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
Sabine Jaume (SJ) – RIPE NCC
Alan Barrett (AB) – AFRINIC

Observers:

Ray Plzak (RP) – ARIN
Anne Lord (AL) – APNIC
German Valdez (GV) – LACNIC
Adriana Rivero (AR) – LACNIC
Raimundo Beca (RB) – ICANN Board of Directors
Olof Nordling (ON) – ICANN Staff
Axel Pawlik (AP) – RIPE NCC

Apolgies Received:

Takashi Arano
Julian Dunayevich

Minutes taken by AR. and GV.

Draft Agenda:

  1. Welcome & roll call
  2. Agenda review
  3. Minutes from July 10th teleconference
  4. Status Open actions
  5. Report from ICANN meeting in Luxembourg
  6. Motion to thank Doug Barton
  7. New gTLD Strategy Implementation – Draft staff paper on New TLD
  8. AC advice to the ICANN Board on competing addressing registries
  9. Planning for Vancouver
  10. Plan additional special teleconference meetings
  11. AOB

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

The teleconference, chaired by HPH, was opened at 2215 UTC

1) Welcome & roll call

As per roll call 11 AC members and 7 observers were present. Quorum was established.

HPH proceeded to welcome the participants to the meeting.

RB enquired when Mr. Francisco Obispo would be invited to attend and ASO AC teleconference as an observer, to which SB replied that during the last teleconference it was settled that Mr. Francisco Obispo would be invited to the October teleconference.

2) Agenda review

HPH proceeded to read the eleven points of the draft agenda, which had already been sent to the AC list.

HPH suggested including the discussion on the ICANN Board procedure to handle global policy proposals under agenda item 11) AOB.

LH suggested adding an item regarding our internal procedures to see if there’s anything to report.

After adding the two previous items and hearing no further comments, the agenda was approved.

3) Minutes from the last two AC teleconferences (July 6 and July 10)

HPH invited comments on the minutes from the last two teleconferences held on July 6 and July 10.

GV observed that although the July 6 teleconference was cancelled for lack of quorum the corresponding minutes should be approved.

RP noted that there can be no minutes for a meeting that didn’t occurs, that instead a statement in this sense should be included in the July 10 minutes.

After further discussion the following action was decided:

Action #050727-1. SEC.
To amend the July 10 minutes so as to include a statement saying that the July 6 teleconference was cancelled for lack of quorum, to change the status of the minutes from draft to definitive, and to publish them as final minutes.

4) Status Open Actions

At the request of the Chair, AR proceeded to read the list of open actions. The status of these actions was modified as follows:

After the revision of open actions the updated list is included at the end of this minute.

Also as result of this revision the next action is asked

Action #050727-2. CHAIR.
To prepare a welcome letter for new ASO AC members.

The next three actions are going to be discussed during the teleconference so the status will be determined after their respective agenda point,

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. This will be discussed in today’s agenda.

Action #050710-5. SB, SJ, RP, CHAIR, CO-CHAIRS.
To review and finalize the procedures to call for AC meetings before the next meeting

Action #050710-8. LH, SB, WW, AA, RB.
As a group, to review the paper for competing addressing registries and draft recommendations; to invite Paul Wilson and Geoff Huston to join this working group

Finally At LH’s suggestion, the ICANN Strategic Plan was added under agenda item 11) AOB.

5) Report from ICANN meeting in Luxembourg

WW mentioned that he had e-mailed a report from the ICANN meeting to the AC. He proceeded to summarize the report as follows: “It was a good idea to go to the Luxemburg meeting and particularly to participate in the GAC roundtable; it would really be useful to try to keep in touch with that group. I propose that if a similar thing is scheduled for Vancouver we try to be there. From the point of view of the physical environment and schedule I was disappointed because it was not too helpful in putting people together and there was no time to follow up on any of the presentations or the questions that were asked. This leads me to what I want to see for Vancouver: 1. We should try to be on-site one or two days before the meeting; 2. We should try to know the tentative agenda beforehand; 3. Perhaps we could provide the GAC with some background reading material on topics relating to the agenda; 4. In addition to the formal meetings, we should try to get in touch with as many participants as possible. In conclusion: It was worthwhile to spend the time and the money for the Luxemburg meeting, but I believe there is room for improvement to make Vancouver even more efficient.”

