AC Attendees:

Raimundo Beca (RB)
Eric Decker (ED)
Hartmut Glaser (HG)
Hans Petter Holen (HH)
Kenny Huang (KSH)
Kim Hubbard (KH)
Sabine Jaume (SJ)
Mark McFadden (CHAIR)
Wilfried Woeber (WW)

Listener/Observers:

Adiel Akplogan

ARIN:

Richard Jimmerson (RJ)
Ray Plzak (RP)

LACNIC:

Raul Echeberria (RE)
German Valdez (GV)

RIPE NCC:

none

APNIC:

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

ICANN:

John Crain

Agenda

  1. Welcome
  2. Apologies received
  3. Agenda bashing
  4. Minutes from 6 August 2003, AC Teleconference
  5. Status of open actions
  6. ICANN BoD election process document
  7. Report from the APNIC 16 meeting
  8. Informal public meeting at RIPE 46
  9. Any other business (AOB)

    1. Welcome

The Chair, opened the meeting at 21:05 UTC. He noted that he had sent a message on behalf of the AC to the new Asia Pacific AC representative, Hyun-joon Kwon. The message congratulated Mr Kwon on his election to the Address Council, welcomed him to the group, and invited him to participate as an observer until the official commencement of his term.

    1. Apologies received

Apologies were received from: Takashi Arano, Julian Dunayevich, and Seung-Min Lee.

    1. Agenda bashing

      • RFC 2050 status
      • AC meeting frequency

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

The following items were added to the agenda:

    1. Minutes from 6 August 2003, AC Teleconference

The Chair noted that the minutes had been circulated. AA asked about his apology for August not being recorded. It was noted that it is current practice to only record apologies from the elected AC representatives, but not from the observers and listeners.

The AC approved the minutes from 6 August 2003 without amendment.

Action #0309-01 SEC
Secretariat to publish final minutes from 6 August 2003.

    1. Status of open actions

      • n/a

The Chair provided a summary of open action items.

Open action item list

Action #0305-03 SEC
(Updated) Secretariat to include discussion of the ICANN BoD election process document in the agenda of the August AC meeting. This was included in the AOB for this meeting, but was again deferred to the September teleconference. Done
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. (Updated) This action will be held open until there is a new MoU. Open/Stalled
Action #0308-01 SEC
Secretariat to publish final minutes from 2 July 2003. Done
Action #0308-02 HH
HH to contact RIPE NCC to request time to be set aside for the open AC meeting on the RIPE agenda. HH to also request a room for the regular AC meeting. Done

Shelf list (items pending action outside the ASO AC)

    1. ICANN BoD election process document

The Chair noted that this document had been publicly circulated and that no further comments or concerns had been raised. He asked for any final comments from the AC members. There were none.

The Chair asked that each AC member present indicate there support or otherwise for adopting this document. Eight members indicated their support of the document; none opposed it. There was one abstention (WW).

    1. Report from the APNIC 16 meeting

KSH reported on the APNIC 16 meeting, held in Seoul in August. He noted that in relation to the ASO, there was an AC election, an EC-AC meeting, and that he had presented the ASO report to the APNIC Member Meeting.

KSh reported that at the election, Hyun-joon Kwon of Korea was elected to take the seat to be vacated by Seung-Min Lee at the end of 2003.

KSH noted that in the EC-AC meeting, there was a detailed discussion of the developments in the formation of a new Number Resource Organization (NRO).

KSH thanked the CHair for the material supplied which formed the basis of the ASO activities report in the Member Meeting.

    1. Informal public meeting at RIPE 46

The Chair noted that there had been no publicity for the informal ASO meeting scheduled for the RIPE meeting, but that HH had announced it during the morning session. Unfortunately, no members of the public turned up to participate.

RP also noted that he and RE had attended the room at the appointed time and found it occupied by another group. They then went to the other spare meeting room, but found no one there.

    1. Any other business (AOB)

RFC 2050 status

HH noted that there had been no progress or recent activity on the part of the RFC 2050 Working Group. He suggested that the RFC 2050 Working Group should be disbanded and asked whether or not this was an issue for the AC.

RE noted that the group has its own mailing list, but that he didn’t know if it was doing any work at present. He suggested that the AC should seek further information from the working group and then consider making a recommendation.

RP noted that the RFC 2050 Working Group was formed by the RIRs acting in concert. The ASO as a facilitator of global policy discussions could make a recommendation to disband the group, but the final decision would be up to the RIRs. He also noted that there are discussions in the RIRs at present that are relevant to RFC 2050, namely the replacement of the 80 percent utilisation rule. He expressed his view that it would be appropriate for the RFC 2050 Working Group to be disbanded and that the RIRs should then review the policy issues and consider whether to create a new, short RFC to change the status of RFC 2050 to historical.

