From bs at eunet.ch Sat Jul 28 10:41:18 2001 From: bs at eunet.ch (Bernard Steiner) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 10:41:18 +0200 Subject: New ACK ? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 28 Jul 1999 09:07:41 +0200." <19990728070741.13784.qmail@demdwu24.mediaways.net> Message-ID: <200107280841.KAA20371@eunet.ch> Moin, > [ Moderator note: changed ripe-list at ripe.net -> lir-wg at ripe.net ] > > > > Hi, > > does anyone know the new ACK !!! format for denic KKs ? Vielleicht mal einfach beim DENIC nachfragen ? Gruss aus Zuerich Bernard Steiner > MfG > > "hostmaster of the day" > ________________________ > Stephan Mankopf > +49 5241 80 88729 > hostmaster at mediaways.net > > From joao at ripe.net Mon Jul 2 10:04:29 2001 From: joao at ripe.net (Joao Luis Silva Damas) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 10:04:29 +0200 Subject: Fwd: IN-ADDR.ARPA Progress Report Message-ID: Dear all, here I forward an announcement from ARIN regarding current progress in the maintainance of the in-addr.arpa zone. Best regards, Joao Damas RIPE NCC >From: ARIN IN-ADDR Role >Subject: IN-ADDR.ARPA Progress Report >Message-ID: > >Goal: > >Reduce the size of the IN-ADDR.ARPA zone file. This file will be reduced >in size by only containing name servers for /8 networks. > > >Completed Steps: > >Apr 2001 - Established relationships with 2 companies to provide >independent server networks for all ARIN IN-ADDR zone files. > >Jun 2001 - Released a new IN-ADDR.ARPA zone file generator to correct >existing erroneous data. > > >Next Step: > >July 9, 2001 - ARIN will begin revising the IN-ADDR.ARPA zone for those >direct /8 delegations to ARIN. These /8 zone files will be serviced by >the two ARIN nameserver networks. These changes will not affect the >performance of reverse lookup in any of the IPv4 Address space. > >Please direct any questions to inaddr at arin.net. > > >Ginny Listman >Director of Engineering >American Registry for Internet Numbers -- From djp-ripe-lists at djp.net Mon Jul 2 15:12:31 2001 From: djp-ripe-lists at djp.net (Dave Pratt) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 15:12:31 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: IPv6 for IXPs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hiya Randy et al, On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, Randy Bush wrote: ->i think of an ix as more like an isp than an end user enterprise. we are ->careful to allocate to isps based on reality, not hallucinations from the ->marketing department. Actually using 13 bits out of 128 for IPv6 (a /35 subTLA with a /48 minimum customer assignment) for a (global) ISP?s reservation, architecture and hierarchy, when customers get 80 bits for a dozen or less machines would seem to be based on hallucination and certainly not reality. It is a good thing the IETF say they are revisiting this - I just hope the outcome *is* based on reality. Could Randy (and others) please indicate why he appears to insist on the smallest possible assignment, at the risk of later needing either a multiple announcement or renumbering ? I find it hard to think that IPv6 addresses are in short supply when we have decided on a /48 mimimum assignment to end users. Cheers Dave From hph at online.no Wed Jul 11 16:52:14 2001 From: hph at online.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 16:52:14 +0200 Subject: Call for agenda items & draft agenda for RIPE 40 References: <004201c0b7e0$7deb8c00$0500000a@hph> Message-ID: <125a01c10a19$1306fdd0$b90000c1@hph> 1. Admin - scribe, participant list, charter, mailing-lists 2. Agenda 3. RIPE 39 minutes & actions 4. Report from the RIPE NCC Hostmasters by Sabrina Waschke 5. Suggested Policy changes to improve the wq and set the right service level 6. Possible RIPE 185 revision & restoring the transparency 7. Change of policy for Portable address space (PI) 8. Report from The AC 9. Global vs Regional Policy -revising RFC 2050 10.IPv6 policy - Joint session: revision of IPv6 Policy document 11.Open Mike. 1.5.Open Actions: 35.4 NCC PGP Key exchange procedure Low prio 35.5 NCC Implement PGP for hm Low prio 36.5 Chair Assignment window applied on infrastructure Proposed change 36.6 AP Collect arbitrators Taken care of. 36.7 NCC Keep lir-wg updated on pre RIR address space changes Db-wg presentation 37.1 WG Further discuss restoring the transparency Ntr 38.2 NCC Implement changes to the form while taking into account the comments from the WG In progress 38.3 WG Reopen policy discussion - do we need a major revision of RIPE 185 RIPE 40 38.4 AC Consider how to coordinate Address prediction work Work launced 38.5 NCC Implement 34.6 LIR-ALLOCATED 38.6 NCC Propose PI policy to the WG Ongoing 39.1 NCC Better metrics & more relevant stats 39.2 NCC Suggest procedure and possible policy changes 39.3 NCC Call for AC nominations 39.4 Chairs Define & divide work 39.5 Chairs Beta test 6 weeks deadline for proposals From hph at online.no Wed Jul 11 17:00:27 2001 From: hph at online.