<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

RE: Berlin ASO meeting minutes


Mr Hubbard, 

Please find below some highlights from the Berlin meeting minutes, in which you can see that the ETSI proposal has been done.

> >> Bridget Cosgrave from ETSI offers a staff member for this function.

> >> Keith summarises the discussion: it has been agreed that 
> there should
> >> be some regional structure, there is however no agreement if this
> >> should necessarily be exclusively. There is agreement on 
> the idea to
> >> get a facilitator to work on the further process and to 
> move forward.
> >> ETSIs offer is noted. Keith takes an action to go back to the RIRs
> >> boards to discuss this, it needs to be agreed by all RIRs.

After this first point, please be aware that I don't think that ICANN will
accept a such closed SO with only the RIRs. 
We are in an open process (which doesn't mean to accept everybody but
organizations/associations dealing the Internet Addressing and Numbering)
and more ASO will have representants more it could be a benefit to this ASO
for an open and wide view on all issues and to represent as widely as
possible everybody involved in the Adressing.
Hope we can find a way to deal with CIX, RIPE and RIRs.

Jean-Michel Bécar
becar@localhost
http://www.etsi.org
E.T.S.I. FAS Systems Project Manager
Tel: +(33) (0)4 92 94 43 15
Fax: +(33) (0)4 92 38 52 15




