You're viewing an archived page. It is no longer being updated.
AUDIENCE
Distribution of these minutes is unlimited.
STATUS
RELEASE
ATTENDEES
Name Address Speaker
Paul Gampe [email protected]
Anne Lord [email protected]
Mirjam Kuehne [email protected]
Frederico Neves [email protected]
Fabio Marinho [email protected]
Tadao Takahashi [email protected]
Oscar Robles [email protected]
Cristo'bal Chapital T. [email protected]
Kilnam Chon [email protected] KC
Nii Quaynor [email protected]
Christopher Wilkinson [email protected]
Kim Haaland [email protected]
Sregfried Langenbach [email protected]
John Curran [email protected] JC
Suzanne Woolf [email protected]
Javier Rodriguez [email protected]
Teld Wolf Jr. [email protected] TW
Eric Lee [email protected]
Justin Newton [email protected] JN
Richard Delmas [email protected]
Yoshiko O Chong [email protected]
Naomasa Maruyama [email protected]
Paul Wilson [email protected] PW
Kim Hubbard [email protected] KH
Don Telage [email protected] DT
Keith Mitchell [email protected] KM
Barbara Dooley [email protected] BD
Michael Schneider [email protected] MS
Rob Hall [email protected] RH
Olivier Muron [email protected]
R.M.S. Ibrahim [email protected]
Jose L. Ribeiro-Filho [email protected]
Fabio Marinho [email protected]
Geoff Huston [email protected] GH
Daniel Karrenberg [email protected] DK
Pindar Wong [email protected] 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 [email protected] mailing list to
continue the discussion.
Meeting closed: 22:10.
AUTHOR
Paul Gampe [email protected]
Revisions: Mirjam Kuehne [email protected], Rob Hall
[email protected], Javier Rodriguez - Lima. Peru
[email protected].