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 17:00:27 +0200 Subject: Initial PA Allocation Criteria References: <200106151506.RAA29122@office.ripe.net> Message-ID: <127701c10a1a$38c53400$b90000c1@hph> Dear all, At the last lir-wg meeting there was a clear consensus that a criteria for setting up an LIR and receiving the initial allocation was needed. After a good discussion on the mailinglist there aconclusion has been proposed. With the limited feedback received on the last attempt to call for closure, I would like to look back to the principle in RFC 2050 and RIPE-185 stating 25% immediate usage and 50% usage within a year, which is in line with the proposal of requiring a new LIR to demonstrate previous usage of a /22 (25% of a /20) or demonstrate immediate need for a /22 (25% of a /20). I hereby propose to this wg that we declare rough consensus on this proposal, and that we adapt this new criteria as new policy to be effective from some future date to be suggested by the RIPE NCC. My observation is that while we still have some disagreement on the effect this will have on start up on new LIRs I think the community needs to balance the negative effect possible renumbering will have on a new LIR to be, vs. the positive effect slowing down the growth of new LIRs will have on the service level from the RIPE NCC and the global routing table. Sincerely, Hans Petter ----- Original Message ----- From: "RIPE NCC Staff" To: Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 5:06 PM Subject: Initial PA Allocation Criteria | Dear all, | | Further to my mail on PA Allocation criteria (see below), here follows | a concrete proposal, including details of the actual criteria to be | determined. Very little feedback was received on the last mail asking | for input on the actual details of such criteria. Therefore, in order | to move forward and establish the details of these criteria, please | find below a clear proposal of criteria for the initial PA Allocation | received by a newly established Local IR. | | Proposed Criteria for Initial /20 PA Allocation | ----------------------------------------------- | The Local IR is required to: | | - Demonstrate previous efficient utilisation of a /22 (1024 | addresses). | | Or | | - Demonstrate immediate need for a /22 | | Renumbering: | If current address space held by the Local IR amounts to a /22 or | less, the Local IR is required to renumber that address space into the | PA Allocation it will receive from the RIPE NCC. | | | Can the lir-wg agree with the above proposed criteria? | If no further objections are raised I would like to suggest that the | RIPE NCC moves forward and implements this policy. | | Please let us know if you are not in agreement with the above. | | Kind regards, | | Nurani Nimpuno | | +------------------------------------+ | | Nurani Nimpuno | | | Internet Address Policy Manager | | | RIPE Network Co-ordination Centre | | | http://www.ripe.net | | +------------------------------------+ | | | | ------- Forwarded Message | | Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 18:23:48 +0200 | From: RIPE NCC Staff | Resent-From: Nurani Nimpuno | Sender: owner-lir-wg at ripe.net | To: lir-wg at ripe.net | Resent-To: ncc at ripe.net | Subject: Summary: PA Allocation criteria discussion | | Dear all, | | Thank you for you input thus far in the discussion on portable address | space. Many useful points have been raised on the matter of PI address | space and PA Allocations. | | (The complete discussion can be read at: | http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/lir-wg/current/msg00130.html) | | Below is an attempt to summarise the discussion so far: | | The concept of smaller allocations (than current /20) was initially | brought but the majority felt that this was not a realistic | option. The comments showed concern about the exponential growth in | the routing table and it was believed that smaller allocations would | further contribute to this growth. There was consequently further | discussion on how the RIR policies can prevent/reduce this through | sensible address allocation/assignment criteria. | | On the subject of PI assignments, related to the current growth in the | routing table, it was agreed that PI assignments should (as current | policy states) be based on need and not routability. It was further | stated that end users should be discouraged from multi-homing with | globally visible address space. Some participants of the discussion | argued for a complete discontinuation of PI. | | Most contributors agreed that /20 PA Allocations should be given to | organisations who wish to further assign addresses to customers / | end-users from their PA block. PA Allocations should not be made to | organisations to satisfy pure multi-homing / independence needs. A set | of criteria should therefore be determined to clarify this. | | Lastly, the majority agreed that the PA Allocation criteria should be | based on previous efficient utilisation. There was further discussion | with regards to