SJ added that she agrees with WW’s report, that the agenda was probably too tight, and that perhaps there should have been more interaction between the AC and the GAC people.

It was decided to leave WW’s report on the list for comments.

HG: On a different note, this time I spent more time with ccNSO; the approved PDP was a very good document. My feeling is that, if ICANN approves the changes (and the signal they sent us is that they are willing to approve it), it will be open to new members coming to the ccNSO. If this happens it will be a good result.

HPH: From my personal experience I thought the session on security was really educational and interesting. Also, what I picked up during the open sessions was the rather harsh feedback from several communities regarding the document presented by the Board. I’ve already reported to the list on the two Board decisions which I though interesting (one on the procedure which is already on today’s agenda under AOB, the other one regarding Doug Barton which is also on the agenda).

AB: I participated in the At-Large-Advisory-Committee; I believe in the Vancouver ICANN meeting they will probably make some proposal about Regional At-Large Recommendations; I believe there has been great progress in the ALAC.

There being no other comments, the Chair proposed moving on to the next agenda item.

6) Motion to thank Doug Barton

HPH proceeded to read the proposed thank you note to Doug Barton who recently stepped down as IANA general manager.

LL brought up the fact that the note contains some typos.

WW asked what is the goal of the message, why should the AC thank Doug Barton, to which the chair replied “common courtesy.”

After the typos were corrected, LH moved that the Chair send the thank you note; this motion was seconded by LL. Votes were taken by roll call with the following results: no votes against, one abstention and 10 votes for the affirmative. The following action was decided:

Action #050727-3. CHAIR
To formally present the thank you message to Doug Barton.

LH suggested adding another item, the matter of liaisons, under agenda item 11) AOB.

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

SG: The only thing I could find in that paper was one question (What are the practical, logistical and resource limits to the frequency of adding new TLDs?). But there are really no questions about IP addresses in the whole paper, so perhaps we should either suggest that they add some questions such as “will new gTLDs create demand for IP addresses or have an impact on the global routing table?”; otherwise we could just say that their list of questions appears to be adequate.

WW: How would we evaluate a proposal for a new gTLD for reverse DNS in conjunction with competitive allocation?

LH: I hope this is a ridiculous question, but I can imagine somebody deciding that there should be a delegation of address space that is resolved somehow in another TLD other than arpa. I can’t imagine why anybody would want to do this even if we had competitive addressing.

HPH: I’m no longer sure we can feel safe from ridiculous proposals. I’m also trying to find out whether you actually intend to point a finger at competition in offering reverse DNS services or whether you want to point a finger at particular aspects of competitive allocations relating to the existing reverse DNS service.

SG: I don’t think that a competitive addressing scheme should necessarily include a new TLD for reverse DNS. I can imagine how you could carve out a block of addresses and delegate it to a gTLD or a ccTLD and say reverse lookups should go to that TLD. But I don’t think we would want to have the reverse lookups going to those domains unless they want to write their own protocols. Yet even then, I think the protocol exists, this is done by machines, not by humans, so I don’t think there’s a compelling reason why it needs to be done. Yet we do need to raise the question in case it ever comes up.

AB: Changing the way reverse lookups are done has been done in the past. We moved from ip6.int to ip6.arpa. We’re actually kind of in the process of doing that right now, so I believe it’s not impossible that someone might try to do something similar in the future.

