Present:

Takashi Arano (TA)
Eric Decker (ED)
Hans Petter Holen (HPH)
Kenny Huang (KH)
Barbara Roseman (BR)
Cathy Wittbrodt (CW)
Wilfried Woeber (WW)

Raimundo Beca (RB)
John Crain (JC)
Mouhamet Diop (MD)
Hartmut Richard Glaser (HRG)
Richard Jimmerson (RJ)
Anne Lord (AL)
German Valdez (GV)
Paul Wilson (PW)

Agenda

  1. Welcome
  2. Apologies received
  3. Agenda bashing
  4. Minutes from January 2002 AC teleconference
  5. Report from RIPE 41
  6. Report from AfriNIC BoT meeting
  7. Status of open actions
  8. AC physical meeting
  9. BoD nominations status
  10. AOB
  11. Adjournment

  1. Welcome

  2. BR: Opened the call at 22:00 UCT.

    RJ reminded the AC that the call is recorded. There were no objections. SEC called roll.

  3. Apologies received

  4. Apologies received from Sabine Jaume.

  5. Agenda bashing

  6. WW asked if the minutes would be posted from last meeting. RJ responded that they will be posted once the AC approves them. WW inquired about the recording of the calls. RJ stated the calls are recorded, but that they are currently held by the SEC only. RJ asked if this issue should be discussed later under AOB? WW agreed.

  7. Minutes from January 9, 2002 AC Teleconference

  8. BR asked if anyone wanted changes made? There were no changes. BR motioned to adopt the minutes. CW seconded the motion. BR asked if there were any objections? There were no objections. BR noted that there are no objections. BR then stated that since there were no objections, the minutes were adopted. Motion carried. RJ stated that the SEC would post the January minutes to the ASO web site.

  9. Report from RIPE 41 Meeting in January

  10. BR asked if anyone would like to give a synopsis and suggested HP or WW? HP stated that since he only attended 1.5 days of the meeting, he could not give an accurate account.

    CW interjected that in light of the Ipv6 WG discussion at the RIPE meeting, if anyone is not on IPv6 mailing list, they really need to participate. CW reminded the AC of the outcome of the WG discussions, particularly that any LIR would automatically be assigned a /32. There is currently a big discussion on the mailing list.

    WW then stated he did not feel it was useful to recap IPv6 WG development. In response to him giving a synopsis of the RIPE meeting, he said he had his own personal point of view and did not want to summarize. He felt is would be more appropriate to see each person’s point of view on the list, instead of discussing it here. CW responded her intent was just to encourage people to participate. WW agreed. HPH then stated that he was currently seeing the policy not converging to global level but diverging to the regions. BR stated that this issue should be discussed face-to-face at the General Assembly Meeting in March in Thailand.

    BR asked WW if there were any other issues from the RIPE meeting he would care to recap? WW responded that there was not from a content perspective but from a logistics perspective. Suggested to discuss later. He stated that we’re seeing that the logical structure of the hierarchy from regional and local registries is very different in the 3 or 4 regions. BR then suggested that the AC raise this issue at the General Assembly Meeting.

    BR asked if anyone felt the attendance at the RIPE meeting was up or down. AL stated that companies seemed to be sending 1 person instead of multiple people anymore. WW stated that we should be careful at what we look at; that the overall attendance may not necessarily be a good indication of the representation of community. He thought there were more people at Ipv6 discussion than in the past, but slim attendance in the regular local RIR session. MD stated that is may have been due to attendance at other meetings at same time. BR stated she thought there was lower attendance and that we may want to look at what it means if fewer people are making decisions at RIR meetings. HPH interjected that he did not feel participation was lower, but attendance may have been. BR responded that there are different ways to interpret what it means. It may have implications of AC’s role as the next extraction of policy discussion with input from a more vocal group versus a larger group.

    BR stated that with no real full report of the RIPE 41 Meeting, AC would get an update at next meeting.

  11. Report from AfriNIC Board of Directors Meeting

  12. BR asked MD to synopsize. MD stated that the meeting took place in Cairo on January 16, 2002. There were 10 members present, six from different regions to include Kenya and South Africa. AfriNIC now has an interim secretariat and that this is currently adequate for a legal entity. Permanent secretariat will be chosen in accordance with the By-laws of AfriNIC. A person elected to solve problems and a proposal will be presented in Accra, Ghana at the upcoming meeting.

    MD stated that the AfriNIC MoU currently in progress with RIPE will be approved with RIPE and signed by the time the Accra meeting takes place. He also stated that Kyoko Day was hired as Business Manager for AfriNIC.

    With regards to a Host Country, MD stated this was a heavy process and it would take time to decide on one country to host everything.

    MD stated that information is on the website with regard to AfriNIC communications and the people responsible for managing the website, mailing lists, etc. He stated the next deadline is 2/20/02 to adopt the documents created by the small working group of AfriNIC.

    BR thanked him.