the size of the efficiently utilised address space the | requestor needs to demonstrate. The prefix sizes /22 and /21 were | briefly discussed. | | If the community believes that this is a just summary of the | discussion, I wish to move forward and determine the details of such | criteria, through presenting a few very concrete discussion points. | | I would like your opinion on the following: | | 1. Do you agree on the following criteria to be set: | | The requesting organisation need to show | - Demonstrated efficient utilisation of a /xx | or | - Immediate need for a /xx ? | | 2. If qualifying through the criterion of demonstrated efficient | utilisation of address space, should the requestor need to | demonstrate efficient utilisation of | A. /22 | or | B. /21 ? | | 3. If qualifying through the criterion of demonstrated immediate | need, should the requestor need to demonstrate an immediate | need of a | A. /22 | or | B. /21? | | 4. Should the requesting organisation be required to renumber | depending on the sizes of its current aggregates? | | 4A. If so, what is a reasonable size of the smallest aggregate | that an organisation would be required to renumber? | | | I am looking forward to your input on these concrete points. | | Kind regards, | | Nurani Nimpuno | RIPE NCC | | | | | | | | | | ------- End of Forwarded Message | | From hph at online.no Mon Jul 16 12:09:56 2001 From: hph at online.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 12:09:56 +0200 Subject: ALSC Request for input References: <200107160551.f6G5p7104706@condor.cqhost.net> Message-ID: <000901c10ddf$7a4d9f20$0600000a@hph> Thank you very much for your request. The topic you are studying are indeed of interest to us, and I will seek guidiance from my community on what response will be appropriate. I have forwarded your message to all of the Address Council and will expect us to discuss how to respond to your request at our next meeting at latest I have also forwarded your message to the RIPE Policy Working group (lir-wg) to seek comments and input from the working group members. We have a working group meeting in Prague 1 - 5 October 2001 but that may as I understand your timeline, be a bit on the late side for the result of the discussion to be incorporated. Sincerely, Hans Petter Holen AC Chair/RIPE lir-wg Chair ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carl Bildt" To: "Hans Petter Holen" ; "Takashi Arano" ; "Jianping Wu" ; "Seung-Min Lee" ; "Raimundo Beca" ; "Cathy Wittbrodt" ; "Barbara Roseman" ; "Wilfried Woeber" ; "Sabine Jaume" ; "Raul Echeberria" ; "Nii Quaynor" Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 7:51 AM Subject: Request for input | Greetings, | | On behalf of the At-Large Membership Study Committee (ALSC), I would | like to solicit input from the Supporting Organization (SO)ASO and its | constituents, as well as share with you our first "Discussion Paper" | and our plans for completing our recommendations. | | We are eager to work with you and your colleagues to ensure that we | have a thorough understanding of your activities, structure and needs - | and your views on the relationship between your Supporting | Organization, its constituents, and the "At-Large" membership | (individual Internet user community). Details on the functioning of | current ICANN organizations will aid in our efforts to recommend a | successful structure/process for At-Large. | | Please find enclosed our current thoughts regarding the concept, | structure and processes relating to an "At-Large" membership ("ALSC | Discussion Paper"). As indicated in the attached, we are eager to get | your input on a number of factual questions and normative issues that, | for us, remain unresolved and important to our recommendations on At- | Large participation and Board representation. | | In light of the ongoing DNSO review and the recent "Country Code | Supporting Organization Statement," it is clear to us that our | recommendations should not take ICANN's current organizational | structure as an unalterable premise. Rather we need to consider ICANN's | representational and decision-making structures in their entirety (e.g. | the possible creation of additional Sos and re-allocation of Board | seats). | | As such, the ALSC is actively considering a variety of potential | participation structures for an "At-Large" that may affect the existing | SOs, and we would not like to do so without adequate consultation with | you | | Please forward this email to other relevant parties and send your | thoughts, comments, concerns and suggestions to our Executive Director, | Denise Michel (dmichel at atlargestudy.org) or to our email forum | (comments at atlargestudy.org), if possible by July 27. | | Included in the paper is a proposed schedule of ALSC activities leading | up to the submission for our final report to the Board in November. As | you can see, we have an ambitious and tight schedule, which makes us | eager to hear from you soon. | | If possible, we would like the opportunity