RE: Berlin ASO meeting minutes
- Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 18:53:51 +0200
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 B�car
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 B�car
> >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
