AC Attendees:

Takashi Arano (TA)
Raimundo Beca (RB)
Eric Decker (ED)
Hartmut Glaser (HG) (Acting Chair)
Kenny Huang (KSH)
Kim Hubbard (KH)
Sabine Jaume (SJ)

Listener/Observers:

none

ARIN:

Ray Plzak (RP)

LACNIC:

Raul Echeberria (RE)

RIPE NCC:

Axel Pawlik (AP)

APNIC:

Anne Lord, ASO Secretariat (SEC-AL)
Gerard Ross, ASO Secretariat (SEC-GR)

ICANN:

John Crain
Barbara Roseman (BR)

Agenda

  1. Welcome
  2. Apologies received
  3. Agenda bashing
  4. Minutes from 3 September 2003, AC Teleconference
  5. Status of open actions
  6. Comparison of RFC2050 and Policy Comparison Matrix
  7. RIR/ASO reorganization proposal
  8. Proposal for an Additional teleconference in October to discuss RIR (NRO)/ASO proposal
  9. Report from the RIPE meeting
  10. Discussion of AC meetings schedule document
  11. Any other business (AOB)

  1. Welcome

  2. The Acting Chair, opened the meeting at 21:05 UTC.

  3. Apologies received

  4. Apologies were received from: Hans Petter Holen, Seung-Min Lee, Mark McFadden, and Wilfried Woeber.

    Absent: Julian Dunayevich.

  5. Agenda bashing

  6. The Acting Chair reviewed the draft agenda and asked if there were any additions or amendments.

    No further items were added to the agenda.

  7. Minutes from 3 September 2003, AC Teleconference

  8. The Acting Chair noted that the minutes had been circulated. There were no comments.

    The AC approved the minutes from 3 September 2003 without amendment.

    Action #03010-01 SEC
    Secretariat to publish final minutes from 3 September 2003.

  9. Status of open actions

    • n/a
  10. The Acting Chair provided a summary of open action items.

    Open action item list

    Action #0307-03 SEC
    Secretariat to investigate technical solutions for conducting e-voting. Once a proposal is made, then the AC can test it and make a decision as to whether to proceed. This action will be held open until there is a new MoU. Open/Stalled
    Action #0309-01 SEC
    Secretariat to publish final minutes from 6 August 2003. Done
    Action #0309-02 AC members
    All AC members to make recommendations to their respective policy forums about the need to reconsider the scope, mission, and methodology for RFC revision. Open
    Action #0309-03 RIRs
    RIRs, led by ARIN, to draft an update the policy comparison matrix document and cross referencing the relevant policy issues in RFC 2050. Done
    Action #0309-04 Secretariat
    Secretariat to ensure that discussion of the draft policy comparison matrix with RFC 2050 references is included on the October teleconference agenda. Done
    Action #0309-05 Secretariat
    Secretariat to develop a modified meeting schedule, with meetings scheduled every alternate month, starting in October, and with provisions detailing how to call meetings in the intervening months if necessary. This revised schedule is to be developed by 18 September. Done

    Shelf list (items pending action outside the ASO AC)

  11. Comparison of RFC2050 and Policy Comparison Matrix

  12. The Acting Chair thanked RP for forwarding the document on behalf of the other RIRs. RP provided an overview of the document. He noted that the RIRs propose now to disband the RFC2050 working group and to draft an Informational RFC changing RFC 2050 to historical status.

    It was noted that the unannotated policy comparison matrix is already published on the RIR web sites and is on a regular maintenance schedule. It was agreed that there is no need to publish the annoted version of the document, as this had been prepared simply as a guide for the AC members.

    The AC noted the intentions communicated by the RIRs in relation to disbanding the RFC 2050 Working Group and changing the status of RFC 2050 to ‘historical’.

  13. RIR/ASO reorganization proposal

  14. RP provided an outline of the documents relating to the Number Resource Organization (NRO) proposal.

    SJ asked for clarification of the details relating to selecting ICANN Board members. RP explained that under the proposed new structure, the Number Council (NC) would operate as the Address Council to perform the functions specified under the ICANN By-Laws. RP noted, in particular, that ICANN By-Laws provide for the ASO AC to select ICANN Board members.

    RP explained the intended operation of the proposed NRO and NC. In summary, he explained that if there comes a time when there is no ICANN then the new body would operate simply as the Number Council; but so long as ICANN continues to exist, the body will act in the role of ASO Address Council in the terms of the proposed new ASO MoU. It was clarified that the Number Council and the Address Council will be composed of the same people.

    It was confirmed that the documents have now been publicly available for more than one week and that comments are due by 22 October.

    RP noted that the RIRs intend to incorporate any relevant comments received and then finalise and sign the NRO agreement. Then it is intended to present the proposed new ASO MoU to ICANN.

    KH asked whether these documents would be taken to the RIR meetings for further discussion and approval. RP explained that the discussion would take place on the public mailing list only.

    RP explained that all AC members are welcomed to make personal comments to the mailing list, but there is no specific requirement for the AC to make a formal submission.

  15. Proposal for an Additional teleconference in October to discuss RIR (NRO)/ASO proposal

  16. RP urged AC members to make their comments to the nro-comments mailing list as soon as possible rather than wait until the end of the comment period, as the AC comments may prompt further community discussion.

    The AC decided to convene a teleconference on Wednesday 8 October at 22 UTC, for Address Council members only, to dicuss the NRO proposals.

    Action #03010-02 SEC
    Secretariat to organise a teleconference on Wednesday 8 October at 22 UTC, for Address Council members only, to dicuss the NRO proposals.

  17. Report from the RIPE meeting

  18. SJ provided an overview of the recent RIPE 46 meeting. She noted that she had been relected to the AC. She noted there had been discussions regarding IPv6 in Europe. She noted there had also been discussions regarding PI/PA allocations, but that there had been no clear consensus. There were also discussions regarding the restructuring of the LIR Working Group. AP noted that the meeting results will be published in the coming days.

    AP explained that the RIPE AGM was held at the end of the RIPE Meeting for the first time. He noted that the AGM was well attended and quite productive. The AGM did make changes to the By-Laws, including a move to one member, one vote.

  19. Discussion of AC meetings schedule document

  20. The Acting Chair noted that the proposed schedule had been circulated and that only one comment had been received. The comment was from RP, who noted that it would be necessary to start meeting in January each year. SJ suggested that the January meeting should not be held in the first week of the month. It was agreed to hold the January meeting in the second week of the month.

    Action #03010-03 SEC
    Secretariat to to amend the proposed meeting schedule, so that meetings commence in January of year each year, and recirculate to the AC.

  21. Any other business (AOB)

  22. None.

    [Meeting closed 22:40]


Open action item list

Action #0309-02 AC members
All AC members to make recommendations to their respective policy forums about the need to reconsider the scope, mission, and methodology for RFC revision. Open
Action #03010-01 SEC
Secretariat to publish final minutes from 3 September 2003. Open
Action #03010-02 SEC
Secretariat to organise a teleconference on Wednesday 8 October at 22 UTC, for Address Council members only, to dicuss the NRO proposals. Open
Action #03010-03 SEC
Secretariat to to amend the proposed meeting schedule, so that meetings commence in January of year each year, and recirculate to the AC. Open

Shelf list (items pending action outside the ASO AC)

Action #0307-03 SEC
Secretariat to investigate technical solutions for conducting e-voting. Once a proposal is made, then the AC can test it and make a decision as to whether to proceed. This action will be held open until there is a new MoU. Open/Stalled