Notes

Thursday, May 25, 2006 -

The Assembly was opened at 9.05 hs. Guatemala time, after the second summons. The Assembly was presided by Oscar Messano, President of the LACNIC Board of Directors.

Raúl Echeberría, LACNIC's Executive Director, stated that the Annual Report is available at LACNIC's website and that copies of the report are available at the table. He added that he sent a copy of this report to each member by courier.

RE presented the 2005 LACNIC Annual Report. He made a brief summary of the work carried out by each area of LACNIC and also addressed other items, including Administration and Finances – a general balance and all the documents pertaining to LACNIC's performance were presented, Registration Services, Engineering, Policies and Training, FRIDA Program, +Raíces Project, Membership Services and Communications. He also referred to the Sponsorship Program implemented to support attendance to the LACNIC meeting held in Lima, Peru.

Among the goals for 2006, the following were mentioned:

The concretion of the new LACNIC headquarters in Montevideo.
The constitution of the new fund for the FRIDA Program, to which LACNIC is already committed and conversations are being maintained with the IDRC and ISOC.

As to the planning strategy, it is still going through a phase of growth; the addition of three new staff members is anticipated.

The Assembly proceeded to vote on the approval of the documents that were presented: Annual Report, General Balance Sheet, Inventory, Budget Execution, External Auditor's Report, and Fiscal Commissions Report.

The documents were approved by unanimous vote.

Consideration and approval of the report prepared by the legal advisors on the matter of Electronic Voting.

O. Messano observed that the report prepared by the legal advisors is available at LACNIC's website for all those present and other interested parties.

Eduardo Jiménez, legal advisor, made a presentation about this report. The report analyzes the possibility that LACNIC members or associates who follow the proceedings of the assemblies via webcast or other similar means of communication may participate in voting on the decisions submitted for the consideration of the Assembly.

First, he presented a brief introduction to the situation and then proceeded to state some initial considerations relating to political, technological, and practical aspects of the matter at hand. He then continued by summarizing a legal analysis of remote participation, with reference to existing precedents in other countries and Uruguayan legislation.

Conclusions: From the legal point of view, remote participation of LACNIC members in LACNIC Assemblies is legally viable, although it would present certain technical difficulties that would need to be solved (simultaneity, implementation of mechanisms so that members can participate via voice and image). Member identity would be confirmed through digital signature. In order to allow this remote participation it would also be necessary to reform LACNIC's bylaws.

O. Messano commented that what should be voted is whether or not the decision to reform LACNIC's bylaws should be submitted to the next Member Assembly for its consideration.

S. Bellagamba of AR: In principle, any mechanism that will increase participation is more than welcome, the discussion of their technical details not withstanding.

H. Glaser, NIC BR: I do not have a personal position on the matter, but the concern is what happens if, because of local legislation, some country's position is different from the one we approve. For example, in Brazil there are legal aspects that may be different.

E. Jiménez replied that LACNIC is governed by Uruguayan legislation, regardless the country, any member may contest the Assembly's decisions. If a member opposes a decision, it is all right.

Erick Irirarte posed two questions: First, if Uruguayan legislation allowed the immediate implementation of what is here decided, would the approval of the modification of the bylaws need to wait until next year's meeting? Second, this decision is up to Uruguayan legislation; however, this does not imply that when unified legislation is modified the regulation will not be modified. So, how necessary is it to make this modification?

E. Jiménez replied that the decision to reform the bylaws should be approved at an extraordinary assembly, and that this is an ordinary assembly.

R. Echeberría observed that there is no resolution to submit to the Assembly for their consideration, that the LACNIC Board of Directors took up the request presented by an associate, analyzed it and is presenting it before the Assembly. There is no proposal to reform the bylaws; this must come from the Assembly itself. The Board of Directors has not assumed any position on this matter. If there is an initiative on the part of the Assembly, we will have to work on reforming the bylaws. At this time we will not make any specific decision about the implementation of remote voting.

F. Obispo of CNTI Venezuela observed that there are many who cannot attend LACNIC meetings and that this represents a problem; he added that there should be more opportunities for participation and discussion during the year.

E. Jiménez noted that policies are not developed within the framework of the assemblies, so the requirements for participation are more flexible.

E. Jiménez observed that it must be decided who will assume the risk should the system that allows remote voting fail. This should be considered at the time of voting whether we move forward with this procedure or not.

H. Glaser inquired how this discussion began, whether the member presented this concern in order to be able to participate in the assembly or under different circumstances. He added that it is not fair to say that those who are present are those who have the money to cover travel expenses. There are people who do not travel for other reasons, not only their economic possibilities. He proceeded to say that we should accompany technological advances, but wondered what would happen if we discussed this matter in the assembly and individuals who live within different context completely change the decisions. They are completely different environments.

Roberto B. of COPACO, PY, observed that being present at the assembly demands sacrifice and dedication; that he believes that those who are present should be the ones participating in the discussion, as this would make them more interactive. He concluded by saying that he does not agree with electronic voting.

Ricardo Presta of AR noted that it is only a matter of introducing a technology for voting; that there is a sponsorship program for attending meetings. He added that he agrees with democratizing the decision-making process, but that, in his opinion, introducing a new decision-making technology at an assembly is perhaps not the best thing to do.

C. O'Flaherty of Impsat, AR, stated that we will now vote on the impact of this change. He added that one of the advantages of Internet is that it increases participation, and that it would be good for LACNIC to lead this change. He inquired whether it is necessary to wait an entire year to implement it and whether what is being voted is the convenience of this change.

A comment is received from IFX Networks, Chile, via web chat: If for some reason the system should fail, would the vote still be registered, as it is an electronic vote?

