[Nro-comments] Meeting minutes from Address Council Teleconference on NRO Proposal

["Mark McFadden" <ireland@mailbag.com>]

What follows are the DRAFT minutes from the recent Address Council
Teleconference where the NRO was discussed.

Draft only:  --------------------------------------------------------->

ICANN Address Supporting Organization - Address Council Meeting via
Teleconference

Wednesday, October 15, 2003, 22:00:00 UTC

AC Attendees:

Raimundo Beca (RB)
Eric Decker (ED)
Hartmut Glaser (HG)
Hans Petter Holen (HH)
Sabine Jaume (SJ)
Kim Hubbard (KH)
Kenny Huang (KHU)
Mark McFadden (MM)
Julian Dunayevich (JD) 

Listener/Observers:
Adiel Aplogan (AA)

ARIN:
None

LACNIC:
None

RIPE NCC:
None

APNIC:
Anne Lord, ASO Secretariat (SEC-AL)
Sam Dickinson, ASO Secretariat (SEC-SD)

ICANN:
none

Agenda

1. Introductions and welcome to AC members 2. Apologies received 3. Address
Council discussion of proposed NRO documents 4. Discussion of any proposed
actions by the Address Council


1. Welcome

The Chair opened the meeting at 21.55 UTC. AL called the role of the AC from
the various regions.

2. Apologies received

Takashi Arano, Wilfried Woeber. Eric Decker sent apologies by email after
the meeting.

3. Agenda bashing

The Chair reviewed the draft agenda and clarified the NRO issues that would
be discussed:

* The process by which the proposal documents are reviewed
* Comments/questions about the proposed letter to ICANN
* The proposed agreement to create the NRO
* The proposed MoU between the NRO and ICANN
* Action AC take resulting from the previous items

4. Address Council discussion of proposed NRO documents

MM noted that the RIRs had posted the NRO docs and that the comment period
would close at midnight on 22 October. The RIRs then plan to sign the open
letter to ICANN on 24 October at the ARIN meeting.

4.1 The process by which the proposal documents are reviewed

MM opened the floor to discussion.

In response to a question by KH, MM explained that the MoU would be
submitted separately from the proposed letter as ICANN's 30 day rule would
need to be followed.

MM asked if anyone shared his concerns expressed on the ac-coord mailing
list that there had been no public meetings to discuss the NRO. KH noted
that the NRO would be discussed at the ARIN meeting close to the end of the
comment period.

HH asked if his assumption that it was within the statutes of the RIRs to to
create the NRO without the approval of ICANN was correct. RB confirmed that
it was correct that no authorisation was needed from ICANN to set up the
NRO.

SJ noted that the current NRO proposal had only been published three weeks
previously. HH commented that the blueprint for reform, which was more
radical than the NRO proposal, had been circulated some time ago, but had
stimulated little discussion.

MM noted that there were a number of examples where RIRs had a co-ordinated
approach to policy and suggested that the NRO proposal was another example
of this. However, he noted that while the RIRs have always brought proposals
to their communities for approval, the NRO proposal until now had not been
brought to the community.

HH noted that process concerns seem at this stage to be an ARIN issue.
There were no formal expressions of support for the concerns raised by MM. 

HG noted that while ASO MoU was signed by ICANN and the four RIRs, the RIRs
did not have representation at ICANN and tried to address this in the
evolution of ICANN process by introducing a new relationship between the two
groups. He explained that, from the LACNIC point of view, the relationship
between ICANN and the ASO AC was weak. The NRO proposal addressed these
issued by aiming to enhance communication between the community and ICANN.
He also noted that the NRO proposal was not a policy document but an
administrative document.

HH noted that while the AC had been useful in coordinating between the RIRs
and ICANN, the AC had been often been an entity outside the ICANN - RIR
process. He noted that negotiating contracts by open process was difficult. 

He explained that if the proposal was discussed at a meeting for each RIR,
it would take at least half a year; and to follow up and approve the NRO at
subsequent RIR meetings would take another half a year.

