNIC
  • Einar Bohlin (EB) – ARIN
  • Nate Davis (ND) – ARIN
  • Richard Jimmerson (RJ) – ARIN
  • Leslie Nobile (LN) – ARIN
  • Ray Plzak (RP) – ARIN
  • Raimundo Beca (RB) – ICANN
  • Bart Boswinkel (BB) – ICANN
  • Olof Nording (ON) – ICANN
  • Leo Vegoda (LV) – ICANN
  • Filiz Yilmaz (FY) – RIPE NCC

Apologies:

  • N/A

Absent:

  • Francisco Obispo (FO)
  • Ali Badiel (AB)

Draft agenda

  1. Welcome
  2. Agenda review
  3. Approval of the minutes of 12 September 2007
  4. LA ICANN meeting
    1. ASO workshop
    2. ASO AC face to face meeting
  5. Final list of IGF speakers
  6. Any other business
    1. Global policy development process
    2. Timing of teleconference calls
  7. Adjournment
  1. Welcome

    The Chair called the meeting to order at 22:05 UTC, noting the presence of a quorum.

  2. Agenda review

    The Chair reviewed the agenda and called for any comments.

    The following item was added to AOB:

    • AfriNIC proposal on timing of teleconference calls

    WW noted that in reading the email from AfriNIC, the first point of the proposal suggested that the RIR operating the ASO Secretariat function should make more than one suggestion for a time slot. However, WW noted that AfriNIC’s proposal did not include a second option, and therefore suggested deferring the item until the following teleconference.

    [AA joined the teleconference at 22:07 UTC]

    [MH joined the teleconference at 22:08 UTC]

    HG suggested not discussing the details of the AfriNIC proposal until that point in the agenda was reached.

    WW agreed with HG that AfriNIC’s proposal should be added as an agenda item between items 6. “Any other business” and 7. “Adjournment”.

    AA asked for clarification on the discussion taking place.

    The Chair explained that AfriNIC’s proposal would be an item under “Any other business”.

    AA pointed out that the proposal was the result of an action item from the previous teleconference and asked why it was being placed within “Any other business”.

    RP noted that the AfriNIC proposal would be discussed whether it was included as part of “Any other business” or placed elsewhere in the agenda.

    HG moved that the agenda be approved. WW seconded the motion. The Chair called for comments or objections.

    RB asked to add another item in “Any other business”. He stated that there had been some IANA structure changes that LV could discuss.

    LV asked AC members if they would prefer that he read a statement to the AC members or forward an email to the list. HG stated that the the AC was currently working on the agenda and that other discussions should be avoided. He asked that LV’s question be addressed under “Any other business”.

    The following item was added to AOB:

    • IANA structure changes
  3. Approval of the minutes of 12 September 2007

    HG moved the following motion: “The ASO AC approves the Minutes of September 12, 2007 as written.” AB seconded the motion. There were no objections or comments.

    Action #0710-01:

    Secretariat to publish minutes of 12 September 2007.

  4. LA ICANN meeting

    The Chair noted that there had not been any news on the content of the workshop. He stated that the agenda for the workshop had been approved, but the list of speakers for the workshop had not been completed. He asked that the list of speakers be finalized within seven days.

    He asked for an update on workshop time slots from the Secretariat.

    SC stated that ICANN had sent confirmation about availability of the following time slots:

    Workshop: Wednesday 10:30 – 12:00

    Face to face meeting: Thursday 14:00 – 16:00

    [MH rejoined the teleconference at 22:15 UTC]

    MH stated that he had not been able to hear the agenda for the meeting.

    The Chair reported that the minutes had been approved and that two items had been added to “Any other business”:

    1. AfriNIC proposal on timing of teleconference calls
    2. IANA structure changes

    The Chair explained to MH that the workshop agenda was finalized and the next step was to decide on speakers for the workshop. The Chair encouraged the AC to submit names of possible speakers.

    HPH stated that he had asked on the AC-COORD mailing list why the sessions had to be held on the Wednesday and Thursday of the LA meeting.

    RP stated that HJK was trying to join the teleconference but was unable to.

    [HJK joined the teleconference at 22:18 UTC]

    LV stated that there would be an IANA workshop on Sunday 28 October.

    HPH stated that it would be expensive on AC members’ time if AC members needed to be at the ICANN meeting between Sunday and Thursday.

    RB stated that Tuesday was normally a constituency day at ICANN meetings, so it would be appropriate to hold the ASO workshop on Tuesday.

    HG suggested that it would be useful to find out if most AC members would be able to be at the ICANN meeting on Wednesday 31 October.