E. Jiménez replied that records would exist until the moment of participation, but that if something was lost prior to that moment it would not be registered.

O. Messano noted that it could also occur that a vote came in late and we would not be able to make a decision with a vote we do not have.

H. Glaser wanted to offer a few words of precaution: he would like to know how many persons do not attend the meetings because of economic reasons. He added that last year USD 9,000 were assigned to the sponsorship program, while this year the program received USD 15,000. He said that the reasons why people do not come are unclear, that it is easier and more comfortable to remain at one's office and follow the assembly remotely. He concluded by saying that the concept of a person that does not attend the meetings wanting to change everything is flawed.

O. Messano allowed 30 seconds more to see if any questions were received from IFX Networks, Chile.

E. Jiménez proceeded to clarify what is about to be voted:
To propose to the next assembly the modification of the bylaws to allow the possibility of remote voting (with two observations: if the software fails the vote is still registered, and it will also be subject to the participation mechanisms that might be implemented).

F. Obispo proposed having more annual assemblies, one face-to-face meeting and an electronic meeting.

F. Neves observed that the mechanisms that would be implemented would be applicable exclusively to open voting processes, not for secret ones.

R. Echeberría said that the study has been done, and that what remains is to conduct a technical study. He added that the Board of Directors should be charged with preparing the proposal for modifying the bylaws in order to implement the remote voting system.

G. Adonaylo noted that it would be useful to conduct a survey among members in order to investigate what are the reasons why they cannot attend the assemblies.

H. Glaser presented the following Motion: To vote whether we will work so that the modification of the bylaws can be voted during the next assembly. To charge the Board of Directors with preparing the changes that would be implemented so that a decision can be made during the next extraordinary member assembly. To conduct the survey proposed by G Adonaylo.

Ricardo Presta moved to conduct a study and that whether to proceed or not with the modification of the bylaws be decided according to the results of this study.

H. Glaser asked which member made this proposal?
The response was that it was IFX Networks of Chile.

E Jiménez observed that it is not appropriate for the reform to be subject to the results of the study.

O. Messano presented the following Motion: To charge LACNIC's Board of Directors with conducting a study and a survey regarding the implementation of electronic voting and the modification of the bylaws for the following assembly.

Fabio Marinho inquired how many people were following the Assembly via webcasting.

P. Allietti replied that at the moment there are 17, but that it was not possible to know which of them are members and which are not.

Voting was conducted with the following results:
Affirmative votes: 9 votes Level 1; 2 votes Level 2; 2 votes Level 3; 2 votes Level 4 and 1 vote Level 5.
Negative votes: 1 vote Level 1 and 1 vote Level 2.
Abstentions: none

The resolution was approved by majority of votes.

Analysis of the results of the WSIS (World Summit on the Information Society)

LACNIC's Board of Directors presented a proposal before the Assembly; this proposal was read by O. Messano.

R.E. observed that the information is available on the Internet, and he referred to the Summit process in general and the Internet Governance issue in particular. He observed that negotiations were finalized one day before the Tunis Summit and that an agreement was achieved. He added that, according to this agreement, the RIRs were strengthened, that paragraphs 69 and 71 of the agreement recognize the importance of all actors or stakeholders and that there is a differentiation of the roles of each of these actors; that governments should not be involved in the daily operational aspects of the Internet; that Internet resources should continue to be administrated by the RIRs; that the need for greater cooperation is recognized, one that will allow each stakeholder to fulfill his or her corresponding role. RE commented that a duality can be detected in several paragraphs of the document.

S. Bellagamba applauded LACNIC's open attitude in supporting the participation of everyone who is interested in doing so.

O. Messano proceeded to read the motion that would be voted:

LACNIC's General Assembly charges LACNIC's Board of Directors and Staff with initiating consultation rounds with all regional stakeholders, including an open consultative meeting, with the purpose of receiving comments.

To charge the Board of Directors, should they consider it necessary, with bringing to the following General Assembly the recommendations it deems pertinent in relations to the actions that LACNIC must implement as a result of the consultations that are conducted.

To invite all regional stakeholders to actively participate and become involved in LACNIC's discussion and participation processes, including mailing lists and annual open assemblies.

RE commented that he had received a recommendation regarding the text for the proposed resolution but that the person he received it from was not present at the meeting.

Voting was conducted with the following results:
Affirmative votes:
Negative votes:
Abstentions:
The motion was approved by unanimous vote.

Establishment of membership fees.

R.E. proceeded to explain the proposed modification for the membership fees of the smaller member categories. The proposal is to reduce membership fees for the Medium, Small, and Micro categories, by 5, 10 and 15% respectively.

H. Glaser stated that as treasurer of LACNIC he is in favor of these fee reductions.

S. Bellagamba asked whether these fee reductions have been considered in the projected income for 2006.

RE replied that they have not been considered, but as they will be applied starting in October, the expected impact would be a 1% reduction which would be compensated by an increase in the number of requests for resources.

Voting was conducted with the following results:
Affirmative votes:
Negative votes:
Abstentions:
The proposed modifications were approved by unanimous vote.

Membership and Services Fees

RE explained that the proposal is to apply a 50% reduction in the membership fees for non-government, nonprofit organizations that, as determined by LACNIC, may be considered End Users. The fee would be reduced from 400 to 200 U.S. dollars.
The following should be added in the final paragraph: "that are considered Active A members end users”.

Voting was conducted with the following results:
Affirmative votes:
Negative votes:
Abstentions:
The proposed modification was approved by unanimous vote.

RE requested that the number of votes be counted; E. Jiménez established that there were 42 votes and 21 members.

Designation of two members for signing the minutes.

It was proposed that Sebastián Bellagamba and Roberto Martínez sign the minutes??