to meet with members of your | organization face-to-face to discuss our activities and draft | recommendations. The ALSC will be in Silicon Valley (Santa Clara, | California, USA) on August 13 - 14 and in Montevideo, Uruguay, on | September 7-8. We would welcome a meeting with your organization, or | some of its representatives, at these locations or elsewhere. Please | contact Denise Michel to coordinate or to request additional | information. | | Thank you for your cooperation, and we look forward to working with | you. | | Sincerely, | | Carl Bildt | ALSC Chairman | | | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | | At-Large Membership Study Committee Discussion Paper #1 | | July 12, 2001 | | | | "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in | practice, there is." | Jan L. A. van de Snepscheut | | Introduction | | Over the last two and a half years, ICANN has made considerable | progress towards achieving the objectives for which it was formed, | including providing coordinated advice on technical management of the | DNS and IP addresses, launching a process for implementing new TLDs, | and supporting the creation of new regional internet registries. | | However, there is concern by some that ICANN still lacks the perceived | legitimacy and accountability to a broad public that will enable it to | operate effectively and flexibly as the Internet scales up and as | ICANN's policies affect an ever broader and less technically oriented | Internet community. | | In order to help fulfill ICANN's promise of accountability, the ICANN | Board created the At-Large Membership Study Committee (ALSC) earlier | this year to conduct a complete review of the At-Large (individual | Internet user) membership concept and its structure and processes, and | to "achieve a broad consensus on effective means by which the diverse | global Internet communities and individual stakeholders may participate | in ICANN's policy development, deliberations, and actions ."[1] (See | Appendix A, "Brief Background") | | Purpose | | We need to keep in mind that ICANN is a very young international entity | that faces both high expectations and operational challenges as one of | the world's most unusual "Internet start-ups." | | Over the last several months, in order to understand ICANN and its | structure and processes, the ALSC has read through the volumes of | publicly available discussions and material surrounding its history, | form and function, and its controversy. We also have reviewed numerous | emailed views and participated in several face-to-face discussions (in | our "outreach" events and in individual meetings), and listened to | those of you who have shared your thoughts and views on how we might | address our task and provided feedback on the questions we have asked. | | While we will continue to listen to everyone's input, work with other | related review efforts, and keep an open mind, it is now time for us to | begin to formulate and share our own thoughts with the goal of | encouraging more specific feedback. That is the purpose of this | Discussion Paper and the specific concept papers we will shortly post. | | Your Input is Needed | | We have received clear indications that, as part of our efforts to | achieve a consensus on how the various Internet communities and | stakeholders should be involved in ICANN, our recommendations should | not take ICANN's current organizational structure as an unalterable | premise. The ongoing DNSO review[2] and the recent "Country Code | Supporting Organization Statement,"[3] indicate that there are | significant concerns within these groups, and perhaps among others, | that clearly need to be addressed. | | Specifically, we need your input on which current ICANN structures are | working well and which are not, and the causes of any current | "problems" or "inadequacies". We also welcome your constructive ideas | on solutions. Clearly any changes to existing ICANN organizational | structure need to adequately accommodate the role of the At-Large and | the overall structure of ICANN, and vice versa. We recognize that a | consensus on a new approach to individual participation and | representation in ICANN must be developed in close coordination with | the existing ICANN organizations and constituencies, and with extensive | input from all interested individuals. We hope this discussion paper | and subsequent discussion will foster such collaboration and result in | better outcomes. | | Our Initial Conclusion: Yes, Individuals Need A Voice in ICANN | | After broad outreach and deliberation, the ALSC has come to the initial | position that some form of structured involvement of individual | Internet users in ICANN policy formulation and decision-making is | needed, along with representation of individual Internet users on | ICANN's Board. While this may appear obvious to some, we did not want | to jump to conclusions without considering a full range of arguments. | | It is clear to us that there is a "public