ASO Open Meeting

Apricot'99

AUDIENCE
    Distribution of these minutes is unlimited.

  STATUS

    RELEASE

ATTENDEES
        Name                    Address                     Speaker

        Paul Gampe              paulg@apnic.net
        Anne Lord               anne@apnic.net
        Mirjam Kuehne           mir@ripe.net
        Frederico Neves         freves@aswp.br
        Fabio Marinho           fmarinho@ibpinet.com.br
        Tadao Takahashi         tadao@na-cp.rnp.br
        Oscar Robles            orobles@nic.mx
        Cristo'bal Chapital T.  chapital@nic.mxs
        Kilnam Chon             chon@cosmos.kaist.ac.kr       KC
        Nii Quaynor             quaynor@ghana.com
        Christopher Wilkinson   christopher.wilkonson@cec.be
        Kim Haaland             haaland.kim@ic.gq.ca          
        Sregfried Langenbach    svl@nrw.net
        John Curran             jcurran@netgeeks.net          JC
        Suzanne Woolf           woolf@isi.edu
        Javier Rodriguez        jrl@mail.lima.net.pe
        Teld Wolf Jr.           woolf@usa.net                 TW
        Eric Lee                lee@cix.org
        Justin Newton           justin@gi.d.net               JN
        Richard Delmas          richard.delmas@dg13.cec.be
        Yoshiko O Chong         yoshiko@nic.ad.jp
        Naomasa Maruyama        maruyama@nic.ad.jp
        Paul Wilson             pwilson@apnic.net             PW
        Kim Hubbard             kimh@arin.net                 KH
        Don Telage              don@telage.com                DT
        Keith Mitchell          keith.mitchell@ripe.net       KM
        Barbara Dooley          bdooley@cix.org               BD
        Michael Schneider       sastre@annalt.de              MS
        Rob Hall                rob@echelon.ca                RH
        Olivier Muron           olivier.muron@francetelecom.fr
        R.M.S. Ibrahim          aso-990303@vlsm.org
        Jose L. Ribeiro-Filho   j.ribeirofilho@nc-rj.rnp.br
        Fabio Marinho           fmarino@ibpinet.com.br
        Geoff Huston            gih@telstra.net               GH
        Daniel Karrenberg       Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net    DK
        Pindar Wong             pindar@HK.Super.NET           PI

MINUTES
    Meeting opened: 20:05. Meeting location: Rm 208 Suntec City
    (Apricot'99).

    GH: Gave a presentation on behalf of the RIRs, then asked what
    will be the constituents?

    GH: Consumers of the internet, business, the public and
    governments.

    GH: Proposed making the RIRs, the ASO members and build a
    process to consult with other parties. Consensus is that this
    proposal is too restrictive. It is obvious that the RIRs have a
    role, but other SOs and perhaps governments should also have
    open input channels.

    MS: Suggested different model. RIRs are natural monopolies and
    as such wont represent the ISP community.

    TW: Comment from DNSO, that ASO is a recommending body, not a
    policy body. R&D and consensus fed into policy submissions not
    implementations.

    DK: RIR are not just implementors, they are self-regulatory
    bodies, that may or may not be successful of course. Contrary to
    DNSO discussions, RIRs currently have an operational system to
    build on.

    MS: TLDs have developed a self-regulatory body with ISPs as
    members. TLDs have to be involved but should not dominate the
    DNSO agenda. The ASO will make recommendations and ICANN has
    formed the *SOs to make policy and regulatory framework. So
    membership to *SOs carries significant weight in policy and
    implementation. EU ISPs have no alternative to RIPE-NCC. Both a
    monopoly and a self-regulatory body, so the ASO should not just
    consist of RIRs members.

    KH: RIRs don't make policy, it is the membership of the RIRs
    that control the policies. The RIRs simply implement them.

    BD: RIRs have different operational models and represent only
    10,000 of 30,000 ISPs. To get input to policy membership of an
    RIR should not be compulsory. Other interests should be
    represented.

    KM: Don't confuse RIRs with policy makers. In EU, RIPE is an
    open process that the RIPE-NCC implements. Anyone may
    participate in RIPE.

    GH: Representation of the industry does not equate to RIR
    membership.

    MS: Our perception was that the RIRs wanted a closed shop. Now
    realise that this is not the case, so lets work together.
    Membership does not always equal representation.

    PW: Explained the APNIC Model. Open membership, 200+ members
    with more members in the National NICS, total 700+ ISPs who
    receive allocations from APNIC. Executive Council of APNIC, and
    open meetings give the opportunity to play a role in policy
    development. Work with other RIRs on RFC2050 to develop policies
    to manage internet resources. Policy is open to public comment.
    Want to stress the openness of the process with input from other
    RIRs, membership and the public. Described the recent policy
    development process involving APNIC membership.

