|
DOCUMENT ID: NRO05
29 January 2004
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330, Marina del Rey, California 90292-6601 USA
voice +1/310/823-9358 • fax +1/310/823-8649
• http://www.icann.org
29 January 2004
Paul Wilson, Director General
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre
P.O. Box 2131, Milton 4064, QLD Australia
Level 1, 33 Park Road, Milton, Brisbane, Australia
SENT VIA EMAIL AND POSTAL SERVICE
Dear Paul,
We are in receipt of the letter jointly sent by
the Regional Internet Registry CEOs conveying the proposed MoU between
the Address Supporting Organization and ICANN. The proposal also describes
a Global Policy Development Process and the formation of a Number Resource
Organization (NRO). As you explained during our meeting, the NRO had its
inaugural meeting in November 2003 (during the LACNIC meeting), and its
positions have been staffed (with you as the Chair). The provisions of
the NRO dealing specifically with the ASO MoU were
suspended pending our successful conclusion of an agreement. ICANN recognizes
the effort that the RIR Boards and Executive Committees have made to align
the interests and concerns of the RIRs and ICANN through a new ASO MoU
relationship.
As we discussed earlier, there are four specific
issues requiring discussion and clarification so that the agreement can
be signed:
(1) The manner in which the Address
Council is populated;
Members of the community have expressed concerns
about the manner in which the Address Council will be populated. In your
NRO document, the composition of the Numbers Council (which also is proposed
to act as the Address Council) is defined as follows:
7 b. The members of the NRO Number Council shall
include:
- One person appointed by the Board of each of
the RIRs. If the RIR Board which
selected the person who is appointed to the NRO Number Council replaces
the
appointee, the superseding appointee shall immediately take the place
of the
predecessor.
- Two individual members selected via an open,
accessible, documented and
transparent procedure by the regional policy forum of each RIR shall
be members of the
NRO Number Council.
We would appreciate receiving additional details
concerning how you and your Boards intend to populate the Address Council/Number
Council, particularly the seat reserved for appointment by the RIR Boards.
(2) The selection of some number of Address
Council members by ICANN’s Nominating Committee;
The composition of each Supporting Organization’s
Council is described in detail in the ICANN bylaws. The GNSO Council and
proposed ccNSO Council both include as full participants members who are
appointed by ICANN’s Nominating Committee, and they also explicitly
recognize the appropriate participation of non-voting liaisons from the
Governmental Advisory Committee and the At-Large Advisory Committee. The
reasons for including liaisons and NomCom-appointed members in the Councils
of the ccNSO and GNSO apply equally to the ASO, and we see no reason not
to include them in the ASO Council.
Some members of the addressing community have expressed
the legitimate concern that Nominating Committee appointees may lack the
background and experience necessary to participate effectively in Address
Council activities. The qualifications of Nominating
Committee appointments emerged as an important issue very early in the
ICANN reform process, when a balancing took place between ensuring the
broadest possible opportunity for participation in ICANN’s activities
and avoiding the inefficiency and potential complications of boards and
committees populated with inexperienced members. While urging the inclusion
of the nominating committee appointees, ICANN welcomes the development
of mechanisms whereby the RIR Boards would give guidance to the NomCom
to appoint appropriate Address Council members.
(As an example, the ASO could provide a slate of
acceptable candidates to the NomCom or provide the NomCom with a list
of qualifications by which the NomCom could test candidates.)
(3) The participation of non-voting
liaisons in the activities of the Address Council; and
With respect to the issue of non-voting liaisons,
the RIRs’ MoU proposal states that the Address Council “shall
admit liaisons from other ICANN entities”; but this directive applies
only pursuant to written agreements between those entities and the NRO,
and does not explicitly recognize and specify the role of the Governmental
Advisory Committee and At-Large Advisory Committee liaisons in the activities
of the Address Council. These liaison relationships are essential to the
open exchange of information within ICANN, and must be clearly defined
in the
ASO MoU. As we have discussed in person, ICANN believes that the GAC and
ALAC would be willing to accommodate a mutual exchange of liaisons with
the ASO and facilitate regular briefings, as they have done with the GNSO.
We would appreciate your amending the MoU wording
to ensure that this vital crossorganizational function is preserved.
(4) The specification of time limits for
Address Council action in the Global Policy Development Process.
The proposed Global Policy Development Process contains
specific time limits applicable to the consideration and ratification
of proposed policies by ICANN’s Board, but no time limits are specified
for the actions of the Address Council. The ASO may also consider applying
time limits to its own actions. The ability of the Internet community
to track policy development progress and of the ASO to effectively manage
expectations depend on these time limits.
Per our teleconference on Monday, 25 January, ICANN
notes your statement that the provision concerning the recognition of
new RIR’s has been suspended as per your decision in November 2003
meeting in Havana. We also note that such a policy was used by the ICANN
board to effect the recognition of LACNIC on 30 October 2002.
Paul, ICANN is greatly encouraged by these proposals
from the RIRs, and believe that we are close to reaching agreement on
a new ASO MoU and Global Policy Development Process. All of the parties
involved, including the Internet community that depends on the stable
and reliable operation of the number resource functions, will benefit
from that agreement.
Please accept our thanks in advance for considering
these issues. We look forward to and will appreciate receiving the response
from the RIR boards as soon as practicable.
Sincerely,
Paul Twomey
cc: Vint Cerf, ICANN Chairman of the Board
Alejandro Pisanty, ICANN Director
Lyman Chapin, ICANN Director
|