interest" responsibility | vested in ICANN, and therefore some role for individuals (as well as | non-commercial interests, etc.) is appropriate. In essence, ICANN needs | to be accountable not just to those people whose daily work concerns | ICANN's activities (and who may be Supporting Organization members), | but also those who are affected by its actions but whose daily focus is | elsewhere. Actions ICANN takes within its seemingly narrow technical | and administrative mission can affect (and generate interest among) the | world's individual Internet users in a myriad of ways. These users hold | a variety of values and represent interests that may be personal, | political or economic. They care about issues such as access to domain | names in non-Latin characters, the potential use of IP addresses and | domain names for identification or location of individuals and groups, | the mapping of telephone numbers to Internet addresses, competition and | choice (or not) in the provision of various services provided by | independent parties under contract to ICANN, domain-name intellectual | property issues, and the like. | | There is concern, however, that the existing ICANN policy development | and decision-making structure has not fulfilled expectations of | involving and representing these various individuals and their | interests. | | The Process | | In reviewing numerous ICANN discussions and resulting decisions, we | found it difficult to follow the documented "consensus" decision-making | process. In many instances, it is unclear how the input into a | particular "open process" decision was duly considered, documented and | assimilated. We want to ensure that all interested individuals have an | opportunity to participate fully in "bottom-up ICANN consensus | development." And we want to ensure that there is a mechanism that will | make this possible. There certainly is an opportunity for ICANN, | potentially through an At-Large membership, to organize individuals' | energy and experience in a more productive manner - making the issues | intelligible to a broader community and giving individuals a way to | turn their feedback into tangible influence in an accountable, | transparent and predictable manner. | | In making recommendations on the role of an At Large membership in | ICANN, our intention is to help create a policy and decision-making | structure and process within ICANN that fosters understanding and | accommodation between various constituencies, including individual | Internet users. We are striving to recommend such a structure and | process to help ensure that ICANN's policies truly reflect the needs, | interests and rights of all its stakeholders - including those who may | not like its policies but who will ideally feel that at least their | arguments were understood and fairly considered. | | Concept Papers to Follow | | Our charge to conduct a comprehensive study and to "consider the proper | relationship between an At-Large membership and ICANN's three | Supporting Organizations,"[1] has led us to begin development, in | conjunction with the affected communities, of recommendations for | individual Internet user participation in ICANN. | | We welcome input to help further our understanding of how the existing | ICANN policy development and decision-making structure has (or has not) | fulfilled expectations of involving and representing all relevant | stakeholders. We also look forward to receiving any ideas that might | improve the ICANN process and structure and individuals' role within | it. To foster constructive discussion, and to focus on concrete | possibilities - solutions rather than opinions and goals - we are | developing concept papers for your review. [See Appendix B, "Proposed | Schedule of ALSC Activities"] | | We are particularly interested in hearing your views on what would | constitute a successful structure and process for individual Internet | user participation. Thus far, our view is that a successful structure | and process should: | | * Fulfill ICANN's mission of acting in the public's interest in its | administration of the Internet's technical name and numbering | infrastructure, and balance the commercial and institutional | interests that are already well represented within the | organization. | * Ensure that ICANN operates in a manner that is stable, | accountable, transparent, and predictable. | * Increase the likelihood of voluntary compliance by fulfilling | ICANN's goal of having its decisions supported by a broad and | documented consensus among affected parties. | * Engender knowledge within, and support from, interested | communities by giving them a demonstrable way of participating and | affecting policy. | * Inject the necessary public interest perspectives into | coordination of relevant ICANN issues. This includes bringing | non-technical considerations to bear on technical decisions, as | well as providing ICANN with advance warning of issues that have | the potential of being critical or