RP: Alan’s example, while correct, had other motivations: it was a direct result of an attempt to <inaudible> the .int domain and also do away with the 6bone addresses which were there. In the end, I believe that someone other than a RIR receiving an allocation from IANA is not going to happen.

Someone shows disagreement with RP statement.

RP: The only way this could happen would be for IANA to do it, but to bring it up now seems a worthless point.

HPH: I was tempted to reply to LL’s message by saying I would refer them to the appropriate RFC describing how reverse lookups ought to be done. But the problem was I couldn’t actually find the appropriate RFC.

RP: There’s an RFC that discusses this issue. It’s actually an IAB paper, I can’t remember the name. My point is that for a delegation to occur for someone other than an RIR it would occur within the context of creating a competitor to the RIRs in order to receive a delegation from IANA. So I don’t think it’s germane to put it into the context of creating gTLDs.

LH: There’s another minor possibility: I don’t know if it’s true for all regions, but in the ARIN region we make microallocations for TLD operators, so there’s the possibility of many microallocations if we see thousands of gTLDs.

RP: Taking that to the level of absurdity which you are suggesting, if we saw that occurring I presume the addressing community would take action as to how the resources are being used.

AB: In the context of what questions ICANN could be asking, we could suggest something along the lines of “Will this TLD be used for some kind of traditional human mapping or will it be used for some infrastructure purpose?” We could separate infrastructure domains.

After further discussing the implications of the creation of new TLDs, HPH stated that before this discussion he was actually more or less of the opinion that the AC should state that the creation of new TLDs had no apparent impact on IP addressing; he added that now he is not so sure, at least considering the microallocation aspect. He then proceeded to ask if somebody wanted to suggest any actions on this matter?

RP: Regarding the comment on microallocations in the ARIN region, looking at the amount of address available space to provide that number of allocations, you’re literally talking about the proverbial land-rush to ICANN. I have difficulty imagining that the ICANN Board will act on petitions for 1000, 100 or even 10 domains. It’s also the duty of the addressing community when a point becomes an issue to raise it, but I think it’s premature to raise it now. I think HPH’s original intention which was to say “it has no apparent impact” is a good choice of words. I suggest we let it go at that.

HPH: The reason for my proposal is that I don’t want to give advice unless I really have to.

After further discussion, at SG’s proposal, votes were taken by roll call. Hearing no votes for the negative or abstentions, the following action was decided unanimously.

Action #050727-4. CHAIR
To prepare a statement taking in consideration that the creation of new TLD has no apparent impact in addressing issues and submit it to the relevant forum.

This closes the next action.

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.

8)AC advice to the ICANN Board on competing addressing registries

LH informed that he sent an e-mail to everyone listed in the minutes as part of the group that is to work on this. He added that the working group should achieve three outputs, specific advice to the ICANN Board on what they should do, whether they should respond to the paper or not, we should write a response paper and we should put together a list of what to us looks like proposals in that paper, and then propose those to the RIRs.

RP: The position of the NRO EC is that neither the NRO EC nor the RIRs are going to comment on Milton Mueller’s paper because we are interested parties. There’s a discussion going on at the inter-collaboration list being run by ISOC, they are putting together a response.

LH: The open question I had was whether we should invite a representative from the Internet Governance project to co-author these proposals. At the moment I’m trying to break the document down and work through what proposals are in there that could conceivably be proposed to an RIR or to the RIRs jointly. I don’t expect a lot of interest from the RIRs for most of those proposals, but it’s valuable to show that the community is willing to consider any proposal that comes along.

RP: If you want to invite a representative then go ahead.
LH: I don’t especially want to give them credibility, but we have policy development procedures in each region. Anyone can propose a policy and in each region there’s a procedure that establishes how it must be developed.

RP: Are you proposing that a policy be introduced in each region about establishing competitive registries and making it a global policy proposal?

LH: Not necessarily a global policy proposal. I need to go over the paper more thoroughly to come up with the words to use in the proposal.