KH suggested that it would be acceptable if the MoU was discussed later in
the process. However, HH stated that it was important to discuss the MoU at
the same time as the proposal.

4.2 Comments/questions about the proposed letter to ICANN

MM opened discussion to the floor.

HH stated that he did not have any strong reaction to the letter as it was
very clearly written. SJ agreed and stated that she had focused on the NRO
proposal itself.

4.3 The proposed agreement to create the NRO

MM asked the members of the AC for comments.

SJ noted that she had already posted some comments on the NRO comment list
but that her main concern was that the NRO seemed to mix policy with
administration.

HG explained that the NRO EC would be responsible for external
communications and that policy ratification could only achieved by ICANN as
defined in the MoU. Therefore, the NRO EC was not designed to make policy.
However, if ICANN failed, the EC would then take on responsibility to ratify
or reject policies. SJ suggested these responsibilities were not clear in
the proposal.  HH explained that is was not an uncommon situation to have an
executive branch of government that also has some role in the policy making
process.

SJ suggested that the NRO text should include some text from the ASO MoU.

HH noted that if the RIRs set up the NRO, the RIRs would have a mechanism to
work on their own. If ICANN did not sign an MoU with the NRO, ICANN would be
effectively left out of the IP policy process. 
KH suggested that the AC needed to decide if executive involvement in policy
ratification was the right way to proceed. She pointed out that if ICANN was
disbanded, there would be no MoU anyway.

KH noted that policy decisions in ARIN were based solely on members and not
the ARIN Board. HH noted that he thought the NRO proposal had some
similarity to ARIN by-laws. KH commented that if ICANN were to disband, the
role of the NRO EC would be different to its current proposed role.

MM noted that in section 6a of the proposed agreement, it states that the
NRO EC can ratify or reject policies. He noted that there was no reference
to this only being possible if the MOU has been signed. MM was concerned
that if the NRO EC consisted of one person selected by each RIR, it would
not be a bottom up policy process. KH suggested clarifying the section to
state that the policies ratified by the NRO EC would be based on member
decisions in each RIR region.

MM suggested that elected members could sit on the NRO EC. KH suggested that
it was appropriate to have the EC consisting of CEOs of RIRs since the CEOs
currently have the job of negotiating with ICANN. However, MM suggested that
the CEOs should not have the job of ratifying policy. HH suggested that
maybe the NRO EC should only make decisions based on recommendations by the
Numbers Council (NC).

KH suggested adding a statement to the agreement that policy can only be
decided by following the process stated in the MoU. HG agreed that this
would reflect the bottom up process.  There was not consensus for this
suggestion however. 

KH noted that the Numbers Council (NC) would consist of two members elected
from each region as well as one selected by the board from each RIR. She
noted that the selected member could be an RIR staff member and questioned
why this was so. RB explained that the ASO AC had been criticized for
working without consulting RIRs. To be more representative of the RIRs
concerns with ICANN, it would be useful to have RIR representation on the
council.

MM noted that the point of having a staff member on the NRO NC was
apparently to make sure that the policies were practical to implement.
But this inferred that elected members were not capable of understanding the
practical effects of policies, an inference MM found unacceptable. HH
explained that the idea had been to reduce the number of people on the NC so
it could be more efficient, but to also ensure that it could work with the
RIRs.

RB noted that the AC has been criticized for its lack of representativeness
of the RIRs. 1/3 of the NC seems a fair compromise.
He believes that HG's and his own experience seating both at the AC and the
LACNIC Board has proven to be helpful.

SJ suggested that perhaps to counter arguments against RIR staff selected
for the NC, with 2/3 of the votes coming from the community, and 1/3 from
the RIRs, provided that the whole NC was voting, the majority of the voting
rights (2/3) would express the voice of the community.

HH noted that the role of the NC was to ensure that process has been
followed, not to decide if policy is good or bad.