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kim Hubbard [
] > Sent: Friday, June 04, 1999 16:34 > To: Jean-Michel Becar; 'Mirjam Kuehne'; aso-discuss@localhost > Cc: John M Meredith > Subject: RE: Berlin ASO meeting minutes > > > Mr. Becar and Mr. Meredith, > > Members of the ARIN board have just recently heard of your > kind offer to > have someone from ETSI mediate. And while we appreciate your > offer, we > will need some time to discuss it because what wasn't > mentioned in Berlin > is the fact that the RIRs had already selected someone to begin this > process, Scott Bradner. > > Regards, > > Kim Hubbard > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > At 04:15 PM 6/4/99 +0200, Jean-Michel Becar wrote: > >Dear all, > > > >ETSI is ready to go with a facilator: John Meredith. > >So you can keep in touch with him at the following > >
> > > >Wish John a sucessfull mediation. > > > >Jean-Michel Bécar > >becar@localhost > >http://www.etsi.org > >E.T.S.I. FAS Systems Project Manager > >Tel: +(33) (0)4 92 94 43 15 > >Fax: +(33) (0)4 92 38 52 15 > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Mirjam Kuehne [
] > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 1999 20:04 > >> >> Subject: Berlin ASO meeting minutes > >> > >> > >> > >> Dear all, > >> > >> Please find below the minutes of the open ASO meeting held > in Berlin, > >> Germany last week. > >> > >> Mirjam Kuehne > >> RIPE NCC > >> > >> > >> > >> Minutes of open ASO meeting 25. May 1999 in Berlin > >> ************************************************** > >> > >> Daniel Karrenberg summarises the current state of the ASO > discussion: > >> The Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) are working on a proposal. > >> In the meantime a proposal has been submitted to ICANN by CIX, > >> EuroISPA and eCOM-LAC. Recently a number of open ASO meetings have > >> been held: > >> - at 27. January 1999 in Amsterdam in conjunction with the > >> RIPE Meeting > >> - at 02. March 1999 in Singapore in conjunction with the > ICANN meeting > >> - at 17. March 1999 in Minneapolis in conjunction with the IETF > >> - at 12. April 1999 in Atlanta in conjunction with the ARIN > >> members meeting > >> > >> Mark McFadden from CIX mentions the idea of using a facilitator for > >> the process, this had been discussed at the RIPE Meeting in Vienna. > >> > >> Keith Mitchell confirms that, thinks its a good idea, however, no > >> individual has been identified yet. He summarises the function > >> description of such a facilitator: > >> - the person should be reasonably independent > >> - 50% of the time of one individual is needed > >> > >> Daniel adds that this person would devote time to drive the > >> process, to organise meetings, to draft documents etc. > >> > >> Bridget Cosgrave from ETSI offers a staff member for this function. > >> > >> Rob Blokzijl stresses that the process is and will be open > to anyone, > >> not just the membership of the RIRs, this is the way the > RIRs operate > >> currently. > >> > >> Rob Hall points out that there is a document out there > (the proposal > >> CIX and others submitted), why produce a new one. > >> > >> Daniel explains that going into detailed documents from > the start is > >> not a good idea in a process that needs buy-in from many > >> constituencies, writing legal documents should not be rushed, first > >> agreement on a set of principles is needed. He further suggests to > >> then write a document that will describe how the ASO will work > >> de-facto. Only after this has been agreed, detailed legal documents > >> should be written. The de-facto operations document should > >> describe at > >> least: > >> - how substantial policies are developed and passed to ICANN > >> - how this process is managed (for instance by an address council) > >> - how ICANN board nominations are done > >> > >> Rob H. thinks we should move forward, because ICANN exists and the > >> concept of an ASO is there to be filled. > >> > >> Keith stresses that there are much less open/contentious > issues in the > >> address arena, there is no reason to rush. > >> > >> Esther Dyson says that ICANN was hoping to get a ASO > proposal from the > >> entire community for the ICANN meeting in August. A > proposal that is > >> on the table then will be on the agenda. > >> > >> Bridget asks what the crux actually is in the discussion > among the two > >> groups/communities. > >> > >> Rob H. explains that the RIRs think that only RIRs should be on the > >> ASO, ISP Associations think there are other constituencies > that should > >> be part of it, RIRs should only operate/implement the policies. > >> > >> Rob B. clarifies that the registry processes and policy making are > >> open, no-one has to be a member of whatever organisation. > >> > >> Keith points out that there are various possibilities to > elect ICANN > >> board members : > >> - they could be purely appointees from RIR boards > >> - or they could be elected from the RIR membership > >> - or they could be elected from regional open forum participants > >> - or some combination of the above > >> > >> Daniel is not confident in going into such details at this stage; > >> these details should be sorted out on a regional level. > >> > >> In the group there is apparently some misunderstanding > regarding the > >> actual functions of the ASO and address council. Daniel > describes the > >> current