WW: Mr. Mueller did not answer any of the reasonable questions that were asked; he changed the subject, he never answered any questions. That’s one of the things we didn’t have time to follow up on.

HPH: I had a personal conversation with Milton in order to see if I really understood what he was proposing. It was clear to me that he proposed having competing registries with differences in policies and not necessarily in service levels. His example was that if one registry has a minimum allocation of /24 and the other has /32 you, an ISP could chose the one that suited it the most. He added that if one of the registries allowed IP addresses to be sold that could be a competitive advantage. One thing he said during his presentation is that he would of course expect the RIRs to have many good reasons why his proposals should not be implemented, but he was quite sure that it would be possible to find technical solutions.

RP: Paul Wilson and I discussed this and asked ourselves the following questions: If this is such good business, why not do it on highways? Why not be able to choose on which side of the road we want to travel? My point is if you’re going to construct an argument you should not look at the specific proposal but at its consequences.

LL: We need to be very careful how we introduce the proposal, but I also think that if we claim to have an open policy forum, then we really need to be open.

RP: I agree, but Milton has yet to try to introduce his proposal as a proposal at any of the forums. You could tell him informally that he’s invited to present his proposal as a policy proposal at any of the regional forums according to procedure.

LL: I believe there’s lots of room for discussion, I look forward to more input from the working group. This conversation was interesting.

HPH: Can we expect something concrete before the next AC teleconference?

LL: I suggest we need to have some output before the September 7 teleconference, before the fall round of RIR meetings.

HPH: Can I ask you that you keep me posted to your process?

LH: Yes, of course.

As a result the next action remains open

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.

9) Planning for Vancouver

HPH: I sent some thoughts about the Vancouver meeting to the list, I have seen no comments other than what WW wrote in his report from the Luxemburg meeting. I’d like to add that I was approached by Veni Markovski from the ICANN Board, he asked whether we wanted to have a special joint meeting with the Board and we have discussed having a workshop to work on specific issues. Perhaps we can separate the workshop from the formal AC meeting where we can actually decide on the items from the workshop. Any thoughts on this plan?

RP: Regarding the GAC, you should probably take over and see how this will evolve from the point of view of your experience at the first roundtable several months ago.

RP: The intent was that ARIN would take the up the next one because it’s in our region. I’m kind of lost as to where we want to go with this, because from the standpoint of the original intent it’s being initiated by the RIPE NCC is probably a good idea. We definitely agree that it’s a requirement or an obligation to try to educate the members of the GAC as to what things really mean. I think that the presentations that were made (other than Milton Mueller’s) were all in that vein: they were all meant to be educational in nature, to highlight what were really the main issues going forward, they were not intended to be proposals. I feel that now if we want to approach the GAC and work with them we should follow the original proposal. Do it as a separate activity later in the week.

HPH: I had talk with chair of the GAC and he was indeed pleased with the educational effort, so in order to have better dialogue I proposed to him that the GAC come up with three issues or questions they would like to discuss. For example in the case of the people from India, how do you deal with large national or multinational companies who don’t want to deal with smaller ones, is this an IP addressing policy issue that should be dealt with? If there are issues that governments want to know about and we are aware of this in advance then we can prepare material for them. It seems convenient to continue with this activity.

RP: We have no problem continuing with the GAC activity, and I will keep HPH informed of our progress.

HPH: The second meeting I proposed was with the ICANN Board. Should we proceed with this meeting?

RB: If the AC asked the Board they would have to find a place for that meeting some time during the week. It would be a useful meeting

It was mentioned that it is questionable how successful may be engaging the ICANN Board, they have a very large number of activities.

HPH: I presume the agenda will be the status of the IPv6 global policy. It may not be ready yet but it is probably a good idea to educate the Board on this matter.

RP: How much of that is purview of the AC and how much is it a function of the staff? My question is how the proposal relates to our obligation to provide information and the obligation of the staff to provide information.