    WW stated that he was trying to understand what the problem was. He stated that he would be continuing his journey from the RIPE meeting in Amsterdam to ICANN in LA. He stated that from his point of view, it did not matter what day of the week the ASO held its workshop during the ICANN meeting.

    HPH stated that if he could leave the ICANN meeting earlier than the Thursday face to face meeting, he could fly back home and have a full day in his office on the Friday.

    TH stated that he supported the proposal to hold the workshop and face to face meeting a day earlier than currently scheduled.

    The Chair noted that two AC members would find it more convenient to hold the sessions on Tuesday and Wednesday rather than on Wednesday and Thursday. He asked if anyone had any comments or objections to changing the time slots. There were none.

    Action #0710-02:

    Secretariat to contact ICANN and request time slots on Tuesday 30 October for the face-to-face meeting and Wednesday 31 October for the ASO workshop.

    [MH rejoined the teleconference at 22:24 UTC]

    SD noted that it took three weeks of negotiations to get confirmation of the Wednesday and Thursday time slots. She noted that, in the July teleconference, when the Thursday had been chosen to hold the face-to- face meeting, one of the reasons for doing so was to allow the official monthly AC meeting for November to be conducted at the face to face meeting. She asked if the October face to face meeting could also serve as the November official meeting or whether the Secretariat should organise a teleconference for November in addition to the October meeting.

    WW explained that the AC would have to formally call for a change in the November meeting date. He stated that this was possible to do after ICANN confirmed the date for the face to face meeting and workshop.

    The Chair noted that this call for a change in date could happen on the mailing list after ICANN confirmed the changed session dates.

    The Chair asked if there were any other comments. There were none.

  5. Final list of IGF speakers

    The Chair explained that at the previous teleconference, HG had suggested that the ASO AC could send the NRO EC a list of potential speakers for the IGF from the ASO community. He noted that there had not been any discussion on this topic on the mailing list and asked HG if there was any time left to do this.

    HG stated that there was still time to send a list of potential speakers to the NRO EC. He explained that AA and Raúl Echeberría were working with stakeholder groups. Alternatively, the speaker list could be sent directly to Markus Kummer in Geneva.

    HPH asked what type of speakers were needed. He asked whether it was likely that any names would be suggested if they had not been suggested to date.

    The Chair asked HG to explain a little more about his suggestion.

    HG explained the purpose of the Internet Governance Forum and outlined the five main themes of the IGF in Rio de Janeiro. He suggested that AC members visit the IGF website for more information:

    http://www.intgovforum.org

    HG explained that each theme of the IGF will be explored in plenaries and workshops. He noted that there was an effort being made to have a balanced range of speakers in terms of position held on the themes, geographic and gender representation. He stated that Paul Wilson would probably be talking about critical Internet resources.

    HG stated that in a plenary or workshop, the first hour would be devoted to hearing from four or five speakers. The second hour would be reserved for discussion by all participants in the session.

    HG suggested that if AC members wanted a specific area or point of view to be represented at IGF, the members needed to put forward names of possible speakers now. He noted that some workshops and plenaries currently had about 20 potential speaker names put forward so IGF organisers needed to decide which ones to choose. He stressed that the addressing community, if it wanted to have its point of view stated, needed to be active in putting forward speaker names.

    AA asked if HG was suggesting that the AC members should concentrate on proposing speakers for critical Internet resources or whether the AC members should propose speakers for all five IGF themes.

    HG replied that the AC members should put forward names for any theme.

    He explained that the more names that were put forward by the addressing community, the more chance there was that some of the names would be approved by the IGF.

    The Chair asked for confirmation that the list of names would be given to the NRO EC.

    RP confirmed that this was correct. He explained that the NRO was the coordinating body for the addressing community and that the ASO could not coordinate the submission of names to the IGF as it was not in the ASO’s charter.

    HPH suggested that the staff of RIRs be considered as potential IGF speakers as RIR staff were already experienced at putting forward the views of the addressing community.

    WW noted that he would not be able to go to the IGF but suggested that it might be helpful to determine which AC members would be able to attend and therefore which AC members might be able to speak at IGF.

    The Chair agreed and stated that the list of potential speakers should also include other people that AC members knew would be going to IGF.

    He asked that names of AC members going to IGF as well as other people who AC members knew would be going to IGF be sent to the AC-COORD mailing list. This list would then be sent to the NRO EC.

    Action #0710-03

    ASO AC to propose IGF speaker names on the mailing list, confirm final choices and notify Secretariat.

    Action #0710-04

    Secretariat to provide ASO AC proposed IGF speaker names to NRO EC.

    [MH rejoined the teleconference at 22:36 UTC]

    The Chair greeted MH. MH explained that the London telephone network was causing him problems.

