ICANN interim reform report
Thursday 5 September, Kitakyushu International Conference Centre, Kitakyushu, Japan
Meeting commenced: 4:00 pm
Chair: Geoff Huston, APNIC EC Secretary
The Chair introduced the meeting and explained the agenda. The results of the AC election were also announced (see ASO Meeting minutes).
The Chair explained the background to the current ICANN reform process. He discussed how this process raises questions in relation to the role of the RIRs.
- RIR response to ICANN evolution and reform process
Che-Hoo Cheng, APNIC EC Chair
The presenter outlined the formal statements submitted by the RIR Boards in response to various stages of the ICANN reform process, including statements published before the first ICANN Evolution and Reform Blueprint.
The first statement of principles was developed by the joint boards of ARIN, APNIC, and RIPE NCC. This document stated a number of clear principles, which confirmed the role of the RIRs as the proper forum for developing Address policy using open processes in a self regulatory environment. The statement clearly stated the RIRs were not committed to the current ICANN structure and that a stable, open, lightweight structure is required.
In the RIR submission to the Evolution and Reform Committee, the RIRs further developed the statement of principles and proposed a role for ICANN as a policy oversight body, while the responsibility for managing the unallocated address pool could be moved to a new body jointly coordinated by the RIRs. In this statement, it was proposed that the ASO should be able to make global policy determinations, and also approve applications for recognition of new RIRs.
The Evolution and Reform Committee has just released its second interim status report. It is now time for the RIRs to form a new response to that report.
In its latest meeting (Tuesday 3 September in Kitakyushu), the APNIC EC considered the responses received to the RIR statements, and makes the following statement:
We are dismayed with the second interim report of the ICANN Evolution and Reform Committee in terms of the lack of consideration and response to the submissions of the RIRs to ICANN.
In the light of this the APNIC EC are unwilling to accept the proposed changes to the composition of the ASO, the proposed changes to the support mechanisms of the ASO, and proposed changes to the role of the ASO within ICANN.
Questions and discussion
- The meeting Chair noted that this has been one of the strongest statements the APNIC EC has ever been required to make. He sought opinions from the floor in relation to the issues discussed.
- The Second Interim Report of the ICANN ERC was briefly summarised.
- It was asked whether the intention of the new response is to make a strong statement that would force a compromise, or to flag a desire to withdraw from the ICANN process. It was noted that in relation to address distribution, ICANN is not considered an advisory body to the US department of Commerce. In this context, the RIR response has been to show that in the spirit of the original reform process, the RIRs jointly are capable of forming a serious and appropriate structure for the stable management of the address space. In this, the RIRs are willing to enter a dialogue with ICANN. However, to date, ICANN has not properly entered this dialogue. This is at the heart of the EC's frustration.
- It was noted that there has never been a clear statement regarding the actual ownership of the address space. It was suggested that there could be a danger in provoking that discussion. In response, it was stated that it is important to continue this dialogue in terms of administration of the address space, rather than ownership.
- There was a question as to whether the RIRs had made alternative efforts to contact the Evolution and Reform Committee. It was noted that at the ICANN meeting in Bucharest, the RIRs approached the Committee members and expressed their desire to discuss these issues. Despite assurances to the contrary, the Committee members did not contact any of the RIR representatives before releasing their report.
- A representative from ICANN noted that he was not sure why ICANN had not published the RIR submissions, but asked that the RIRs at least publish the statements on their own web sites. It was noted that this indeed had been done.
- A member of the ICANN board expressed the opinion that the next submission from the RIRs should reiterate the principles from the first submission, rather than simply respond to the subsequent report. He also noted that, as three independent institutions, there needs to be a clearer statement of how the RIRs propose to jointly administer the address pool. It was noted that this indeed is the intention of the third document.
- It was noted that the Interim report contains little reference to the address community and the ASO, and is unlikely to be appropriately amended in time for the proposed deadline for the next stage of the report. It was argued that it is preferable to produce a professional and comprehensive proposal of the address pool administration model even if that cannot be done within the Committee's timeline.
- It was suggested that the other Supporting Organizations may also have concerns in relation to the timeline. It was suggested that it may be worth approaching the other Supporting Organizations to issue a joint statement of concern about the timeline. However, in response, it was noted that this is not about a Supporting Organization response, but rather a response by the RIR members of the ASO constituency.
- It was noted that a single, RIR-coordinated, allocation scheme for IPv6 address space has already been discussed and there are elements in the IETF waiting for those details, in order to publish a new RFC which would specify such a scheme. However, it was also noted that within that proposed scheme, residual address ranges would still reside with IANA. Nevertheless, the delay of the RIRs in providing this document was noted.
Meeting closed: 4:50 pm
Minuted by: Gerard Ross
Top | Program