structure in Europe: > >> - RIPE is open forum that makes recommendations and decisions > >> about policies > >> - the RIPE NCC is a membership organisation; the members > >> decide about the > >> activities and budget of the RIPE NCC > >> - very close relationship between RIPE and the RIPE NCC > >> > >> These constituencies want to be represented. RIPE NCC > members and RIPE > >> participants are worried that they would have to attend different > >> meetings on different levels to protect their interests. > >> > >> Daniel also clarifies that the members of the RIPE NCC, > almost all of > >> them ISPs, tell the RIPE NCC how to spend their money, but > there is a > >> much wider forum who is involved in the policy making (RIPE) > >> > >> Bridget asks what the problem is with allowing people that > do not want > >> to be represented by RIPE etc. to be represented by some other > >> organisation on the ASO. > >> > >> It could not be clarified who these other organisations would be. > >> > >> John Klensin describes some of the issues related with IP > >> address space. > >> There is currently nothing broken in the address > allocation process. > >> There is nothing one could vote on wrt. address allocation policy, > >> it basically follows laws of physics (e.g. routing, IP > >> address scarcity). > >> > >> The suggestion is made to close the discussion here and to start > >> working on a proposal together with the facilitator. > >> > >> Rob H. repeats that not only the existing 3 RIRs should be > on the ASO. > >> > >> Daniel stresses again that we should not take steps too quickly, > >> we must get the principles right first before we worry about > >> the details. > >> > >> John mentions that most likely there will be more than 3 > RIRs, and the > >> existing RIRs support that, they are open to this process. > >> > >> Rob H. also doesn't like the idea that people are forced > to go through > >> the RIRs. > >> > >> At this point Esther asks if people in the group think > that there is a > >> difference between the American situation and the European > and if so, > >> this should also get on the table. > >> > >> A few people in the group apparently think that there is a > difference, > >> it is felt that ARINs processes are not sufficiently open. > >> > >> It is mentioned that ARIN was going to change this towards open > >> policy meetings and in general more open and transparent processes; > >> this had been decided at ARINs last member meeting. > >> > >> Barbara Dooley thinks this has only been proposed, it has not been > >> decided yet. > >> > >> John tries to find out again what is the problem actually is people > >> are trying to fix. If it is the ARIN problem, the discussions > >> regarding the ASO are probably not the right place to do this. > >> > >> Rob H. thinks that policies should be made on a global level, not > >> regionally, all experts should come together in one place. > >> > >> John is not sure if the policies necessarily need or should be the > >> same in all regions. They are sufficiently different and > there might > >> be reasons to develop different policies, because there > are different > >> circumstances in the regions. > >> > >> Barbara stresses again that ARIN is not open enough. > >> > >> Bridget feels that people are trying to importing the ARIN > problem to > >> the ICANN level. > >> > >> A gentleman from FR Telekom thinks that RIPE should be > >> formalised more, > >> it needs to be a legal organisation in order to have enough power. > >> > >> Daniel replies that this question has come up regularly > inside RIPE, > >> and so far the participants seem to be confident with the current > >> situation. > >> > >> Mark says that in other regions it is not working like > that; the goal > >> is to define a global ASO/ICANN with global > representation, maybe the > >> European solution does not work everywhere. > >> > >> Daniel responds that he is not suggesting to use the same > solutions > >> in North America, it should be left to each region to define their > >> processes, and there are movements to open up the processes in > >> other regions. > >> We should not create a global structure to fix a regional problem. > >> > >> Mark states that also another problem that at first > appeared to be an > >> American problem later turned out to be a global problem (the > >> creation of > >> new gTLDs), and the RIPE TLD-WG realised that. > >> > >> Keith disagrees. He says, speaking for a ccTLD registry, this was > >> never seen as a global problem. > >> > >> John thinks there is one hypothetical difference between different > >> regions: the number of very small ISPs related to the > total number of > >> ISPs is very high in North America, therefor one can for > instance not > >> implement the same allocation policies as the RIPE NCC. If this > >> situation would appear in Europe the RIPE NCC's policies might have > >> to be adapted. A single international policy would create > problems. > >> > >> Daniel explains that this is how policy development was > handled over > >> the last years: making sure the polices are coordinated as much as > >> possible among all regions and defining where the differences are. > >> A framework has to be set to allow regions to define their own > >> procedures, for instance wrt. the election of ICANN board members, > >> this should not be defined on a global level, but should