Dear Local IR WG & RIPE community at large, At the last RIPE meeting we selected 3 representatives to the ICANN ASO address council by an interim mechanism that was defined at the meeting. This was indeed an interim solution and we need to agree on a more formal method before the first term of an AC member expires. The selection procedure itself must be open and transparent. By extension, the process by which this procedure is defined should also be open and transparent. In this sense, the whole RIPE community should be involved. The correct forum is, I believe, the LIR WG, but it is worth broadening the participation to allow anyone to take part in the discussion on the list and at RIPE meetings. This matter will be one of the most important discussions at the upcoming RIPE 35 an I will urge you all to contribute, both to the mailinglist and at the meeting. The discussions will take place in the lir-wg or in a separate meeting for this topic only, if the meeting schedule permits The framework these selections must operate within is by the ASO MoU and, ultimately, by the ICANN bylaws. http://www.aso.icann.org/docs/aso-mou.html The most relevant points being: 2a Selection. Each RIR signatory of the MOU will select three [3] individuals to the Address Council using the following process: (i) Each RIR will annually issue a public call for nominees to the Address Council at least 90 days before the RIR's policy meeting. Any individual can submit a nomination to the RIR. (ii) The due date for this call shall be 30 days before the meeting. (iii) The nominees must be individuals. (iv) A list of all nominees who agree to run for the Address Council must be posted on the RIR's web page at least 15 days before the meeting along with a statement from each nominee who wishes to make one. (v) Selection of the RIR's members of the Address Council will be made via an open and transparent procedure. The individuals selected for the Address Council must not be staff members of any RIR. (b) Term. The term of Address Council members will be 3 years. The initial Address Council members selected within each region will have staggered terms of 1, 2 and 3 years. The process by which these initial members are selected must also determine in an open and transparent manner, the assignment of terms to each of the initial members. --- So if the next selection is to be performed at RIPE 37 in September the open call needs to be before June, or practically best at RIPE 36 in Budapest. We should best case define the selection procedure at RIPE 35 but it could be concluded at RIPE 36 at latest. Since the MOU describes the nomination process in broad terms and not to specific details like whether the nominations should be done publicly or not, and whether one should have the opportunity to express support to individual candidates or not. This may need to be refined. In particular we need to address - Can an individual nominate themselves? - Does the nomination need to come from more than one person? To the selection procedure in particular at least the following needs to be defined: - Who performs the selection - In what way is the selection performed We should bear in mind that the process should be open and transparent, and it is likely to be some sort of election but that is not strictly necessary. - We need to consider whether to do the election at a meeting - or electronically I would like to see a small task force formed that will summarise the discussion on the mailinglist into at least one proposal to be presented at the next RIPE meeting. Tentative plan: 18/1 Start of discussion 31/1 End of discussion 7/2 Proposal circulated on list 21/2 Week of RIPE 35 Sincerely, Hans Petter Holen LIR-WG chair