    PW asked MD regarding the AfriNIC mailing list, if there was anything MD would comment on regarding the debate about the ISP role in the AfriNIC process. MD stated that they notify ISPs about setting up AfriNIC. He said they need it written down. There are people in each region involved to get this done before the Accra meeting. Each individual must sign paperwork.

    PW stated that Randy Bush made a comment about previous contributions. Can MD summarize this or is there not much content? MD responded that BoT needs to be effective to move forward and there are specific people designated to points in the timetable. PW thanked MD.

    MD commented that they are focused on the Accra Meeting and noted that not many people from the AC will be attending. AfriNIC will organize an information session about the ASO for the meeting. BR stated that was a great idea.

  13. Status of open actions

  14. Action # 12-4 RIRs/IANA
    Circulate draft resource request procedure document to the AC. RIRs have sent new revision to IANA for review. Open
    RJ stated that he did not know if IANA has reviewed the document yet. HPH asked why this has been dragging on for half year; if the draft was circulated, then it needs to be shown. RJ stated this document cites administrative practice between the RIRs and the IANA and that some specifics of the document need to be worked out between the RIRs and the IANA before it is distributed. RJ suggested the SEC could start separate list of actions for information only items.
    BR asked if this was just a matter of the draft being stuck in cross communication. RJ replied that only 2 versions have been done. BR asked if they were close to getting one that they can show. RJ stated that only small modifications were awaiting response. JC from IANA stated that he did not receive the draft. RJ replied that he sent it to Louis the first time, then again to both JC and Louis some time ago. BR suggested that it be left on the action list for one more meeting, then the AC would discuss moving this item off the list. If it is just due to slow communication, we should address that. RJ stated this item would be left on for the next meeting. JC stated he would try to push to get the draft reviewed. Open
    Action # 0105-7 SEC
    Compile a list of attendees of upcoming meetings for 2001/2002 (ongoing action)
    RJ stated that many people have responded and that the results have been posted to the website. BR stated that the AC would make this a permanent action for SEC at the next meeting. Open
    Action # 0107-11 AC Subcommittee: (BR, ED, HPH, GV)
    Devise procedure for ICANN Board member selection in a Subcommittee:

    1. Collect ideas and proposals,
    2. Write draft,
    3. Adapt results in a face to face meeting Status: Work underway by subcommittee.
    RJ stated the subcommittee was made up of BR, ED, HPH, GV; and asked if there were any comments. ED stated he would have some work done this month, but needed contact information. BR stated the best way to get the information was on the ASO website. All e-mails are there. ED asked CW if they could meet soon and ED could get some background information from her. CW agreed. BR stated that she wanted to try to have good solid discussion on this on the mailing list sometime next week, because within 3 weeks this needs to be discussed at face to face meeting in Thailand. HPH said he would to type out his view of what was done in past year. BR thought that would be very helpful. Open
    Action # 0109-5 AC
    Continue discussion about physical AC meeting on the ac-coord mailing list. Open
    BR stated she sent a note with suggestions of topics of importance and more can be added. BR asked if everyone can make suggestions and e-mail them to the list for the Agenda. The meeting is an evening dinner meeting which limits the time to roughly 4 hours. We need a solid agenda or AC will achieve nothing at the meeting. BR would like to see items to be discussed. Open
    Action # 0111-02 SEC
    Send RIPE-40 summary mail, which was sent to ripe-list, also to the AC list. Closed
    Action # 0112-02 SEC
    Publish ‘Process for AC Chair Nomination and Election’ on ASO web-site. Closed
    Action # 0112-04 HPH
    Draft a mail regarding the chosen candidate for the IDN committee to ICANN and send it to the AC Status: Overtaken by events. ICANN board has appointed one of the ASO nominees. BR declared this item closed. Closed
    Action # 0201-01 SEC
    Propose March 2002 AC physical meeting to ASO AC. Closed
    Action # 0201-02 SEC, SJ, KH, BR
    Develop program for 2002 AGM. Done (awaiting answers to call)

    RJ stated that the draft agenda has been put together and a call for presentations and participation has been made. SEC still awaiting responses to date. This was sent to lists in all three regions. BR stated that AC needs to develop agenda items and not wait for proposals from outside.

    BR asked if there is a role for global policy. Is there a consensus at all for global policy? What is the purpose of the AC if there is no consensus?

    CW responded that she wanted to discuss this in the face to face meeting. Everyone is expecting a global process. BR agreed to discuss more publicly in the General Assembly, or in the face to face meeting.

    WW interjected that it would be better to speak about this issue face to face before discussing it in public – the AC should have its own opinion beforehand. All agreed. BR stated that there is not another public forum until next year. That the AC would talk about it, but not outside RIR meetings. CW asked if they could ask for a general open discussion about there being a global policy or not? BR said yes. CW and BR both agreed that there would be no presenting a position on the subject, but field the question in general terms of the advantages or disadvantages of having a global policy – to know if it is of value to community. BR stated that this seems very appropriate.