controversial in the | "non-technical" world. | * Encourage both the "non-technical" and "technical" communities to | explain their concerns and the impact of their work more | effectively to the broader public. | | | | Regardless of how individual involvement is ultimately achieved, it is | reasonable to expect that ICANN's Board will continue to be the focal | point for critical decisions. Therefore, Board representation of | individual Internet users also must be addressed, and we are eager to | hear your views on how this might be achieved. | | Our effort to recommend any reconfiguration of Board membership is | driven by several goals, including the need to: | | | | * Fulfill ICANN's commitment to greater accountability of the Board | of Directors to the Internet community. | * Ensure "users' voices" are represented in ICANN's decisions. | * Represent the diverse interests of those affected by ICANN | decisions. | * Select high-quality Board members capable of understanding and | fulfilling ICANN's responsibilities. | * Avoid "capture" of the Board through disproportionate and opaque | representation of any one organization or interest group or | community. | * Ensure the Board Members work together effectively to fulfill its | responsibilities. | | In considering participation and Board representation, your input is | especially needed on both factual questions and normative issues that, | for us, remain unresolved, including (but not limited to): | | * Within each Supporting Organization, are the existing processes | and structures meeting the expectations of their participants? | What aspects of the process are working well? How can existing | processes be improved? Are all stakeholders/communities adequately | represented? | * In order to gauge the level of participation and activity in | ICANN's existing communities, as represented by their mailing | lists, what are the basic statistics of these lists (e.g. number | of participants, demographics, frequency of posting etc.)? | * Similarly, how many participants attend face-to-face | meetings/teleconferences? How often are such meetings held? | * How are the results of the email discussions, teleconferences, and | face-to-face meetings summarized, documented and forwarded for | consideration by other ICANN participants? What working languages | are used? | * What conflict-of-interest provisions exist within each of the | existing Supporting Organizations? | * What mechanisms exist to demonstrate that due weight is given to | input provided to each of the Supporting Organizations? What is | the Supporting Organizations' operational definition of | "consensus"? If consensus is/is not possible, are the points of | agreement and disagreement, rationale, etc. summarized and | documented? What/who determines if consensus has been reached? | * How much can be expected to be achieved from purely voluntary | ICANN participation? What might the role of a professional | secretariat/support staff for the Supporting Organizations play in | facilitating participation and deliberation? How might such staff | be funded? | * Who is staff accountable to (and who should staff be accountable | to)? What is the nature of the relationship between ICANN staff | and the existing Supporting Organizations? What protocol governs | their interactions and priorities? | * Other than reading through relevant mailing list archives, what | other resources exist that make understanding the issues being | discussed in ICANN more accessible? In which languages are such | materials produced? | * How should existing and potential constituencies be organized into | Supporting Organizations or other entities such as interest | groups, political parties, etc. | * How can individuals be encouraged to self-organize without ICANN's | direct involvement? | * What would be each entity's role, authority, and funding source? | * What (if any) specific consensus development processes should be | recommended? | * Should Directors selected by individual Internet users be a | majority or minority of the Board members? How should Board seats | be allocated? Should the current balance of Directors (i.e. 9 from | the SOs and 9 from At-Large) be kept? | * Should elections of Directors be direct or indirect (or a | combination)? How should candidates be nominated? What voting | procedures should be used? Who should have the ability to vote? | * If direct elections are recommended, should they be held among | particular groupings of Internet users, or should they be | geographic or issue-based (including issue or agenda-driven | "parties")? | * Should some demonstration of commitment be required for | participation in elections (such as requirements based on | knowledge, participation, or money)? | * How can individual users be informed about ICANN? How can | candidates for election and interest groups in any form | communicate with ICANN's "At-Large members"? Relevant issues | include privacy, language, Net access (use of Web vs. e-mail) and | others. | | Comments