be left to > >> every region to find the right process. > >> > >> Daniel stresses again what the question for (at least the RIPE) > >> regional constituency is: If there is a global level to > it, do I need > >> to be represented on that as well. If the answer is 'Yes', > people will > >> have a problem with it, because they will have to make > sure they are > >> represented on all levels in order to protect their interests. > >> > >> If someone comes and says that he or she does not feel represented, > >> Daniel would like to ask how one can make that person feel more > >> represented. To mention the specific issue with the EuroISPA, the > >> problem is that the RIPE NCC membership overlaps with EuroISPA's > >> membership, and the RIPE NCC's members are saying that > they are happy > >> to be represented by the RIR process (the RIPE NCC and RIPE > >> in this case) > >> when it comes to address space issues. > >> > >> Keith stresses that all meetings where these issues are > discussed are > >> open. > >> > >> Rob H. thinks that only 'techies' go to these meetings, > not the CEOs > >> of the organisation and they might have different opinions or > >> concerns. > >> > >> Keith believes that this distinction is meaningless. > >> > >> Daniel gives an example how the RIPE NCC process work: at > one of the > >> previous RIPE NCC Annual General Meeting some members proposed that > >> the RIPE NCC should also become a lobbying organisation. However, > >> consensus was reached that the RIPE NCC should not be > doing this, this > >> should be left to the trade associations. Addressing > issues should be > >> dealt with in a neutral and impartial environment, it should not be > >> confused by issues where not all members necessarily agree upon. > >> > >> Rob H. thinks that CENTER is funded, staffed etc. by the NCC. > >> > >> Daniel clarifies that this is not the case: > >> - the RIPE TLD-WG was created to discuss general TLD issues > >> - they came to the conclusion that there is some work that > needs to be > >> done by RIPE in an open forum, some work should be done by > >> the ccTLDs > >> directly > >> - ccTLDs decided to establish a separate group to work on > these items > >> - they then asked the RIPE NCC to help facilitating this effort > >> - the RIPE NCC provided office space and administrative support > >> - financially the group is independent (the funding is > >> provided by ccTLDs) > >> and the project will move out of the RIPE NCC offices shortly > >> - the constituencies are different, that is the reason why it was > >> appropriate to form a separate group > >> > >> Rob H. was asked what the actual problems wrt. address > space are that > >> need to be addressed urgently and what his problems are to > participate > >> in the regional processes. As an answer he asks the RIRs > why they are > >> so afraid of having a more open process. > >> > >> Rob B.: We are open, we cannot be more open than we are! > >> > >> Keith thinks that the discussion is trying to bang a > >> triangular problem > >> into a circular solution. Various people are not here. It is > >> difficult to > >> discuss their issues. The RIPE NCC and RIPE has been > working with ARIN > >> to make their process more open and hopes their members have > >> been, too. > >> Isn't this a way forward? > >> > >> Mark asks, why not recognise that there are other > >> possibilities than the > >> European model. One approach to move forward is to find a > facilitator > >> to find convergence between different points of view. Another > >> approach is to use a facilitator to start from scratch and > to document > >> the status quo as Daniel suggested. > >> > >> Daniel answers that this is not what he meant. He repeats > the proposed > >> process: agree on principles and then concentrate on a de-facto > >> document; don't worry about legal language right now. The > ASO should > >> have a regional structure. It needs to be further defined what this > >> exactly means: which details need to be discussed on a > global level, > >> which details can be left to the regions? > >> > >> John says that he is personally very reluctant to see a ASO that is > >> only comprised of RIRs. But because of the technical issues > >> related to the > >> address allocation, the RIRs should have a strong majority. > >> > >> He also has another concern and that is the direction and > the scope of > >> these constituencies and SOs in ICANN. Is his organisation > required to > >> be part of all these groups to protect its interests? This > is not what > >> he wants! > >> > >> Rob B. would be horrified if the ICANN structure would lead to the > >> fact that many people would not be able to attend the RIPE Meetings > >> anymore on a regular basis. > >> > >> Mark says that in his organisation there are people that fear that > >> they cannot influence the address policies > >> > >> David Randy Conrad explains that also historically the > RIRs didn't set > >> policy in a vacuum, IANA would also listen to other sources, > >> e.g. the IETF. Decisions were made based on technical > >> considerations, not > >> political ones. He would be very worried if this were going to > >> change. There might be other 'technical advisory councils' > to advise > >> ICANN. The IETF might not necessarily be the appropriate > forum in the > >> future. > >> > >> Barbara has not yet heard clearly what the objection would > be to allow > >> regions to define their own mechanisms to participate in the ASO > >> outside the existing RIR structure. > >> > >> Keith thinks the following steps have to be done to move forward: > >> facilitation has to be used to extract principles and to > define where > >> the parties differ. In addition to that all individual > >> regions have to go and > >> solve their individual problems. > >> > >> A person from eCOM-LAC reports that his organisation is currently > >> working together with the academic community in Latin > America in order > >> to form a LatiNIC. He also mentions that he is not happy with the > >> ARIN services. He believes that commercial organisations > (ISPs?) must > >> have their own constituency in the ICANN/ASO. In the end customers > >> of ISPs are paying for the next generation of IP. > >> > >> Nii Quaynor from Ghana reports that the organisations/ISPs > in Africa > >> seem to be satisfied with the services provided by the > RIPE NCC. He is > >> also not aware of anyone in the other part of Africa that > is served by > >> ARIN that has complained about services provided by ARIN, also they > >> seem to be happy with the status quo. However, Africa is working > >> towards its own RIR in order to have more influence. He > mentions that > >> they get a lot of support from the existing RIRs. > >> > >> A gentleman from Japan emphasises that it is very difficult to > >> effectively participate in many meetings, because of > travel expenses > >> and the time spent; it will certainly be difficult to > attend even more > >> meetings. He admits that his organisation is not totally happy with > >> the current APNIC services, but still wants to be > represented by the > >> RIRs on the ASO. > >> > >> John says that ARIN is as anxious to 'get rid of' Africa and Latin > >> America as those are 'to get out'. These matters will be handled > >> differently in each region. We should not create > mechanisms to solve > >> problems that might never occur. > >> > >> Daniel explains that an AfriNIC is expected to be formed and that > >> the RIPE NCC supports these efforts. > >> > >> David asks if the RIPE NCC would force someone in the region to > >> go to AfriNIC for services and not to the RIPE NCC anymore. > >> > >> Daniel replies that the RIPE NCC would strongly encourage that > >> organisation and that the NCC would also try to help the AfriNIC to > >> provide such services that the ISPs in the region would want > >> to receive > >> services directly from them. > >> > >> Keith thinks that this is typically something that should > be discussed > >> on a global level. > >> > >> Keith summarises the discussion: it has been agreed that > there should > >> be some regional structure, there is however no agreement if this > >> should necessarily be exclusively. There is agreement on > the idea to > >> get a facilitator to work on the further process and to > move forward. > >> ETSIs offer is noted. Keith takes an action to go back to the RIRs > >> boards to discuss this, it needs to be agreed by all RIRs. > >> > >> Because the RIPE/RIPE NCC structure is a working mechanism, someone > >> suggests a possible way forward: an assignment with a > clear deadline > >> to the RIRs to submit a proposal. This may then only be on > probation, > >> the process will then have to be reviewed in two years time for > >> instance, because there is the concern that not all stake > >> holders agree > >> with this structure. However, the RIR structure is in place and > >> working right now, therefor the RIRs should be allowed to start. > >> > >> Mark notes that this would then not be based on consensus, and that > >> ICANN is looking for consensus. > >> > >> Esther explains that ICANN is not recognising groups but bylaws. > >> She also does not think that the process needs to be rush at > >> this point. > >> > >> Izumi from APIA says that his organisation has no clear point of > >> view at this moment. One problem is that the interest of > the ISPs in > >> the Asian region is not as high as it should be, because of the > >> economic situation, they basically hope that someone will > >> take care of it. > >> > >> Esther stresses that the model should be flexible enough to change, > >> but it should not purely be a placeholder. > >> > >> Barbara seconds Keith' proposal to move forward. > >> > >> Keith adds that the proposal needs to be ready for the > ICANN meeting > >> in August; there will be additional open ASO meetings at > INET in June > >> and at the IETF in July. > >> > >> Esther confirms that the deadline for submission of a > proposal is end > >> of July, beginning of August. > >> > >> Daniel believes that a de-facto document should be ready at that > >> point. It will be however too soon for details such as bylaws and > >> articles. > >> The following issues need to be addressed in the de-facto document: > >> 1. how is policy developed > >> 2. how is the process managed > >> 3. how are ICANN board nominations done > >> 4. what will be defined at the ASO level, what at the > regional level > >> > >> Keith and Daniel agreed to update Kim Hubbard from ARIN and > >> Paul Wilson from the APNIC about the discussion and discuss > >> the facilitator > >> idea further among the RIR boards. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ------- End of Forwarded Message

<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>