ON: The obligation of keeping track of global policy developments lies with the staff, but assistance in that respect would be most welcome, particularly in relation to the GAC people.

RP: It will be valuable to provide the staff with additional insight from people who are active in their particular regions. Our outlook will be different from theirs.

After further discussion HPH posed the following question: “To be more concrete, what I hear is that in principle we should try to have such a meeting not only with the AC but also with the NRO representatives and the ICANN Board? Is that correct?”

RP: My personal opinion about the AC is that, whatever region the ICANN meeting is being held, a member from that region should attend and conduct some kind of small workshop or information gathering session. Do what the AC should do: try to gather information from people who wouldn’t normally be involved in the process. In addition to any global policies there are also regional policies under discussion that could impact those people, for example the various proposals or discussions that occurring regarding directory services and the policy discussion in the ARIN region regarding the allocation of provider independent PPv6 space. Both could have an impact on people outside the addressing community.

HPH: Are you proposing an open meeting like the one in Stockholm in 2002?

RP: Yes. In fact I’m prepared to fund the travel of the ARIN region’s ASO delegates to the meeting in the ARIN region.

HPH: OK, I will add this to the plan. Will the NRO have a physical meeting in Vancouver?

LH: A formal meeting as compared to a workshop? I’m not sure there’s a substantial difference, any item we might work on in a workshop would be the work of the committee as a whole, so I don’t know if there needs to be a separate informal workshop and a formal one. Either way, having some significant time for constructive conversation and work on given items is an excellent idea to do personally.

HPH: I agree that we should set aside a significant amount of time to spend together, but we should also prepare a substantial agenda.

At this point the AC members proceeded to discuss their thoughts on the potential infrastructure of the ICANN meeting, how the different events could potentially be scheduled during the course of the week, the potential agenda, and the potential availability of AC members to travel to the Vancouver meeting.

After further discussion it was decided that it is important to have a tentative or draft schedule of the ICANN meeting before moving forward with the planning of the Vancouver meeting; ON observed that an early advice or suggestion to ICANN on what the AC would like to see would certainly be very helpful; the following action was decided:

Action #050727-5. CHAIR.
To prepare a more refined proposal for the Vancouver meeting and circulate it to the list for further discussion; to get in contact with the ICANN staff to see what is the actual availability of rooms and space so that we can have a more concrete proposal on the table during the next couple of weeks.

It was agreed that after this refined proposal is discussed, including dates, the Secretariat will investigate the availability of the AC members for attending the Vancouver meeting.

10) Plan additional special teleconference meetings

HPH observed that adding this meting would put the AC on a monthly schedule for the rest of the year; that he believes that this is important because the amount of work has increased and also because it would give the AC the opportunity to have a meeting soon even if unfortunately one meeting has to be cancelled for lack of quorum.

Hearing no objections, it was decided to have a teleconference on October 5, 2200 UTC.

Action #050727-6. CHAIR, SEC.
To call for a teleconference meeting on October 5 at 2200 UTC.

11) AOB

a) ICANN Board Procedure for Global Policies

HPH: I received some e-mails from ON on this matter but have not had time to circulate them to the list yet. My apologies for that, I’ll send them as soon as this meeting is over.

ON: The Board resolution and the Board procedure have been posted on the ICANN website, the address will be forthcoming from HPH. One important aspect is now when we go live with the Board procedure it calls for immediate action on the global IPv6 policy. The procedure to follow is that ICANN staff should be informed as soon as we are aware of the global policy in the making, so I will put forward a submission to the Board and prepare something brief on the status of the global policy on IPv6 and recommend that the Board orders staff to follow it, which is the second step of the procedure. For the very first step I’ve not been able to trace where the global IPv6 policy stands in all the RIRs, so any help in that respect would be most welcome; also any global indication on the approximate timeframe when the Board could expect a finalized global policy proposal to emerge for their judgment would also be helpful.
The second aspect is that once the Board decides we should follow this global policy development we also should keep the website updated and have background reports. In this respect it would be even more helpful to have direct links to the global policy areas of the respective sites of the RIRs, so if there’s any way I could get information on this I’d appreciate it very much. In order to begin the second step so the submission should be made next week to be in time for the next Board meeting which will take place on August 16.