HH noted that he did sign up for the working group, but could not recall participating in any work on the mailing list or elsewhere. He had seen some initial work in splitting the task into several pieces, but had seen no development since then.

HG said he agreed with the suggestions of RE and RP.

The Chair noted that he was also chair of the RFC 2050 Working Group and that only one in a proposed series of replacement documents had been drafted. The Chair also explained that the amount of time participants were able to contribute to the effort had diminished to zero.

RP suggested that the RIRs could consider the elements of RFC 2050 in the light of the policy comparison matrix. From this, they could consider drafting a new RFC that would put RFC 2050 into historical status.

The Chair noted that he was uncomfortable with making RFC 2050 historical without anything to replace it. RP noted, however, that in fact the RIR policy forums have taken the place of RFC 2050, and that these policy forums have broader scope and representation than the processes that led to RFC 2050.

It was clarified that there is no proposed RFC to replace RFC 2050, as the IETF feels it is no longer appropriate to be a forum for policy development. In response to concerns raised by KH, RP noted that there would indeed be documents to take over the role of RFC 2050, but that these would be the RIR policies rather than an IETF document.

JC raised the question as to whether there is any policy in RFC 2050 which is more global than local. RP said that there is nothing in RFC 2050 about the IANA-RIR relationship. In response to JC’s questions, RP agreed that the proposed replacement RFC would make RFC 2050 historical and then point to the relevant policy documents in the RIR forums.

KH noted that although RFC 2050 is no longer appropriate, she is concerned about having no global document to guide the RIR policies.

PW suggested that the replacement should not simply declare RFC 2050 historical, but that it could also discuss the development of the RIRs and the policy making processes in the RIRs. It could also suggest that the RIRs should continue to update a document like the RIR policy comparison document. RP agreed, and asked whether there should be guidance in terms of global policies in relation to how IANA allocates address space to the RIRs. KH agreed that there should be such a global policy guiding IANA allocations.

HH suggested that the outcome of this discussion should be the RIRs and the AC members taking this back to their policy forums to restart progress on the issue.

HG expressed concern in relation to the history of the RFC 2050 Working Group and whether this was the best way to deal with it. HH noted that this issue was one of the first things on the agenda of the AC. RP noted that these discussions originated outside the RIRs, and were first publicly discussed at the RIPE meeting in Prague in 2001. From there, ARIN volunteered to set up a global list. He noted that the working group inherited some early related work that had been done by the RIRs.

HG asked about the possibility of the RIRs forming a small working group to replace the existing one. RE noted that it is difficult to replace the current working group, as they are volunteers. RP noted that the working group chair has made many efforts to get progress from the group, but that there has been no concrete response form the group.

The Chair summarised the consensus as follows: there is a problem with the current RFC 2050 Working Group, and that the AC members should go back to their policy groups and discuss how to deal with this. He also noted that there were no objections to the RIRs developing a policy comparison matrix that cross referenced the current policies pertinent to RFC 2050. RP committed to ensuring this would be delivered by the next AC meeting and offered for ARIN to take editorial lead.

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.
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.
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.

AC meeting frequency

HG noted that a high proportion of each AC meeting is taken up by procedural and administrative detail, followed by a long discussion in AOB. He suggested that it would be more effective to replace monthly meetings with bi-monthly meetings with tighter and more focussed agendas.

HH and SJ expressed support this idea.

RP suggested that the AC could also consider the way in which it deals with business matters. He described the methods of the ARIN Advisory Council, which now divides into small discussion groups responsible for developing proposals and shepherding them through the process. This task-organisation technique has increased the level of participation. Each discussion group has a separately archived mailing list. HH agreed that this was an excellent strategy and suggested that it could be done when policy items arose for the AC.

RB suggested that rather than fixing a firm schedule, at each meeting it could be decided whether the next meeting would be one or two months hence.

The Chair noted that there are growing expectations that the ASO may be restructured in coming months and that the AC now needed to consider whether it is appropriate to develop a new schedule at this point.

AA noted that in AfriNIC the Board has the level of flexibility to call additional meetings when there are significant issues to discuss, as RB had suggested.

HG suggested scheduling meetings for every other month from October (skipping November). KH and RP agreed that there could be a bi-monthly schedule as long as it allowed for exceptions if something came up.

At October meeting, the Secretariat would present a document with a scheduled meeting every other month, with provisions for how to call additional meetings in the intervening months.

RP suggested producing this document within the next two weeks.

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.

[Meeting closed 22:10]


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. Open
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. Open
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. Open
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. Open

Shelf list (items pending action outside the ASO AC)

  • n/a