APRALO General Assembly, Second Session
12 February 2008
Summary Minutes
NOTE: These minutes are in draft form until adopted by the APRALO
Present: L Allinson, R Singh, PICISOC; K Taiuru, P Budhrani (ISOC HK); B Beiram (AKMS) (Chair), C Langdon-Orr (ISOC Au), X Hong (At-Large@China), I Aizu (Internet Users Network, Tokyo), D Farrar (Internet NZ)
Apologies: N Agarwal (ISVK)
Observers: V Scartezini, J Morris, E Leibovitch
Staff: N Ashton-Hart
Summary Minutes taken by: Staff
The Chair opened the meeting at 1404
A brief introduction from participants was requested on a point of order by I Aizu and a roll-call of participants was duly held.
I Aizu asked for a review of the decision and procedure related to election of the Vice-Chair which was provided by the Chair.
Agenda Item 4(5)
A review of current developments related to the IPv4-IPv6 transition efforts was conducted by R Singh and I Aizu, who provided a powerpoint to review activities in Japan in this regard.
This included a review of IPv4 address availability projections at the present and practical issues for end users, including: routers which are not firmware-updateable to work with IPv6, translation between protocol stacks during transition periods, and identifying parties who are willing and able to undertake essential transition arrangements.
During the presentation the Chair had to leave the meeting and asked C Langdon-Orr to take the Chair. There was without objection. AKMS also provided the Chair with his ALS’ proxy in order to maintain a quorate meeting.
The Chair asked what role At-Large could play in this. I Aizu noted the development of the At-Large working group on this issue and that he was soliciting input from other stakeholders.
R Singh noted that the APv6 Task Force was meeting at APRICOT. He noted that it had been suggested that an APRALO representative be present at that session and he offered to help ensure APRALO was involved.
The Chair noted that the forums had resulted in, for example, Australia, understanding the importance of the issue and of leadership by the government. More government leadership tended to concentrate the minds of other stakeholders and produce greater movement.
The Chair asked the meeting to turn to the list of open draft statements for the New Delhi meeting and due to Internet accessibility the staff was invited to review the list of policy areas on that page which was done.
R Singh took his leave of the meeting due to other commitments at this point.
X Hong noted that outreach should be discussed. The Chair noted that there was a subcommittee of APRALO tasked with this.
The Chair asked V Scartezini to comment on the GNSO Review / Implementation process.
V Scartezini noted that there was a deliberate effort to retain a balance of interests in the GNSO. The main issue at hand was the question of voting. She noted that there was a perspective that there was some overlap between NCUC and At-Large … She believed that there would be a significant struggle between the constituencies in the GNSO related to the voting aspect of the proposals.
The Chair asked for questions. She noted that it was important to rally the region about the difficult issues and provide a country-by-country view of them.
The Chair asked if any of the participants wished to disclose what they were intending to say about the JPA.
C Aguirre noted that in LACRALO there was much debate on what the role of ALAC was post-RALO-formation.
X Hong noted that it seemed to her that there was little horizontal interaction between the RALOs and this JPA review offered an opportunity to have this kind of interaction. Was the NA RALO planning to endorse the proposal of Consumers Union? Is it possible perhaps for APRALO to endorse or re-use that statement?
E Leibovitch said that he thought it would be fine and said that he thought that this was an area where perhaps regional issues would not be greatly divergent.
I Aizu asked if there were any community members who were planning to attend the face-to-face meeting in Washington. It was noted that B Brendler would be present. It was also noted that online or telephonic participation might be possible.
I Aizu asked whether there would be follow-up consultations after this one and V Scartezini noted that she thought this was quite possible but there was no certainty this would take place until after the election.
J Morris noted that she was working with C Samuels on a response that she highlighted several points from, recapping what C Samuels had said earlier.
The Chair noted that it was essential to ensure that work was done on concluding a position on the JPA before the 15th.
The Chair suggested that some discussion of the APNG-Camp proposal would be in order. They had requested sponsorship for the upcoming event from APRALO. It was requested for that request to be posted online and on the mailing list so that the region can take a view on the proposal. She stated that her view was that in principle this should be gone ahead with and asked in specific for a view to be provided within 24-36 hours.
There was no objection to proceeding in this way.
The Chair asked if here was any other business.
Without objection the meeting was adjourned at 1526