    JC: RIR are not closed, for example trade associations have been
    members. Interested parties have opportunity to participate, but
    we have received little input prior to the ASO discussions from
    trade associations.

    RH: RIR members set policy, so shouldn't RIR members be in the
    ASO, instead of the RIRs.

    DK: RIPE-NCC is a democratic organisation, members set the fees
    and approve the budget. RIPE has open membership and it sets the
    policies.

    RH: RIRs members plus others should be in the ASO.

    DK: RIPE members scared by the DNSO debate, fear yet another
    global organisation.

    JN: ARIN membership is not compulsory. Membership does not equal
    service. IP different to DNS, wide changes in DNS would not
    break the internet, but wide changes in IP policy can break the
    Net. RIRs members have a history of technical interest in IP
    Policy.

    PW: What are the short comings of the current system?

    MS: RIRs claiming to represent the community. Others claim they
    don't, so a compromise is realistic.

    DT: Internic made allocations up to 15 months ago. The evolution
    to ARIN was a big step. In the next step are there business
    interests that need to be addressed?

    GH: Current allocation practice is naive, broken and misguided.
    With IPv6 ICANN have an opportunity to incorporate business and
    consumer interests into the allocation policy.

    JC: More input is better. More input on business impact is
    required. Layers of representation are difficult to coordinate,
    so better to implement one layer of discussions and input.

    TW: Fragmentation of interest could derail the process.
    Education process is self-maintaining. Want a minimum of top-
    level participants.

    RH: Nobody wants technical unaware participants, but current RIR
    have both technical and non-technical members. Fear of breaking
    the internet is unfounded.

    GH: ASO must be removed from the day to day policy
    implementation. 'Global policy developmemnt takes time.' The ASO
    should only be concerned with long term issues (global policies)
    and not with the day-to-day operations, otherwise the RIRs will
    not be able to function.

    JN: Expressed concern that the current system fails to represent
    minorities.

    KH: RIR does not equal DNSO: Name Registry, because of
    membership. Don't wont ARIN membership to be disenfranchised.

    ??: IP does not equal DNS. One is transport, one is market place
    commodity, therefore the policies are different.

    BD: Next ICANN meeting will be end of May, but the deadline for
    proposals is April so lets get a work plan.

    JC: Representation and policy issues will be sticky but in
    general the process should be simple. Stated there are a few
    drafts (from the RIRs and from the CIX) and asked if we want to
    work on the detailed wording or if we should start at the
    principles.

    RH: Proposed combining the CIX and RIR drafts.

    GH: Why are we rushing? If ASO is to focus on long-term issues
    why rush to meet the ICANN deadline. 'We have a working system,
    we must get this ASO right.'

    PW: asked who is the wolf at the door and what is wrong with the
    current system?

    JC: ASO policies are long term but ASO formation is not
    necessarily so.

    JC: explains that IANA had only a very specific role: to be the
    anker and to have a mediating function. Surely ICANN and the
    businesses want something that works, not just a proposal for a
    certain deadline.

    JN: DNSO and ASO structures are different because of financial
    interest.

    JC: Suggested ICANN would be willing to wait if there is a plan
    in place.

    BD: ICANN wants something stable before September 2000.

    MS: Felt pushed by ICANN. Offerd to withdraw the CIX/EuroISPA
    proposal if there will be an open structure to move torwards an
    ASO.

    GH: Lets publish the principles presented at the start of the
    meeting on the RIRs web sites as the basis for building the ASO.

    MS: Want to talk to his constituents before going public.

    TW: Publishing principles expresses a road to consensus to
    ICANN, so they should be willing to wait.

    KC: From DNSO experience, best to define process of the ASO
    formation early and set the priority of issues.

    RH: Can't assume a third-party wont make an ASO application and
    the ICANN will wait.

    KM: ICANN likely to wait. Better to build from priniciples then
    to cut-n-paste from the DNSO proposal.

    GH: No more time available to continue this discussion, proposed
    a mailing list to discuss the time and agenda for the next
    meeting.

    DK: Offerred to create the aso-discuss@ripe.net mailing list to
    continue the discussion.

    Meeting closed: 22:10.

AUTHOR
    Paul Gampe paulg@apnic.net

    Revisions: Mirjam Kuehne mir@ripe.net, Rob Hall
    rob@echelon.ca, Javier Rodriguez - Lima. Peru
    jrl@mail.lima.net.pe.