  6. Any other business

    1. AfriNIC proposal on timing of teleconference calls

      The Chair noted that he had forwarded an email to the mailing list containing AfriNIC’s proposal for a new time for next year’s teleconferences.

      WW stated that the sentence at the end of the first part of the proposal stated that an RIR must propose two possible times for teleconferences; however the second part of the proposal contained only one suggested time.

      WW stated that the ASO AC needed to decide whether the proposal submitted by AfriNIC was valid or not. He suggested that if the proposal was not valid, the proposal should be deferred until the following AC meeting.

      MH supported tabling the proposal until the following meeting, stating that he had not yet read the proposal. He explained that the ARIN meeting would be happening in a couple of weeks and that he would prefer to be able to discuss the proposal with the ARIN community and then come back to the AC with more information.

      AA stated that he was happy for the proposal to be deferred as long as there was a decision on the proposal before the end of the year.

      HPH stated that the proposed AfriNIC time for teleconferences would be good from a European perspective because it meant European AC members could have a meeting during the day instead of late at night.

      WW noted that having the teleconference rescheduled to around midday in Europe would mean he would be blocked on a regular basis from doing anything on a Wednesday lunch time each month, and that this was particularly difficult from a teaching point of view. However, he acknowledged that this was an individual opinion and that the opinions of all AC members needed to be considered.

      HPH encouraged AC members to check whether the proposed UTC time was reasonable when converted to their local time zone.

      WW noted that AA had sent an email to the AC-COORD mailing list suggesting an alternative time of 11:00 UTC. He noted that this was a similar time to the originally proposed 13:00 UTC.

      The Chair deferred the proposal until the following meeting.

      Action #0710-04

      AfriNIC proposal on timing of teleconference calls to be added to November AC meeting agenda.

    2. Recent IANA changes

      LV asked if AC members would prefer him to read out an announcement or send an email to the mailing list.

      [There was difficulty hearing LV]

      RP asked LV to send the information to the mailing list.

      WW asked if LV was using VoIP as it sounded like LV was experiencing packet loss on the call. LV stated that he was using Skype.

      The Chair asked LV to send the information to the mailing list.

      He suggested AC members could ask questions on the list or at the next meeting if necessary.

      RB stated that the new General Operations Manager of IANA was Barbara Roseman. He suggested that the ASO AC should do something to announce the new position.

      The Chair asked if RB meant that the AC should formally welcome Barbara Roseman. RB said that it would be nice to acknowledge the change in some way.

      [There was difficulty hearing RB]

      RP suggested that LV post to the mailing list so it was not necessary to have this conversation. The Chair agreed.

      The Chair asked if there were any comments.

      MH stated that he had sent a message to the AC-COORD mailing list, stating that he wanted to have a complete set of procedures on the on the ASO website. He stated that it had been difficult to conduct ASO activities without an authoritative list of procedures. He asked that an item be added to “Any other business” until there was resolution on the issue.

      The Chair apologised that he had forgotten about MH’s email. He asked if MH would like to help compile a list of procedures.

      MH agreed.

      Action #0710-05

      The Chair and MH to compile a list of policies and procedures that should be published on the ASO website.

      MH stated that he would like a place on the ASO website where all procedures were listed together.

      RP stated that he had a copy of the latest procedures approved by the AC if the Secretariat needed the latest version.

      SC asked MH which document he was referring to. MH replied that he wanted all of the latest policies and procedures documents available on the website.

      RP stated that the only document not yet ready for the website was the global policy procedure document. He noted that the NRO EC was currently working on this document.

      The Chair asked RP to send the documents to the Secretariat to publish.

      RP stated that he was happy to do so and requested an email listing the documents concerned.

      Action #0710-06

      RP to send copies of policies and procedures to the ASO Secretariat after he has received an email containing a list of the documents needed.

  7. Adjournment

    The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 22:51 UTC. WW moved to adjourn. MH seconded the motion. The motion was carried unanimously.

Open action items

Action #0710-01:

Secretariat to publish minutes of 12 September 2007.

Action #0710-02:

Secretariat to contact ICANN and request time slots on Tuesday 30 October for the face-to-face meeting and Wednesday 31 October for the ASO workshop.

Action #0710-03

ASO AC to propose IGF speaker names on the mailing list, confirm final choices and notify Secretariat.

Action #0710-04

Secretariat to provide ASO AC proposed IGF speaker names to NRO EC.

Action #0710-05

The Chair and MH to compile a list of policies and procedures that should be published on the ASO website.

Action #0710-06

RP to send copies of policies and procedures to the ASO Secretariat after he has received an email containing a list of the documents needed.