RP: The NRO will be placing a policy area on its website that will take you to the various policy proposals. The communications group is working on this right now: creating a policy area that will have links that will take you to the individual RIRs for regional policy discussions and any global policy that is being discussed in all the regions. In the meantime you can go to any of the RIR’s websites where you will find a policy link.

ON: But for AFRINIC for example I have not been able to track down the proper webpage.

AB: It hasn’t been formally been proposed yet in the AFRINIC region. It has been discussed, but it has no status because it hasn’t been proposed. Who should propose it?

HPH: I think there is something in the MoU in this respect; I believe it says that global policies will be developed according to each RIR’s policy development process. Will the NRO policy area say which process each region has decided to follow to pass such a global policy?

RP: Yes, I believe that whatever is relevant to a policy will be included in the NRO website. We are trying to put together the most complete information in the shortest time we can.

HPH: Axel, what is the status of the policy development process and the IPv6 proposal in the RIPE region?

AP: It’s in last call.

HPH: It’s currently in last call, but it’s way beyond that period now. My concern is that if this is not formalized before next meeting I find it hard to pass a global policy according to a process which is not finalized yet.

AP: I think it will be finalized before next meeting.

GV: In the LACNIC region the policy was approved in the last meeting. The next step is that it’s going to go back to the list for 45 days for comments, and then it will go to the LACNIC Board of Directors for final approval.

RP: To answer the question of when can the ICANN Board expect to see this? Well, it’s being successfully negotiated in the APNIC, ARIN and LACNIC regions; RIPE NCC has to finish its work. So, assuming this matter is taken up at the next AFRINIC meeting, the earliest that the Board can expect to see something is in New Zealand

LH: In response to the question of who can propose a policy, Attachment A of the MoU says “A proposed global policy can be submitted either to one of the RIR policy fora or to the ASO Address Council directly,” but it does not say by whom. So I would suggest that Allan you could propose it yourself or e-mail Adiel and see what he recommends.

AB: I’ll do that.

HPH: Actually Attachment A actually puts a duty on members of the AC to “request that the global policy proposal be placed on the agenda for the next open policy meeting in each region, in accordance with the applicable policy process. In those cases where the advocate of the proposed policy cannot travel to a particular RIR public policy meeting, then the RIR shall appoint a person to present the proposal at the meeting.”

AB: Supposing I propose the policy in the AFRINIC region, would I be considered to be the policy’s advocate?

RP: No, the advocate would be the original proponent. You would be proposing the policy on behalf of the person who first proposed the policy.

AB: OK, I will make sure this policy is on the agenda at the next AFRINIC meeting

b) Internal Procedures

HPH observed that he has not yet had time to fine tune the procedure to call for meetings, and suggested that the working group set up a teleconference to see how we are going to work and discuss some of the procedures in more detail and then present this at the next AC meeting.

Motion accepted.

The next action remains open

Action #050710-5. SB, SJ, RP, CHAIR, CO-CHAIRS.
To review and finalize the procedures to call for AC meetings before the next meeting

c) ICANN Strategic Plan (suggested by LH)

HPH: What actions should the AC take on that? At the Luxemburg meeting I was thinking that someone from the AC could be valuable to the strategic plan, but what ICANN actually needs is input from the whole addressing community. Perhaps we could instead invite ICANN to RIR meetings.

LH: Of course, everybody’s invited to RIR meetings, in particular ICANN representatives. But I think we should do our best to gather input from members of our communities in our regions.

