The Address Supporting OrganizationAC meeting minutes |
||
|
|
Minutes [Approved at the 7 May 2003 teleconference]ICANN Address Supporting Organization - Address Council Meetingvia Teleconference Wednesday, 2 April, 2003, 22:05 UTC AC Attendees:
Listener/Observers:
ARIN:
LACNIC:
RIPE NCC:
APNIC:
ICANN:
Agenda
The Chair opened the meeting at 22:05 UTC. Apologies were received from: none Absent: Julian Dunayevich and Seung-Min Lee. The Chair reviewed the draft agenda and asked if there were any additions or amendments. There were no changes to the draft agenda. The Chair noted that the minutes had been circulated. The process for circulating and finalising the draft minutes was reviewed. The Chair moved to approve the minutes from 5 March 2003. There were no objections. The motion to publish the minutes passed. Open action item listShelf list (items pending action outside the ASO AC)The Chair noted that he provided an AC update during the Rio meeting. He noted that there were good informal conversations during that meeting, as well as some more formal representations. The Chair also noted the several informal meetings he held with ICANN Board members. In these meetings, he did not express formal opinions on behalf of the AC, but noted that the AC represented a range of views. The Chair will propose a more formal session to be held during the ICANN meeting in Montreal. The Chair also asked AP to bring the AC up to date on the discussions between the RIRs and the ICANN ERC at the Rio meeting. AP noted that most issues resulting from the reform process are now more or less agreed. One point left open is whether there should be mediation or arbitration in case of disputes. The next step is for the RIR boards to propose a new MoU, with a view to also reopen negotiations on a new contract. KH noted the amount of effort that the RIRs and ICANN have had in getting to this stage and the understandable reluctance to reopen negotiations after reaching an agreement. However, she sought assurance that if the public had valid suggestions the parties would address them. RP noted that the RIRs are committed to putting a draft contract up for public comment, as all steps in the negotiations have been made public. AP and RP also noted that the RIRs are not concerned that the public comment process will unduly hamper the efforts to finalise the contract. The Chair asked if the RIRs have discussed the future of the ASO and AC in the negotiations with ICANN. AP noted that in the recent discussions, there were few firm discussions on this process. RP noted that the RIRs requested input from the AC on this matter in January. He again asked the AC to forward any ideas on this topic. He noted there are no working documents available at this moment. KH asked if any working documents would be released to the AC before they were released for general public comment. RP noted that this would be up to the Boards. HH and ED noted that the AC has had access to the Blueprint document for a long time and there have not yet been any written comments by AC members. AL noted that following publication of the draft agenda, no other agenda items have been received. AP and RP also confirmed that no comments had been received at ARIN and RIPE NCC. The Chair moved that the draft agenda be adopted as the final agenda for the Santiago meeting. The Chair noted that as he had not yet sent out the relevant documentation, this should be deferred to the May meeting. [Note: refer to action #0302-03.] ED noted that a draft of this document (version 0.3.A) has now been circulated, but that there remain issues the AC needs to consider in terms of future directions. The Chair noted that it is necessary to make a decision, but the draft is not yet ready to be published for public comments. One question to be considered is whether the nomination period should be closed before the General Assembly or left open for nominations from the floor during the General Assembly. HH noted that allowing nominations from the floor may lead to a situation where candidates nominated may not be present to speak for themselves. WW noted that with a 90 day nomination period, it is better procedurally to close the nominations before the meeting. KH and ED agreed with this proposal. ED noted that the intent is to invite the candidates to attend the GA to meet the AC and to present themselves to the community. HH suggested leaving the comment period open until the GA. ED summarised HH's suggestion as providing a three month nomination period, a one month comment period, and then the GA. KH suggested that it might be useful to extend the comment period for a couple of weeks after the GA to allow comments by those who have seen and heard the candidates. ED suggested that there be a 90 day nomination period, closing two weeks before GA. The comment period would then run from two weeks before the GA until two weeks after the GA. SJ suggested that an invitation to attend the GA should be included in the nomination information. The Chair asked that ED prepare a final draft, incorporating the consensus items from this discussion. SJ raised the question as to how to determine eligibility. She noted that it is important to ensure that the criteria are made explicit. The Chair reviewed the progress of the development of the Road map Document. He noted that potential changes to the ASO may lead to other changes. There were no comments received. The Chair proposed referring discussion of this to the mailing list and putting it on the next agenda. ARIN meetingThe Chair noted in relation to the forthcoming ARIN meeting that the AC has been invited to discuss AC issues with RP and the ARIN Board of Trustees. He noted that this was a good opportunity for interesting discussions. [Meeting closed 23:15] Open action item list
Shelf list (items pending action outside the ASO AC)
|
|
|
|
||