MM noted that in section 11 of the agreement, it was stated that the NC only
1) reviews policies to check RIR procedures are followed, 2) posts a last
call for comments on the policy, and 3) makes recommendations on whether
correct procedures have been followed. KH agreed with the NC's functions but
questioned if the NC's only responsibility to ICANN was to tell whether
correct process has been followed. RB explained that the NC would also
provide advice and opinions to ICANN, just as the ASO AC currently does.

MM noted that contrary to text in section 3, number 4 of the MoU, which
stated that the NC would advise ICANN on address management policies, he
thought it would be the NRO EC that fulfilling that role.

In response to a question by SJ, HG explained that the term "in conjunction
with the RIRs" meant "on behalf of the RIRs". He acknowledged that this
wasn't clear and that the text could be re-written.

HH confirmed that AA was correct in understanding that the NRO EC could be
composed of the CEOs of the RIRs because the EC members were elected by the
boards of the RIRs according to their own procedures.  RB noted that,
however, is up to each RIR to decide if theu elect the CEO or someone else.

HG suggested that if the AC states some comments on the NRO documents, it
should avoid words that could suggest tension between the AC and the
proposed NRO.  He suggested that AL and MM coordinate after the
teleconference to discuss comments from the meeting. 

Comments should include the request for clarification of language used in
the document, and ensuring that the valuable relationship with AC was not
lost.

SJ noted that the RIRs had done a good job interacting through the NRO.
HG noted that there was openness by the RIRs to include ideas and inputs
from the AC and broader community.

KH commented that each part of the process has to be open and transparent,
but there was no inclusion of these criteria for the NRO EC. 
She suggested the NRO EC should also abide by these criteria and produce
publicly available meeting minutes. MM agreed.

HH noted there were other factors involved with the EC, such as the RIRs'
business needs. MM suggested that if the RIRs wanted to eliminate
transparency, they could use the clause that says RIRs can delegate issues
to the NRO; he suggested this would be a bad outcome.

KH noted that in section 9, the advisory appeals process, it appeared that
the RIRs did not have to listen to the appeals panel. MM explained that the
way he read the section, the advisory panel's job was to give a second
opinion on whether process has been followed properly. KH asked whether the
EC could ignore the advisory panel's decisions. MM and KR agreed this needed
to be clarified in the agreement.

MM wondered why section 14 of the agreement was included since criteria for
new RIRs already existed. He suggested that perhaps the only reason to
include it was if ICANN would not exist in the future. RB noted that it was
included to allow amendments to new RIR criteria in future.

MM noted that the section also stated that the criteria and process would be
published by the NRO. However, MM assumed that it meant the NRO EC rather
than the NRO.

HH suggested that as the NRO had a different structure to the ASO, it was
possible for the NRO itself to publish the criteria.

HH noted that the biggest change related to the NRO was the fact that the
RIRs were committed to working together in the NRO, something not achieved
with the current ASO.

4.4 The proposed MoU between the NRO and ICANN

AA asked why the MOU would be signed by ICANN and NRO, but it contained many
references to the ASO. MM explained that the ICANN by-laws refer to the ASO
and AC. As the NRO would fulfill the roles of the AC and ASO as defined in
the ICANN by-laws, the terms must also appear in the NRO MoU.
AA suggested asking ICANN to change the by-laws, but it was explained that
changing ICANN by-laws was a long process. However it was admitted that the
use of NC, AC, NRO and ASO in the MoU was confusing.

4.5 Actions AC to take resulting from the previous items

HG suggested collating the issues discussed in the teleconference and
posting them to the nro-comments mailing list as soon as possible.

There was discussion whether it was appropriate to send comments from the AC
officially, or send comments separately as individuals. It was decided that
AL and MM would collate comments from the teleconference and MM would write
a draft response and post it to the ac-coord mailing list for comments by
the end of Friday. AC members would then have until Sunday to respond. MM
would then edit the response and post it to the nro-comments mailing list by
Monday. It was decided that enough AC members were present in the
teleconference and enough time had been given since the teleconference date
was announced to reach a quorum on the issues to be included. These issues
related to the clarity and content of the NRO proposal.

AL to send her notes from the minutes to MM by the end of the day.

Meeting closed 23.25 UTC.