HPH: How do we go about this? Should we form a working group or do you prefer to have everybody on the AC responding on the list?

ON: Just to mention how it was done it was done in Luxemburg; groups were brought together constituency by constituency. So far the responses have been rather from the individuals collectively, you may wish to consider this in this case as well.

RP: The NRO is curious why we don’t get consulted on this matter; we are contributors to the budget.

HPH: You are asking for a simple way out, simply referring it from the AC to the NRO?

After further discussion, LH moved to refer this matter the NRO EC. Hearing no objections, the following action was decided:

Action #050727-7. CHAIR.
To refer the ICANN Strategic Plan to the NRO EC.

d) NRO update on their liaison discussions (suggested by LH)

AP: I’m in discussions with ICANN and the Secretariat and I’ve asked then to identify the GAC liaison people; they haven’t been particularly forthcoming. We met with some people in Mar del Plata, some of them would not clearly be official GAC liaison people from the various regions, so it’s all in the air. Regarding a liaison statement, the problem the GAC seems to have is that they don’t want to sign anything. I’ve been proposing in an exchange of letters that maybe they should let us know what the wording should be and we’ll be happy to accommodate. In conclusion progress is very slow, in fact there has been no progress at all since the Luxemburg meeting.

It was a question about if the NRO have any other official liaisons?

AP: Not at this time. They are talking to the IETF.

It was a question about If the NRO establishes a liaison relationship with the GAC or any other body, is it assumed that it would also be a liaison to the ASO AC or should we consider having separate negotiations to establish similar relationships with these bodies?

AP: I don’t think the AC should start separate negotiations. I’m not saying that all NRO liaisons will automatically be AC liaisons, but we should study liaisons on a case-by-case basis.

HPH: I don’t see any situation where we would have an NRO liaison and another AC liaison with the same body. I think the point Ray made earlier was not clear to me before in the sense that liaisons, particularly with the GAC, serve an important role in educating and informing the GAC on global policy proposals, so in that respect it’s important to put such an agreement in place. I believe we’ll keep this item running on the agenda.

AP: I’ll keep you updated on the progress.

There being no further business to discuss, at the Chair’s proposal, the meeting was adjourned at 12:20 UTC.

LIST OF ACTIONS

NEW

Action #050727-1. SEC.
To amend the July 10 minutes so as to include a statement saying that the July 6 teleconference was cancelled for lack of quorum, to change the status of the minutes from draft to definitive, and to publish them as final minutes

Action #050727-2. CHAIR.
To prepare a welcome letter for new ASO AC members.

Action #050727-3. CHAIR
To formally present the thank you message to Doug Barton.

Action #050727-4. CHAIR
to prepare a statement taking in consideration that the creation of new TLD has no apparent impact in addressing issues and submit it to the relevant forum.

Action #050727-5. CHAIR.
To prepare a more refined proposal for the Vancouver meeting and circulate it to the list for further discussion; to get in contact with the ICANN staff to see what is the actual availability of rooms and space so that we can have a more concrete proposal on the table during the next couple of weeks.

Action #050727-6. CHAIR, SEC.
To call for a teleconference meeting on October 5 at 2200 UTC.

Action #050727-7. CHAIR.
To refer the ICANN Strategic Plan to the NRO EC.

OPEN

Action #050710-4. SB, SJ, RP, CHAIR and CO-CHAIRS:
To come up with procedures for AC approval before the next conference call. List of ASO AC procedure.

Action #050710-5. SB, SJ, RP, CHAIR, CO-CHAIRS.
To review and finalize the procedures to call for AC meetings before the next meeting

Action #050710-6. LL, RH:
Fine tune the procedure for New ASO AC members and present it at the next AC meeting for its approval.

Action #050710-8. LH, SB, WW, AA, RB.
As a group, to review the paper for competing addressing registries and draft recommendations; to invite Paul Wilson and Geoff Huston to join this working group

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.

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 20050727

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

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