at atlargestudy.org | | In making any recommendations to the ICANN Board, we want to ensure | that we adequately address the role of an At-Large membership within | the ICANN structure as a whole . We are optimistic that mechanisms with | individual involvement can be found that will enable ICANN to develop | balanced and well-considered policies for Internet domain names, IP | address numbers, protocol parameter and port numbers, with the consent | of those who have the responsibility to implement them for the benefit | of the world's Internet community. | | Please email your comments to us at comments at atlargestudy.org or send | them to our on-line forum at http://www.atlargestudy.org/forum.shtml . | | Thank you for your consideration and participation. | | The At-Large Study Committee: Carl Bildt (Chair), Chuck Costello (Vice | Chair), Pierre Dandjinou, Esther Dyson, Olivier Iteanu, Ching-Yi Liu, | Thomas Niles, Oscar Robles, and Pindar Wong (Vice Chair). Denise | Michel, Executive Director. | | | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | Appendix A: Brief Background | | The U.S. Department of Commerce, in granting ICANN its authority, urged | ICANN to ensure "greater accountability of the Board of Directors to | the Internet community" and to "operate in a bottom-up and | representative manner, open to input from the broad community of | Internet users."[4] | | How this accountability and representation should be achieved has been | hotly debated since before ICANN was created in response to a request | from (but not by) the U.S. Government. In addition to the diversity of | views on how ICANN should be structured and operated, there also has | been widespread disagreement on the mechanisms for At-Large | representation (how to avoid fraud, abuse or capture). | | Currently, a 19-member Board of Directors governs ICANN, with nine | members from three Supporting Organizations (three from each SO), five | members who were selected by an At-Large membership, four members who | were appointed and have served since ICANN was created, and one member | who is the corporation's President and CEO. The Board and the three | SO's are designed to include representatives of a specific set of | Internet "stakeholders." ICANN's bylaws called for these three SO's to | be "formed through community consensus": the Domain Name Supporting | organization (DNSO), the Address Supporting Organization (ASO), and the | Protocol Supporting Organization (PSO). | | Although the original nine-member Board was picked by Jon Postel and | was seated upon ICANN's creation, there was no consensus on how the | nine "At-Large Directors" should be selected going forward. In July, | 2000, ICANN's Board adopted a compromise interim solution: the | worldwide direct election of five "At-Large" Directors for the ICANN | Board, one from each of five geographic regions (Africa, | Asia/Australia/Pacific, Europe, Latin America/Caribbean, and North | America), by a self-selected At-Large membership, combined with the | continued service of four of the initial ICANN directors (for a period | not to exceed two years) to ensure that there would remain nine | At-Large "slots" on the ICANN Board until (at a minimum) the results of | this At-Large study are implemented. As part of this compromise, it was | agreed that, during the next two years, there would be a "clean-sheet" | study of how to appropriately provide for input and influence into | ICANN policy deliberations and actions by the individual Internet user | community. The five At-Large Directors were selected through an on-line | election process and seated on the Board in November 2000. On January | 26, 2001, ICANN announced the creation of the ALSC and the Board | approved the Committee's members on March 20.[5] | | | | Appendix B: Proposed Schedule of ALSC Activities | | | | * Issue Discussion Paper #1 with Proposed Schedule of ALSC | Activities (July 12) | * Issue key questions regarding potential structures/directions | (July) | * Issue Discussion Paper #2 listing additional points of ALSC | agreement and potential options for individual Internet user | participation in ICANN (July) | * ALSC working and outreach meetings (August 13) | * Issue Draft Report (by September 7) | * ALSC working and outreach meetings (September 7) | * Submit final report to ICANN Board and issue to public (by | November 14) | | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | | Footnotes | | 1. "Charter for the At Large Membership Study Committee," ICANN, | January 22, 2001, | http://www.icann.org/committees/at-large-study/charter-22jan01.htm | 2. ICANN Public Comment Forum, DNSO Review, | http://forum.icann.org/dnsoreview1/ | 3. "ccSO Formation Statement (Stockholm, 1 June, 2001)," by the | "World Wide Alliance of Top Level Domain-names, ccTLD Constituency | of the DNSO," http://www.wwtld.org/ | 4. "U.S. Government White Paper" (United States Department Of | Commerce Management of Internet Names and Addresses, National | Telecommunications and Information Administration, Statement of | Policy), June 5, 1998, | http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/6_5_98dns.htm | 5. At-Large Study Committee information can be found at | http://www.atlargestudy.org | | From hph at online.no Mon Jul 16 12:22:10 2001 From: hph at online.