    BR asked if there were any other issues to be discussed at the General Assembly Meeting other than the IPv6 situation. It was decided that TA had the best exposure to the IPv6 policy discussions that have taken place in all three regions, as he has attended all the meetings. TA will summarize the IPv6 policy discussions at the General Assembly Meeting.

    BR then asked if there was anything else that needed to be discussed at the upcoming General Assembly Meeting. She asked the AC to send comments to the mailing list.

    RJ stated at this time that the Draft Agenda was posted to the ASO website linked from the front page.

  15. AC physical meeting

  16. BR asked RJ how much time did APNIC give the AC in the meeting room in Thailand. RJ replied that the AC will have the meeting room from 6:00 p.m. through midnight.

    RB asked if we could arrange to have people attend by phone? AL answered that they can probably provide this and would get back to AC about it.

  17. BoD nominations status

  18. RJ stated that the open call for nominations ended on the day of this call at 0900 UTC. RJ updated the ASO website to reflect the close of the nominations period. RJ explained that this announcement then points to the list of confirmed nominees. Of the seven listed there, six are eligible. Two others have not yet confirmed their nominations. RJ further explained that nominee bios and statements of support are on the ASO website along with a statement describing eligibility for this election. RJ asked if the AC needs more information. BR replied that they will look and see if any other questions arise.

  19. Any other business

  20. Regarding the issue of recording the calls. BR asked if these calls are recorded from moment they begin. RJ replied that he in fact changed the procedure to start recording exactly at the hour the meeting begins, and not before, until last person hangs up. RJ stated that the SEC is holding these recordings on CDs, and not doing anything with them. They are kept locked in a safe. BR stated that she would like the SEC to find out what the DNSO is doing with the Names Council Meeting Minutes and also the PSO.

    WW stated he was fine with recording the calls and keeping them on file, but if they were to be published, he would like to know ahead of time. BR stated that the original idea to record the calls solved the problem of limited listener status removing endless numbers of callers. BR asked if there was a provision in the MOU for the AC to call a private meeting. WW stated that we need to try to informally exchange points of view.

    HPH stated that he found that the DNSO does publish recordings. If we want calls where we do not take minutes, then that is a different topic. WW reiterated his concern that he did not have a problem with publishing the minutes or audio recordings, but that the AC needs to be aware beforehand because it could impact the content and on style of the calls. He stated that some issues discussed among the group may be discussed differently in public. BR asked that this issue be addressed at the upcoming face to face meeting. SEC will retain the recordings with not plans to publish them.

    BR asked if there was any other business. RJ stated that the first new action resulting from this teleconference has already been completed — the January minutes have been posted to the ASO website.

  21. Adjournment

  22. BR motioned to adjourn the meeting. CW seconded the motion. BR thanked everyone. AC meeting adjourned at 22:58 UTC.


Open action item list

Shelf list [items pending action outside the ASO AC]

Actions closed at this meeting

Action # 0111-02 SEC
Send RIPE-40 summary mail, that was sent to ripe-list, also to the AC list.
Action # 0112-02 SEC
Publish ‘Process for AC Chair Nomination and Election’ on ASO web-site.
Action # 0112-04 HPH
Draft a mail regarding the chosen candidate for the IDN committee to ICANN and send it to the AC
Action # 0201-01 SEC
Propose March 2002 AC physical meeting to ASO AC.
Action # 0201-02 SEC, SJ, KH, BR
Develop program for 2002 AGM

Actions remaining open

Action # 12-4 RIRs/IANA
Circulate draft resource request procedure document to the AC.
Action # 0105-7 SEC
Compile a list of attendees of upcoming meetings for 2001/2002 (ongoing action)
Action # 0107-11 AC Subcommittee: (BR, ED, HPH, GV)
Devise procedure for ICANN Board member selection in a Subcommittee:

  1. Collect ideas and proposals,
  2. Write draft,
  3. Adapt results in a face to face meeting
Action # 0109-5 AC
Continue discussion about physical AC meeting on the ac-coord mailing list.

New action items

Action # 0202-01 SEC
Post Minutes of January 6, 2002 ASO AC Meeting to ASO Website.
Action # 0202-02 SEC
Report on DNSO and PSO procedures for recording teleconferences and posting them to their respective web sites.

Complete list of open actions following meeting

Action # 12-4 RIRs/IANA
Circulate draft resource request procedure document to the AC.
Action # 0105-7 SEC
Compile a list of attendees of upcoming meetings for 2001/2002 (ongoing action)
Action # 0107-11 AC Subcommittee: (BR, ED, HPH, GV)
Devise procedure for ICANN Board member selection in a Subcommittee:

  1. Collect ideas and proposals,
  2. Write draft,
  3. Adapt results in a face to face meeting
Action # 0109-5 AC
Continue discussion about physical AC meeting on the ac-coord mailing list.
Action # 0202-01 SEC
Post Minutes of January 6, 2002 ASO AC Meeting to ASO Website.
Action # 0202-02 SEC
Report on DNSO and PSO procedures for recording teleconferences and posting them to their respective web sites.