Present:

Barbara Roseman (Chair)
Takashi Arano (TA)
Kenny Huang (KH)
Hans Petter Holen (HPH)
Sabine Jaume (SJ)
Wilfried Woeber (WW)

*Quorum

Raimundo Beca (RAB)
Hartmut Glaser (HG)

Sang Hyun Kyong (SK) ICANN Board
Lyman Chapin (LC) ICANN Board
Rob Blokzijl (ROB) ICANN Board
Mouhamet Diop (MD) ICANN Board (Selected)

Richard Jimmerson, Secretariat (SEC)
Ray Plzak (RP), ARIN
Anne Lord (AL), APNIC
Paul Wilson (PW) APNIC
Axel Pawlik (AP) RIPE NCC

John Crain (JC) ICANN

The Chair opened the meeting at 21:05 UTC

BR stated the purpose of the call was to discuss the recently released NRR Blueprint and the overall ICANN reform proposal. It was suggested that ASO AC members provide their comments on the NRR blueprint first, followed by comments from invited members of the ICANN Board.

WW stated that except for some possible minor wording changes he felt the NRR blueprint document sounded reasonable. It provides good input into the whole process and should be seen as trying to balance things even if we don’t support it all. The blueprint separates the mechanics dealing with housekeeping and administration from the policy oversight function.

BR commented that she still has two concerns, one over the proposal to give the RIRs the function of approving new RIRs and developing a numbers registry separate from IANA.

RAB stated that the blueprint had been improved since its first draft. He voiced concern about the proposal to give the NRR authority to approve address policy.

RP clarified that the intention is for the address council to become more along lines of what the ICANN board currently does in policy process – act as an oversight body.

RP asked WW and RAB to post their concerns to the newly created NRR Blueprint mailing list.

BR said that she was concerned that the NRR Blueprint was constructed without taking into consideration its implication for other policy making groups. She gave IETF and the publication of RFCs as an example. She feels that the NRR question is distinct from other issues raised in the blueprint document. She noted that she seemed to be voicing a minority opinion.

RP commented that the IANA consideration paragraph would be the only needed change to the current RFC process if the NRR blueprint proposals were adopted.

WW commented that he agreed in part with BR, worrying about the fate of IANA or any homogenous housekeeping role. He said that it was probably not realistic, but that he would be happy to see IANA as one entity taking care of resource management, statistics, and housekeeping and being only loosely coupled to ICANN. If this is a feasible solution he would prefer this over a separate NRR.

BR said she understand how frustrating it has been working with IANA over past two years. She did not see what resolving the IANA problem had to be tied to the ERC.

HPH commented that the proposal for some reconstruction of IANA needs to be aired through a consideration process different from rest of proposal. What to do about number resources should involve more discussion with IETF and other policy groups. He said he supported in general the idea of giving the IANA function a role with a distributed base, doing away with single jurisdiction point of failure.

RP stated the NRR blueprint is out for public comment and that the RIRs have entered into public discussion looking for whatever is best for Internet.

BR asked HPH to post his comments to the mailing list.

RP reminded everyone that all three RIR boards want to work within the ICANN structure. The RIRs are not trying to walk away from ICANN.

BR said that part of NRR blueprint makes it clear there is continued involvement in ICANN; however she still feels that the NRR is a separate discussion and shouldn’t be in the same document.

SJ agreed with BR. She asked how the NRR impacts the current ICANN reform proposal.

HPH said that the proposed ICANN reform provides for a structure where there is tight coupling of the making and execution of policies. The NRR blueprint attempts to take the execution of policy out of the structure that prepares the policy.

BR commented that if that is the intent in proposing these simultaneously, she would like to see that spelled out more clearly in a future draft of the NRR Blueprint. She does not feel that it is clear that is what is trying to be achieved.

ROB stated that he thought it was clear in the current version of the blueprint. He is concerned that the current ICANN structure is not working, and that ICANN’s reform proposal will make it worse. He feels there needs to be a better defined role for IANA. The current NRR blueprint is one attempt to define a better structure.

MD commented that from his perspective there should be two proposals, one to redefine IANA within ICANN and a second to redefine the RIR relationship with ICANN. He would like to try to define something more globally policy oriented.

LC voiced sympathy for the concerns expressed by BR, stating that tying the two issues together makes it difficult. He believes the NRR blueprint contains some good ideas for improving the IANA function. He has some concerns with the separate issue of trying to readjust the relationship between ICANN and RIRs to pursue a policy development process. He mentioned the agreements and documents that developed the current relationship and discussed the pending contract between ICANN and the RIRs. He feels there is some good language in that draft agreement that should be reexamined. For example, the ASO would be principal policy development body with the ICANN Board ratifying ASO policy. The RIRs agreed only to adhere to those policies recommended by the ASO, not any modified or established by the ICANN Board.

HPH commented that he found a contradiction in stating that we have a good bottom-up policy development process that works within all of the RIR communities, yet there needs to be a Board to say yes or no to developed policy. I can’t fit together a model where there is both a top decision making body like the ICANN board and a bottoms up process.

LC explained the pure vs. theoretical bottoms-up process. He said that in so many cases theory matches practice; however, the role of a Board or advisory council is to recognize those situations where a policy has been developed in which the bottom up practice didn’t work and not everyone was heard.

HPH noted that this was an important comment. There is a distinction between who approves policy and who oversees that policy is made according to proper processes.

BR gave an example of when the GSM first approached RIR meetings asking for a vast amount of address space. It took a lot of education to get the GSM folks to realize that they didn’t need as much address space as they thought they did. The concern is less that peoples voices aren’t being heard, but that people voicing opinion and being over turned, need a second place to have voice heard and maybe be granted what they want.

ROB stated that policy is being made in the RIRs according to well agreed to processes. ICANN’s role is to make certain these processes are being followed, not to make policy.

LC commented that he realizes the RIRs are convinced their processes are open to everyone and incorporate all conceivable points of view. There is some disagreement within the ERC group as to the extent the RIRs can determine on their own who can participate in their policy process. I believe they are open, my only reservation is whether or not there is a role to be recognized that in practice the result is that in fact all the people that need to be heard are being heard.

PW noted that there is this role defined for ICANN within the NRR document. ICANN would be the place to take any appeal. The RIRs have acknowledged that a need for an independent arbitrator is there. He doesn’t believe that anything LC said is inconsistent with what the RIRs have proposed.

LC noted that the gap is small, but important.

PW said that there might just be a communications gap. If there is some unstated assumption that RIR procedures do not guarantee openness, then the RIRs could look at those procedures to make certain the guarantees are explicit.

BR said she heard a difference in what LC and PW were saying. The ICANN Board wants to retain some decision making power beyond saying yes or no that the process was followed. When someone appeals, the ICANN Board wants to be able to make a decision on the merit of their proposal. The RIRs object to this, they want all those appeals on merit to take place with their public policy hearings.

SK stated that the NRR proposal has some good points. He has some concerns about the overall relationship between the RIRs, IANA, and ICANN, especially ICANN’s role in policy formulation. He would like to see the responses from the ERC before making coming to any decision himself.

LC was asked if ICANN planned any additional responses prior to its October meeting. LC stated he was attempting to establish a multi-party dialogue to include the ICANN Board, RIR Boards, and executive committees.

RP stated that ARIN has volunteered to set up a mailing list for this purpose.

The meeting adjourned at 6:05 PM UTC. The Chair thanked the ICANN Board participants for their time and input.