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 12:22:10 +0200 Subject: ALSC Request for input References: <200107160551.f6G5p7104706@condor.cqhost.net> <000901c10ddf$7a4d9f20$0600000a@hph> Message-ID: <002501c10de1$2eca3110$0600000a@hph> Dear Working Group, as you may now ICANN is conducting a At Large Study, and they have recently issued the "At-Large Membership Study Committee Discussion Paper #1" I expect many of you to have opinions on theese topics. My question to the WG is: does the WG want to undertake a discussion and write up a summary of to submit as the RIPE community oppinion on this topic If so, I am looking for opinions, and voulenters to put it all together. Hans Petter From hph at online.no Mon Jul 16 12:36:22 2001 From: hph at online.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 12:36:22 +0200 Subject: ALSC Request for input References: <200107160551.f6G5p7104706@condor.cqhost.net> <000901c10ddf$7a4d9f20$0600000a@hph> <002501c10de1$2eca3110$0600000a@hph> Message-ID: <003b01c10de3$285b1680$0600000a@hph> | I expect many of you to have opinions on theese topics. As you may know, I was invited to an panel debate at the ICANN meeting in Stockholm to discuss this topic. The view I presented there, which I belive is shared by some of you was: * While it is clear that ICANN may need an open membership, simply because in any organisation (or company for that matter) I belive that a staff should be accuntable to a board who is again accountable to the general assambly/membership(or Stock holders for a comercial company :-). * Today we have 3 supporting organisations with clear purposes: - ASO dealing with addressing policies - PSO dealing with developing protocols and standardisation - DNSO dealing with * It is unclear to me what the role of an at large membership should be. Traditionaly the wayt of influencing the future of the Internet has been trough participation. In the IETF process, or in the more recent RIPE, APNIC, ARIN and evetually ICANN processes. * To me it seems important to focus on the 3 above areas of ICANN and make shure that the at Large Memembership fits that purpose. One way of doing this, would be to offer all participants in the process the oportunity to become members of ICANN within their area of interest (addressing, protocols or naming) and thus make the ICANN at large membership and the non existent RIPE memvership the same thing. I look forward to hear other opinions on this, Hans Petter From meeting at ripe.net Wed Jul 18 15:46:28 2001 From: meeting at ripe.net (RIPE NCC Meeting Registration) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 15:46:28 +0200 Subject: Opening registration RIPE 40, Prague 1-5 October 2001 Message-ID: <200107181346.PAA28556@kantoor.ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, It is our pleasure to open registration for the RIPE 40 meeting, to be held from 1 October - 5 October 2001 at the Prague Congress Center, Czech Republic. More information about this meeting and accommodations can be found on this page: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/current/ripe-40/ Online registration will open on 16 July and close on 21 September 2001. On-site registration will open on Monday 1 October 2001 at 8.00 a.m. Please note the following: To avoid waiting queues at the registration desk on-site we encourage pre-payment by credit card. The registration fee for this meeting is EUR 350.00 (this includes refreshments and lunches) and the dinner fee is EUR 65.00. However, if payment is received before 21 September 2001, the pre-payment cut-off date, you will receive a pre-registration discount of EUR 50.00. Therefore, the fee for attendees paying before the cut-off date is EUR 300.00 for the meeting and 65.00 EUR for the RIPE dinner event. Confirmation of Registration: For your convenience you can register using our secure website at: https://www.ripe.net/cgi-bin/mtgreg (encrypted form) http://www.ripe.net/cgi-bin/mtgreg (non-encrypted form) If you still prefer not to send your credit card number using an encrypted transfer method, we have prepared a fax form. This form is attached to the acknowledgement of your registration. You will receive a second acknowledgement by e-mail as soon your payment has been processed. In addition, you will find the receipt for your payment in your conference envelope. Participants requiring a visa to enter Czech Replublic are advised to begin the required procedures as soon as possible. The RIPE Meeting organisers are pleased to provide letters of invitation to those attendees requiring them. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at . Kind regards, Asha Raghoebarsing RIPE Meeting Coordinator meeting at ripe.net